Does a short film have to be that good?

[harmonica44]

I've noticed a lot of newbie wanna become directors, on here, are worried about not being able to come up with much of a good story for a short film. But don't a lot of critics at the film festivals and people in the business realize that short films are just for directors to pitch their craft, and it's not that the story matters as much, but the editing, sound, acting, etc. Or am I wrong and they highly value story, even though story is not exactly the director's job?

 

[harmonica44]

Yeah sorry, I typed it wrong, then posted it. I tried to edit it but it wouldn't let me edit the title of the thread. So are they any examples of movies that had to be changed while on set, that wouldn't convey? I'm wondering how exactly that would happen, and how to know if a script is conveyable, if you can't tell write off the bat.

 

[Papertwinproductions]

So are they any examples of movies that had to be changed while on set, that wouldn't convey? I'm wondering how exactly that would happen, and how to know if a script is conveyable, if you can't tell write off the bat.

Sometimes you just can't tell whether it will translate. A script is only "conveyable" if it conveys. You can never be 100% certain when it is on the page. Unless you carbon copy another. There's always that possibility that SOMETHING could slip under the radar. But that's not a problem. Problemsolving, and the ability to think on your feet, is a skill all Directors possess.

It is then in the Directors hands to make it work. It's the Directors job to convey the story, to honour the material.

I can't offer you an immediate example, as I'm yet to experience it, nor have I been on set when it has occurred.

But "kinks" in the story are common. Watch interviews with Directors speaking back on their lifetime of work. It's always there.

 

[harmonica44]

Oh okay, it's the kinks. I try to work those out while writing, but I guess there is always something you can miss.

I can't come up with any good ideas for shorts, accept for one so far. I'm hesitant on doing it since it will require a lot of FX for my first. I have quite a few ideas for features, but shorts are harder since there is no time for a full story, that actually has time to go somewhere as interesting. I guess I could take my ideas for features, and condense the premises into shorts. But there will be a lot of explaining to do, and I wouldn't know where to go with them in only 10-15 minutes of time.

 

[Papertwinproductions]

Oh okay, it's the kinks. I try to work those out while writing, but I guess there is always something you can miss.

I can't come up with any good ideas for shorts, accept for one so far. I'm hesitant on doing it since it will require a lot of FX for my first. I have quite a few ideas for features, but shorts are harder since there is no time for a full story, that actually has time to go somewhere as interesting. I guess I could take my ideas for features, and condense the premises into shorts. But there will be a lot of explaining to do, and I wouldn't know where to go with them in only 10-15 minutes of time.

A Writers job ends before the "kinks" in production are ever realised. Be it within their story or not.

There is always time for a story. No time is short enough. A still photograph tells a story. A painting. A tapestry. Architecture.

10-15 minutes is a long, long time for a short film.

Think about commercials conveying a narrative into 20-30 seconds?
Think about microshorts conveying a narrative into one minute?

All of the above take practice.

It's Art, and within that, everything is possible.

 

[WalterB]

Oh okay, it's the kinks. I try to work those out while writing, but I guess there is always something you can miss.

I can't come up with any good ideas for shorts, accept for one so far. I'm hesitant on doing it since it will require a lot of FX for my first. I have quite a few ideas for features, but shorts are harder since there is no time for a full story, that actually has time to go somewhere as interesting. I guess I could take my ideas for features, and condense the premises into shorts. But there will be a lot of explaining to do, and I wouldn't know where to go with them in only 10-15 minutes of time.

If you need a lot of FX to tell your story, but can't deliver the FX, you are trying to tell the wrong story.
Good stories are about people. FX are 'just' part of the setting.
So maybe you should focus more on people for your first short?
Do all effects in camera, so editing it won't be a reason to shelf it after months or trying to add FX
Imagination is good, but it can lead to 'imaginary shorts' that never get finished if there isn't any budget to do what is necessary.

This may sound harsh, but like I said months ago: start making stuff.

 

[Nate North]

Does a short film have to be that good?

You never "plan" for a film to be a certain quality, it just turns out that way.

You should try for a 4 star movie every time, because you'll often miss and hit two stars, or one. For a great variety of reasons, half of them out of your direct control.

If you aim for 2 stars, you're screwed, unless it's really funny. I think "unambitious director" is an oxy-moron.

Also, you should push as hard as you can regardless of the competition,

It's more fun if you win the race by a lap or two.

And story should be good by default, since there are many more good stories available than films.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks for the input. And to answer WalterBs post, I have shot some some scenes so far, but have not finished the post yet. I need to get some more software to do it, then after it's done I'll post scenes for feedback on technique and all. It's all taking a while cause I have to order all the equipment and software, which takes weeks but once it's all in, I'll finish it.

 

[WalterB]

Okay thanks for the input. And to answer WalterBs post, I have shot some some scenes so far, but have not finished the post yet. I need to get some more software to do it, then after it's done I'll post scenes for feedback on technique and all. It's all taking a while cause I have to order all the equipment and software, which takes weeks but once it's all in, I'll finish it.

Great to hear you are creating stuff!

But your reply also prooves 1 of my points: at the moment you can't finish post, because you lack some software. If you make sure you can finish something with the gear you have (sometimes you just need to push it), you won't loose time, momentum or even motivation (and not to mention credit with the rest of your crew), because you need to get something new first.
There is always newer, better and cooler stuff or software you want to work with:
I would like to shoot on RED, but that's out of my budget at the moment. I won't let that stop me. I just don't shoot on RED, but with my EX1R, which, although not compareble with RED, is a great camera.

 

[harmonica44]

For sure. So why are so many filmmakers all into the red when like the much cheaper Canon 5d can suffice? I don't know much about the RED but it must be something from everything I hear on here.

 

[NickClapper]

If you're a good cook is there a reason why you buy nice, fresh, organic meat rather than frozen meat from the local supermarket?

 

[JoshL]

For sure. So why are so many filmmakers all into the red when like the much cheaper Canon 5d can suffice? I don't know much about the RED but it must be something from everything I hear on here.

New shiny tools are always fun to want, and use when you can, but that doesn't mean that you don't use what you have. Take guitars, for example. I'd LOVE to have a vintage Gibson Les Paul (actually, I'd rather have one of the new ones, with an awesome neck profile), or a Rickenbacker or one of the fancy new Moog guitars. But rather than a $4000+ guitar, I play what I have (my nicest is an epiphone I paid $200 for).

New tools are exciting, and fun, and there's nothing wrong with wanting them or thinking about them. But don't let that stop you from actually doing something with what you have. What you have now is in many ways THOUSANDS of times better than the equipment people were actually making films with 30 years or more ago.

 

[harmonica44]

A Writers job ends before the "kinks" in production are ever realised. Be it within their story or not.

There is always time for a story. No time is short enough. A still photograph tells a story. A painting. A tapestry. Architecture.

10-15 minutes is a long, long time for a short film.

Think about commercials conveying a narrative into 20-30 seconds?
Think about microshorts conveying a narrative into one minute?

All of the above take practice.

It's Art, and within that, everything is possible.

Okay thanks good points. So the writer's job ends before the kinks are realized. Wouldn't it be bad though, once the reader read the script, only to find there was a huge plot hole or something the writer missed? They just let the director rewrite that in production?

 

[chilipie]

If you're a good cook is there a reason why you buy nice, fresh, organic meat rather than frozen meat from the local supermarket?

And by the same token, you don't let someone who's never cooked before loose on a nice piece of fillet steak.

 

[Alcove Audio]

Wouldn't it be bad though, once the reader read the script, only to find there was a huge plot hole or something the writer missed? They just let the director rewrite that in production?

If the director (and to a degree, the producer) let a huge plot hole get by before production they've screwed up badly. "We suspend our disbelief and we are entertained" only goes so far with an audience, and audiences are becoming increasingly sophisticated. And, for that matter, a good writer always has a few reliable sounding boards so s/he is not relying solely on their own editorial eye. Most scripts are thoroughly proofed and a thorough preproduction takes place before production begins, that hopefully eliminates the most glaring plot holes. Where most plot holes actually occur is in the editing room; when you chop it down from 150 minutes to under 90 some things just get left out.

 

[Nate North]

For sure. So why are so many filmmakers all into the red when like the much cheaper Canon 5d can suffice? I don't know much about the RED but it must be something from everything I hear on here.

I just literally emptied my life savings into a RED, so I think I can answer this.

The RED is the biggest favor anyone has ever done for people like us.

Basically, there is a certain minimum level of film quality that you need to get pro work or make a saleable film.

Until now, there was absolutely no way any of us could afford to reach that quality. 5 years ago the cheapest digital movie camera you could buy started at 110k body only, and required a 60,000 dollar tape deck.

Ultimately, virtually all indie filmmakers were doomed from the outset to produce a maximum output quality level of "complete garbage"

Starting in about 3 months, you can buy the same camera James Cameron is using on Avatar 2 for 28,500 dollars.

It's not cheap, but it's now within range, if making great film is all you care about, this costs less than an SUV, and there are 30 of those parked on my block. That's change.

Is it really that much better? Oh, god yes, I've shot on RED, met the inventor, and gotten color grades as good as the 300 or the matrix out of the raw clips they gave me. It's better than the cameras they shot SW episodes 1,2,3 on.


Similarly, the 5D is a fantastic training cam, and can even be modified to pull focus.

 

[Papertwinproductions]

Okay thanks good points. So the writer's job ends before the kinks are realized. Wouldn't it be bad though, once the reader read the script, only to find there was a huge plot hole or something the writer missed? They just let the director rewrite that in production?

I believe you're misunderstanding. (As Alcove has said below)

The Writer finishes their job. They write a screenplay. They make it perfect. They put it past their trusted folk. They edit. They rewrite. They make it perfect again.

Yet, even then. Until the work has come to life. It's not set it stone.

That is what i'm referring to. "Kinks" the unforseeable, unpreventable, but always workable small hiccups, that every Director has to deal with at some point in their career. Whether it's merely dialogue, cutting a scene then and there, adding a scene etc.

It doesn't happen in every production.

Not a fault of the Writer, however experienced. It's purely in the hands of its transition from page, to reality. Nothing is certain.

 

[harmonica44]

New shiny tools are always fun to want, and use when you can, but that doesn't mean that you don't use what you have. Take guitars, for example. I'd LOVE to have a vintage Gibson Les Paul (actually, I'd rather have one of the new ones, with an awesome neck profile), or a Rickenbacker or one of the fancy new Moog guitars. But rather than a $4000+ guitar, I play what I have (my nicest is an epiphone I paid $200 for).

New tools are exciting, and fun, and there's nothing wrong with wanting them or thinking about them. But don't let that stop you from actually doing something with what you have. What you have now is in many ways THOUSANDS of times better than the equipment people were actually making films with 30 years or more ago.

Yeah. It seems like anything that shoots 24fps at 1080p will do, for the industry, so anything with that should do I'm guessing.

 

[harmonica44]

I just literally emptied my life savings into a RED, so I think I can answer this.

The RED is the biggest favor anyone has ever done for people like us.

Basically, there is a certain minimum level of film quality that you need to get pro work or make a saleable film.

Until now, there was absolutely no way any of us could afford to reach that quality. 5 years ago the cheapest digital movie camera you could buy started at 110k body only, and required a 60,000 dollar tape deck.

Ultimately, virtually all indie filmmakers were doomed from the outset to produce a maximum output quality level of "complete garbage"

Starting in about 3 months, you can buy the same camera James Cameron is using on Avatar 2 for 28,500 dollars.

It's not cheap, but it's now within range, if making great film is all you care about, this costs less than an SUV, and there are 30 of those parked on my block. That's change.

Is it really that much better? Oh, god yes, I've shot on RED, met the inventor, and gotten color grades as good as the 300 or the matrix out of the raw clips they gave me. It's better than the cameras they shot SW episodes 1,2,3 on.


Similarly, the 5D is a fantastic training cam, and can even be modified to pull focus.

So you're saying that Canon T2i cannot make a saleable film? I was told it could by many in the business, which is why I bought it. If that's not true, then I wished I had got something else. I am a long way off from making a feature, but wanted to get the camera for it now, so I could save up for the feature later, without having to buy another camera.

 

[indietalk]

So you're saying that Canon T2i cannot make a saleable film? I was told it could by many in the business, which is why I bought it. If that's not true, then I wished I had got something else.

Geez man if you keep reading stuff about what camera is better you'll never make a film. The only mistake you are making is not making a film with what you have. Stop reading. Start filming. Get in the game, you can upgrade later.

 

[harmonica44]

yeah I'm shooting things now. but I don't want to have to buy a whole new camera, that's what the money I saved for the first one was for. Now it's a waste because it's not as good as the RED and not 'saleable'. I was told it had to be 1080p but if it can't be any lower than a RED I don't know why no one said so before.