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?

 

[WalterB]

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?

Let's say you cut down The Thin Red Line or Apocalypse Now: you'll 'degrade' the films from cinema about human nature and the madness of war to below 'B-grade TV-film' with nothing more than: and he did this and then he did that and then this happened. Like the avarege Steven Seagal movie.
Sometimes you'll need the poetry. Sometimes it's just to long, boring stuff

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.

lol, I was trying to say this, but accidently opened the RED-subject by saying I shoot with what I got now.
My bad!

The guitar example is a great one: play with what you got!
Kurt Cobain didn't have an expensive taylormade axe, but with Nirvana they had a big impact.

Stop worrying about your camera: just don't tell people what you use, so they'll judge the film on it's content and not on the used gear.

Write, produce and ACTION!

 

[JoshL]

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?

It could be (and a lot of writers, particularly new writers don't want to hear this) that those scenes weren't necessary and they were cut because there WAS no point. A lot of things that you think are absolutely necessary in actuality aren't. This is why you get people with more experience to read your work (well, one of the reasons anyway!) I tend to be pretty long-winded myself, and learning to cut things down to a more efficient work has been one of the best skills I've learned. Try it. Hack your long script down to 90 pages (saving a copy, of course, so you don't lose your original work). Even if you don't like the end result, I'm sure you'll learn some good things about editing and learning to say things more efficiently.

Take the movie Dune, regardless of your feelings about it. There's a theatrical cut, and an extended cut (that David Lynch removed his name from). Watch all the "extended scenes" (they're labeled on the DVD that I have). Most of them not only do not add anything, but some are actually pretty awful. The original cut happened EXACTLY where the scenes needed to be cut. Making them longer did not make them better. This can go the other way too. Babylon AD is a great example of a film that got butchered by the studio (and the director wanted his name off of it) to the point where it no longer makes any sense.

Last point, have you noticed that adaptations of short stories work better as films than adaptations of novels? There are, of course, exceptions, but odds are you aren't making a 12 hour+ version of Lord of the Rings (and STILL leaving things out). There is a reason for that.

 

[UncleKornicob]

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?

Its all in the mindset, if you think your camera is better, then you think your production is better.
I never can tell the difference unless the footage is digitally zoomed. And why would you hassle with editing on the hunk of a file, what kind of computer would you need for that? and note only is the camera deathly expensive to top it off, each lens is thousands of dollars?? Why would you waist that money, why not invest in a real movie camera.?

 

[Nate North]

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?

A RED compared to a DSLR, what's the difference? To start with I think it would be hard to damage your spine with a dslr. But serious answer, quality, and post production flexibility.

Most people can't tell the difference? I don't think that's true. They may not know what difference they are seeing, but that isn't the same thing. Do you think homemade web videos look the same as Pirates OTC 4?
That's what you're saying. Most distributors and marketers can tell. Some just have very low standards of quality.

There's an exception to every rule, so yes someone will break 3 mil this year with a DSLR. Just remember, they once put a banjo song on pop radio. It doesn't mean that now all you need to start a band is a banjo.

Also, you don't know their story. I used to think Bill Gates was a self made man. Then I found out that he was no smarter than me. At the time he made his "deal that changed history" he couldn't even program as well as I could back then (and I was a kid). But when he went to IBM to sell them an operating platform, who do you think was sitting on the board that decided whether or not to make him a billionaire? His MOM. Check it out.

I've already said 9 times you can make a good film without a Cine grade camera and lenses, but I strongly disagree that anyone will be achieving raiders of the lost ark quality with a dslr. Someone said on this forum that cheap plastic toys from best buy are "1000 x" better than the movie cameras they used 30 years ago. That's just not true. They were shooting 4k with 18 stops in 1981.

There's no fixed point where a movie is financially successful, it's a ratio determined by the production cost of the film.

I apologize if I sound like a jerk, but I've done literally years of research, and I'm just trying to pass on the information I've collected

Walter, indietalk, and you harmonica, are all absolutely correct, no one is debating that. I'm just trying to answer your questions.

 

[harmonica44]

Let's say you cut down The Thin Red Line or Apocalypse Now: you'll 'degrade' the films from cinema about human nature and the madness of war to below 'B-grade TV-film' with nothing more than: and he did this and then he did that and then this happened. Like the avarege Steven Seagal movie.
Sometimes you'll need the poetry. Sometimes it's just to long, boring stuff



lol, I was trying to say this, but accidently opened the RED-subject by saying I shoot with what I got now.
My bad!

The guitar example is a great one: play with what you got!
Kurt Cobain didn't have an expensive taylormade axe, but with Nirvana they had a big impact.

Stop worrying about your camera: just don't tell people what you use, so they'll judge the film on it's content and not on the used gear.

Write, produce and ACTION!

Oh yeah, I'm not saying that The Thin Red Line and Apocalypse Now should have necessarily been cut down. I'm just saying that AP Redux was an hour longer, and the original cut of TTRL was 3 hours longer!

Lol yes I guess I won't tell people what I shot a film with after I submit it to a festival.

 

[harmonica44]

It could be (and a lot of writers, particularly new writers don't want to hear this) that those scenes weren't necessary and they were cut because there WAS no point. A lot of things that you think are absolutely necessary in actuality aren't. This is why you get people with more experience to read your work (well, one of the reasons anyway!) I tend to be pretty long-winded myself, and learning to cut things down to a more efficient work has been one of the best skills I've learned. Try it. Hack your long script down to 90 pages (saving a copy, of course, so you don't lose your original work). Even if you don't like the end result, I'm sure you'll learn some good things about editing and learning to say things more efficiently.

Take the movie Dune, regardless of your feelings about it. There's a theatrical cut, and an extended cut (that David Lynch removed his name from). Watch all the "extended scenes" (they're labeled on the DVD that I have). Most of them not only do not add anything, but some are actually pretty awful. The original cut happened EXACTLY where the scenes needed to be cut. Making them longer did not make them better. This can go the other way too. Babylon AD is a great example of a film that got butchered by the studio (and the director wanted his name off of it) to the point where it no longer makes any sense.

Last point, have you noticed that adaptations of short stories work better as films than adaptations of novels? There are, of course, exceptions, but odds are you aren't making a 12 hour+ version of Lord of the Rings (and STILL leaving things out). There is a reason for that.

You mean my 117 page script? Actually that is the edited version. Originally it was 120 some pages. I can't cut anything more out without the plot not making sense. There a few scenes that are there for character development, but I feel they are essential for the main character, especially the ending. I will cut down on the action scenes though, and try to reword them so they come across smaller. And cut down on some dialogue as much as I can. But I can't cut out any whole scenes, cause they are no more pointless ones left.

 

[harmonica44]

A RED compared to a DSLR, what's the difference? To start with I think it would be hard to damage your spine with a dslr. But serious answer, quality, and post production flexibility.

Most people can't tell the difference? I don't think that's true. They may not know what difference they are seeing, but that isn't the same thing. Do you think homemade web videos look the same as Pirates OTC 4?
That's what you're saying. Most distributors and marketers can tell. Some just have very low standards of quality.

There's an exception to every rule, so yes someone will break 3 mil this year with a DSLR. Just remember, they once put a banjo song on pop radio. It doesn't mean that now all you need to start a band is a banjo.

Also, you don't know their story. I used to think Bill Gates was a self made man. Then I found out that he was no smarter than me. At the time he made his "deal that changed history" he couldn't even program as well as I could back then (and I was a kid). But when he went to IBM to sell them an operating platform, who do you think was sitting on the board that decided whether or not to make him a billionaire? His MOM. Check it out.

I've already said 9 times you can make a good film without a Cine grade camera and lenses, but I strongly disagree that anyone will be achieving raiders of the lost ark quality with a dslr. Someone said on this forum that cheap plastic toys from best buy are "1000 x" better than the movie cameras they used 30 years ago. That's just not true. They were shooting 4k with 18 stops in 1981.

There's no fixed point where a movie is financially successful, it's a ratio determined by the production cost of the film.

I apologize if I sound like a jerk, but I've done literally years of research, and I'm just trying to pass on the information I've collected

Walter, indietalk, and you harmonica, are all absolutely correct, no one is debating that. I'm just trying to answer your questions.

Okay thanks for the insight. Some movies even though shot with an expensive cameras, go for a low budget look on purpose though. United 93 and Green Zone for example, both directed by Paul Greengrass. He made those hits, and they both look like they could have been shot on DSLRs, or at least they seem to. If you want the expensive Michael Bay Transformers look, then you won't get it with a DSLR, but if you want the Green Zone look, it seems do-able. Are a lot of production companies and distributors okay with that look?

Plus the debut feature, I wanna make is a dark terrorism drama, in the tone of United 93, so if I were to give it a high budget style RED look, wouldn't that be out of place with the tone of the movie?

 

[Nate North]

Okay thanks for the insight. Some movies even though shot with an expensive cameras, go for a low budget look on purpose though. United 93 and Green Zone for example, both directed by Paul Greengrass. He made those hits, and they both look like they could have been shot on DSLRs, or at least they seem to. If you want the expensive Michael Bay Transformers look, then you won't get it with a DSLR, but if you want the Green Zone look, it seems do-able. Are a lot of production companies and distributors okay with that look?

Plus the debut feature, I wanna make is a dark terrorism drama, in the tone of United 93, so if I were to give it a high budget style RED look, wouldn't that be out of place with the tone of the movie?

Very interesting question, becuase all those low def look movies you mentioned, were all shot on the RED

(maybe not united 93, don't know)

Green Zone
District 9
Cloverfield
etc.

The Red One camera (about 17k now) films at exactly this look, but is uncompressed so it doesn't break up on projection. The Red MX can offer a more TV grade look. Or film if you're good with it. The Epic can beat a 200k camera for 28k.

Also good to keep in mind is that when you get into producing a feature, you are not supposed to just shoot, edit, and publish. The film look you get is controlled by you, the camera is just the cieling.

If you get a red, or an F3 for that matter, you can dial in these "cinema verite" looks, or get a film look. With lower end cameras, you just get the low fi look, and that's the end of your options.

You talk about buying a camera that will last you a couple projects, instead of buying one every 6 months. That's smart. If you're in it to win it, think ahead. Try to find someone who believes in you, and ask if they will give you a long term loan for your education. If you have a friend or relative that's 50, they can charge something to a credit card and pay for it over a 10 year period. That's 150 a month or so with interest. You can also rent out your camera and get that money back as you go. Or sell the camera later.

I have the same dream as you dude, I don't mean to be elitist, I just had a real hard time selling DSLR footage, and you certainly can't rent one out.

 

[chilipie]

District 9 was shot on RED, but the others weren't.

Green Zone was 35mm.

Cloverfield used the Sony F23, Thompson Viper and Panasonic prosumer cameras.

United 93 was a mixture of 35mm and 16mm.

 

[cameronchapman]

District 9 was shot on RED, but the others weren't.

Green Zone was 35mm.

Cloverfield used the Sony F23, Thompson Viper and Panasonic prosumer cameras.

United 93 was a mixture of 35mm and 16mm.

Green Zone is listed on the Red website as being shot at least in part on a Red.

 

[Nate North]

The ariel shots in Green Zone are RED. The rest is as Chill said.

My point here is that I thought like harmonica that these low fi look films were using cheap cameras. But I found out the experienced directors just shoot with movie cams for uncompressed footage and then degrade it in post.

And I did hear that Cloverfield was shot at least partially on red. Though I got that from the net, so it may not be true.

Perhaps a quick trip to

http://www.red.com/experience

would give you more accurate and detailed info than I could.

 

[chilipie]

Green Zone is listed on the Red website as being shot at least in part on a Red.

"Selected VFX plates, elements and aerials" - not 35mm in its entirety then, I apologise.

 

[WalterB]

................

Take the movie Dune, regardless of your feelings about it. There's a theatrical cut, and an extended cut (that David Lynch removed his name from). Watch all the "extended scenes" (they're labeled on the DVD that I have). Most of them not only do not add anything, but some are actually pretty awful. The original cut happened EXACTLY where the scenes needed to be cut. ................

Last point, have you noticed that adaptations of short stories work better as films than adaptations of novels? There are, of course, exceptions, but odds are you aren't making a 12 hour+ version of Lord of the Rings (and STILL leaving things out). There is a reason for that.

I read somewhere that David Lynch had a 4 hour version of Dune, but had to cut it down to 1,5 hour (back then that was the average length). I must say I'm curious whether this long version (still?) exists.
Did any of you read Dune?
The film is a bit rushed and to me most of the voice-overs sound like a solution to save time.

The difference between a novel and a movie is worth a completely new thread: these are different media, addressing different senses on different levels. That's the reason some novels are said to be unfilmable and I think some movies are 'unnovelable'. (Imagine reading Koyaanisqaatsi ).
And short stories often have enough story for a full length feature. (Or provide a great basis for a feature. Blade Runner, Totall Recall and Minority Report all come from short stories.)

 

[WalterB]

About cutting down:
last year I helped a friend out with a short of about a hour.
He had been working on it for quite some time and the deadline was approaching.
I offered him to take a look on what he already got: at 75% of the edit, the film was about 60 minutes. A watched it twice and then I cut out about 15 minutes.
Some things didn't add anything and some parts just had the wrong rhythm.
I ended cutting at about 50% of the script (it was time for me to go), but he felt convident again about deleting stuff and the total lenght was about an hour now, instead of an hour and twenty minutes.

When you spend a lot of time on a project, your jugment may be clouded.
At that moment it's a good idea to have someone (or two) read it/watch it and point out the darlings they would kill.
Writing is also about killing your darlings.
The bright side of killing darlings in your script is that it saves you a lot of time during shooting and editing
Killing your darlings in post is harder to do:
"We should loose that part."
"But we spend so much time on this shot!"
"F@#$ it, cut the crap!"
"No, no, not my precssiousssss!!! AAAAHHH! You filthy editorsss!"

In stead of:
"That scene is no good. Part of it can be moved to the next scene."
"Oh well, let's try it. At least we don't need to find a desert with icebergs and dwarves anymore..."

 

[harmonica44]

Very interesting question, becuase all those low def look movies you mentioned, were all shot on the RED

(maybe not united 93, don't know)

Green Zone
District 9
Cloverfield
etc.

The Red One camera (about 17k now) films at exactly this look, but is uncompressed so it doesn't break up on projection. The Red MX can offer a more TV grade look. Or film if you're good with it. The Epic can beat a 200k camera for 28k.

Also good to keep in mind is that when you get into producing a feature, you are not supposed to just shoot, edit, and publish. The film look you get is controlled by you, the camera is just the cieling.

If you get a red, or an F3 for that matter, you can dial in these "cinema verite" looks, or get a film look. With lower end cameras, you just get the low fi look, and that's the end of your options.

You talk about buying a camera that will last you a couple projects, instead of buying one every 6 months. That's smart. If you're in it to win it, think ahead. Try to find someone who believes in you, and ask if they will give you a long term loan for your education. If you have a friend or relative that's 50, they can charge something to a credit card and pay for it over a 10 year period. That's 150 a month or so with interest. You can also rent out your camera and get that money back as you go. Or sell the camera later.

I have the same dream as you dude, I don't mean to be elitist, I just had a real hard time selling DSLR footage, and you certainly can't rent one out.

I read Green Zone and United 93 were shot on the Arriflex, which is why I used them as examples. I didn't know the aerial shots of GZ were RED. But they had a very low budget grainy look to them and it seems that a DSLR can do that. I've seen brighter more clear footage on a DSLR then GZ. Does the RED make a difference if you're going for the grainy low budget look anyway?

 

[Flicker Pictures]

Does a short film have to be that good?

Not really. It just has to be "good enough."

 

[chilipie]

I read Green Zone and United 93 were shot on the Arriflex, which is why I used them as examples. I didn't know the aerial shots of GZ were RED. But they had a very low budget grainy look to them and it seems that a DSLR can do that. I've seen brighter more clear footage on a DSLR then GZ. Does the RED make a difference if you're going for the grainy low budget look anyway?

As has been explained to you many times before, the camera isn't that significant in the overall look of the film. Things like lighting, colour grading, stock choice, filtration, lens choice, push/pull processing and under/overexposure matter much, much more than the camera body.

35mm film, the ARRI Alexa, the RED ONE and many other cameras produce footage that is technically better than anything you could get out of a DSLR, but for the most part you are not limited in the kind of look you can produce with the latter.

 

[harmonica44]

For sure, that's good to hear. So how do the distributors decide what's saleable (as it was put) when it comes to quality of footage I wonder. A lot of action movies today, have the shaky cam, quick editing effect, and it's distracting on the eyes. Most people I know hate the shaky cam, including me, and I only know one who likes it.

So I'm surprised that the T2i for a pro movie is considered a bad idea, when the shaky cam gets a free pass.

 

[Nate North]

Right on Harmonica, shaky cam is the refuge of the weak!

 

[harmonica44]

So how is it when comes to a thriller movie people can afford to cut out multiple scenes in post and it still makes sense? If my finished script, were made into a film, with the scenes how they are, you could only cut out maybe 3 whole scenes, and any more would leave plot holes, that need to be filled.