Does a short film have to be that good?

H

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?
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
lol okay... I don't get why people say think I am not doing anything and holding myself back. I got the equipment and getting more. I am shooting footage and recording sound, working on it, practicing on getting it all right. So what am I doing or not doing that is holding me back still?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
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.
Click to expand...
:hmm:
Actually I think you should lease a Panavision. Any film you make without one is going to be a waste. Sorry I didn't tell you earlier.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nate North said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are incredibly lucky, i'd love to have a RED, what on earth are you going to edit on though? I've heard that RED footage will crash most computers and make even the best macs struggle.

@Harmonica, seriously, stop worry, start filming, i don't know what it's going to take to get you to just make something and post it up here for us all to see, but please do.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Abraxas Studios said:
You are incredibly lucky, i'd love to have a RED, what on earth are you going to edit on though? I've heard that RED footage will crash most computers and make even the best macs struggle.
.
Click to expand...

I've edited RED footage a few times, once on a Mac and once with Premiere on a PC. If you edit with proxies it's not too bad.
Overall though, they're big heavy cameras that take a couple people to operate -- that's the RED ONE. Dunno about the new ones.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
111177748v2_480x480_Front.jpg


US 1st Infantry Division - the Big Red One​





Sorry, I just couldn't resist.​
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I wish I would have got a canon 7D, the T2i shoots footage that looks just as good, but it's light and fragile feeling, and feels like it's going to break in harsh environments lol.

Alright well I'll come up with some more stories that are short enough for a 10 minute short.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Alcove Audio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Cutting out 50 minutes of footage is a lot if you expect it to still make sense afterwords.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I know when I made my 2nd short-which was a weird attempt at amalgamating my first short and my 2nd one-I got into my head that a "longer" short would be a better story-then the feedback I got (from many good people on these boards) was that the story was longer than necessary it seemed, so I went back and looked at it, and really found by doing some trimming down from a 14 min film, down to a 8 min film the story just flowed so much easier-so sometimes shorter IS better :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I agree. I don't think its the directors job to come up with the story line as much as the directing itself, I think a good story line is important in real productions, but I think directors should take every small production seriously, like it was real. Not that short films aren't real.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I spent years with just a DSLR, and eventually got to the point with that footage and CGI, that people are investing in me and I have 3 epics incoming and a set of super speeds.

Perservere and do the best with what you have available. Make smart decisions, buy used equipment, or just draw. But keep your mid focused on being a good filmmaker, and you'll likely succeed.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
indietalk said:
:hmm:
Actually I think you should lease a Panavision. Any film you make without one is going to be a waste. Sorry I didn't tell you earlier.
Click to expand...

Look, guys, this has gotten out of hand,

please Harmonica, do not let me discourage you, you do not need a red to learn. If you are ever around california though, I will take you out shooting for a day on an epic stedicam rig, and you can take home a good cinema showreel, I don't mean to make people feel bad about not having money for a better camera. God knows I felt bad about it when I had a DSLR.

I am in a different situation now, and when I say marketable film, I mean millions of dollars, at least 1-2

You can make a great indie film with your camera, I'm really sorry for this misunderstanding
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay thanks. But what does exactly a RED have that makes it marketable, as oppose to DSLR? Most audiences cannot tell the difference in one 1080p camera to another. I have asked several people I know and showed them examples and they can't tell. So what makes it saleable if the average person cannot tell the difference? And some movies like Paranormal Activity, were shot with cameras like the Sony XF1 which is quite cheaper, but still able to sell the audience.

Wouldn't an indie movie have to make at least a few million though in DVD sales to be considered a successful one? I read how the movie Crazy was shot with the canon 7D and was sold to Paramount for $4 million! That gives me some confidence in my equipment. Plus can most distributors and marketers even tell what camera what used and judge based on that?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Alcove Audio said:
Actually, the first feature on which I did audio post was exactly that, 148 minutes. Once it was cut down to 87 minutes - that's over an hour left on the cutting room floor - it did fairly well on the Festival circuit.
Click to expand...

This is very interesting. So if that 61 minutes that were cut, were not crucial to the plot making sense, then what was the point of all those scenes? There are some movies where you can cut out a lot and it will still make sense like The Thin Red Line or Apocalypse Now. But that's because it's mostly a series of short stories, rather than a novel. How often can you cut that much out of a novel structured movie?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top