Short Film? What is it?
- Thread starter Scorer
- Start date
It varies from festivals. Often it's under 40 minutes. Some consider it under 15 minutes but general speaking I would say anything under 50min is probably 'short'
FYI,
anything longer than 15-20 minutes will struggle to find programming space in a festival.
Running times between 25 and 70 minutes are generally seen to be in a void where they are too long to be programmed in a 'short' category, but too short to be programmed in a 'feature' category.
You could potentially sell a 42 minute long film as a TV pilot... Or you could sell something as a miniseries, but festivals won't program (generally) those.
anything longer than 15-20 minutes will struggle to find programming space in a festival.
Running times between 25 and 70 minutes are generally seen to be in a void where they are too long to be programmed in a 'short' category, but too short to be programmed in a 'feature' category.
You could potentially sell a 42 minute long film as a TV pilot... Or you could sell something as a miniseries, but festivals won't program (generally) those.
I've gotten both a 25 and a 35 minute film successfully programmed in festivals, but you are going against a headwind over 20 minutes. Generally anything under 60 is a "short", but for most festivals the cut off is 45 at the longest.
Personally, I'd try and keep it closer to 20 than to 40 or else add some to it and go ahead and make a feature.
Personally, I'd try and keep it closer to 20 than to 40 or else add some to it and go ahead and make a feature.
A short: Under 10 minutes and under $1,000.
Ego trip: Over 10 minutes and/or over $1,000.
Good luck.
Ego trip: Over 10 minutes and/or over $1,000.
Good luck.
So are you implying that it's better to make a shoe-string, bottom-of-the-barrel, lowest of low budget features than it is to make a decent short film with a half decent budget...?
$5k can get you a lot for a 3 day shoot. $5k is gonna get you nothing for a 4-week feature shoot.
Even the lowest budget shorts I've shot on DSLR have still had budgets around $1500+ and we were all working for free.
That doesn't make it an ego trip, it elevates it out of the depths of getting together a few friends on the weekend and shooting on your DSLR with kit lenses at 3200 ISO because you've got no lights.
I can tell you that 95% of the impressive short films programmed at most decent film festicals have a budget of at least $1000.
I've worked on 15-minute shorts with $100,000 budgets. Doesn't mean they were an ego trip, just means that everyone working on it could get paid, the actors could get paid a decent rate, the production was able to attract better actors because they were being paid, could actually spend some money on lighting and having some sort of production value.
Uh, yes. With a feature you'll have something you can sell. [mine is on amazon.com] Try selling your short to anyone.
You're spending way too much. My feature penciled around $10k (varies on what one includes in the figure.)
You're not budgeting well.
This is more like playing with gear -- NOT sharp pencil filmmaking.
$100K? LOL! I could make 6 or 7 features with that and line them all on Amazon.com and get some of that revenue back.
Don't defend mega-buck shorts -- it's a rich person's game and no one wins. Use the money to make a feature instead.
Way to go with your debunking techniques!
That's not the point of a short at all.
Yup, if you shoot on your 60D that you've already bought and use the kit lens that came with it, don't pay anyone...
I personally don't want to work on films like that...
I'd much rather work on a film with people who are great at what they do, and are happy to spend a little bit of money on their production if it means their prodution design will look 10x better, if the better lenses we get means the image will look 5x better, if the extra monitor we get for our Focus Puller means focus stays perfect, or that we save time on takes because focus is perfect the first time, rather than the 5th time... Who'll spend a little bit more on rental of a decent boom and recorder to make it sound better, that little bit more on lights to make the frame look better, who are happy to spend a little bit on the location so that we get the perfect location, rather than having to settle for the free location...
I'd rather work on films that appreciate me enough to pay me, and make a living out of it, rather than work for free because it's my side hobby that I indulge on weekends.
Hardly. Why do you think Hollywood features cost tens of millions? Because their Producers aren't as good at budgeting as you?
You could maybe make one half-decent micro budget film. And yeah, make some of the revenue back, assuming that spending no money on marketing is going to actually be able to gain your money back from people just happening to click on your movie...
The professionals who stay in work win. The Directors who can show high quality, great shorts as proof that they can make a great film, the DPs who can have a reel full of professional-grade films, rather than backyard DSLR movies win. Those inexperienced who can get onto a set and learn how a real set works. They win.
If all you're looking for is to make your money back, there's much more bankable investments than low-budget films.
Last edited:
I'm engaged in indie filmmaking without being a sucker. I keep the gearheads and technofreaks at a distance, thus have no need for KY jelly. Yet can make equally compelling films.
That's your choice.
People can choose to blow a wad on a short that dies the day after final cut OR use the same money to make a feature film with better upside.
Good luck.
I am neither, but I am a DP, rather than simply a camera operator. I sit with the Director and we discuss the shots we want.
Good luck getting certian shots without shelling out for the hire of a jib, dolly, gels, silks etc.
If you want to make 'acceptable' flims, then sure go ahead. The stories might be great. But I'm a DP. My main focus is making the visuals look good. I'm not the sort of person you're going to be hiring if you're trying to make a short for <$1000, o a feature for less thatn $10k. I also make a living out of the industry, as do many. I'm not sure if you're implying that on your sets, the cast and crew don't deserve pay because you're trying to keep costs down, but you're more than happy to take in as much profit from DVD sales yourself as possibe..?
Also, using equipment to get the look and shots you want is simply efficiency, not a wank. Cheap equipment is cheap for a reason. Sure, you can still make a decent movie, but are you honestly telling me you see no use in good equipment, good locations, good production designs, good costumes, good cast and crew (ie the sort you'd have to pay)?
The purpose of a feature is to sell yourself, not sell the movie. Shooting with high production values is the thing that will set you apart, and prove your worth much more than shooting ona a DSLR with a budget of $50 like 500,000 others just like you.
In my experience, bare bones, cutting every corner possible, non key people working for free (PAs, assistant camera, DIT, etc...) runs about $1000 a day.
That's just to feed people and pay your key crew slave wages. My DP works (for me) for about $150 a day, my Key grip (who is union) works (for me) for $100 a day, my MUA (who has worked on studio films) works (for me) for $100 a day. Those are all "we like you, we believe in you, we enjoy being on your sets so we're cutting you the deal of the century" rates. Throw feeding people something besides little Caesars pizzas, an occasional location rental, and a couple hundred bucks a day in grip rental in there and you're spending $1000/day EASY.
Working on THAT basically "no budget" level really sucks. It results in a lot of cut corners. A lot of "screw it, good enough, we have to move on" moments. That's for THE KIND OF FILMS I WANT TO MAKE. Maybe I could makes some other film for the budgets GA talks about, I dunno, because I have no interest in making those films, so it doesn't matter.
The Kohlman files pilot (22 minutes) probably cost about $5000 by the time all was said and done. I wish I'd had closer to $15K. It would have been much better because I could have spent 7 or 8 days on principal instead of 3. Will I ever recoup that money, almost certainly not, but that's not why I made it.
That's just to feed people and pay your key crew slave wages. My DP works (for me) for about $150 a day, my Key grip (who is union) works (for me) for $100 a day, my MUA (who has worked on studio films) works (for me) for $100 a day. Those are all "we like you, we believe in you, we enjoy being on your sets so we're cutting you the deal of the century" rates. Throw feeding people something besides little Caesars pizzas, an occasional location rental, and a couple hundred bucks a day in grip rental in there and you're spending $1000/day EASY.
Working on THAT basically "no budget" level really sucks. It results in a lot of cut corners. A lot of "screw it, good enough, we have to move on" moments. That's for THE KIND OF FILMS I WANT TO MAKE. Maybe I could makes some other film for the budgets GA talks about, I dunno, because I have no interest in making those films, so it doesn't matter.
The Kohlman files pilot (22 minutes) probably cost about $5000 by the time all was said and done. I wish I'd had closer to $15K. It would have been much better because I could have spent 7 or 8 days on principal instead of 3. Will I ever recoup that money, almost certainly not, but that's not why I made it.
Last edited:
We don't make film for the money, though it'a great when it comes in
And I'm not in the business of cutting corners, I agree with Gonzo.
The short answer is that there are a lot of people in this business, yes there are those who enjoy a good ego trip, but the majority of those I know and work with do it because they love it, and work with challenged budgets to make the best that they absolutely can. Some care a lot about making their money back, some don't
As well, you can't decide a blanket rule because each film and each situation is different. Some films can get away with minimal lighting, all handheld, one location, easy dialogue scenes. Some can't. One short I worked on recently was about a girl with a pet sheep - now do you say 'well there's no way I can make it because I'll have to spend $200 on renting sheep'? No. You say, 'wow $200 is so cheap' and you make the film. That's what sets you apart, making something great, something different, not balking at the possibility of doing something a little less high budget simply because it's going to cost a couple hundred dollars.
And every film's different, some films you could shoot for $300, some you couldn't shoot for less than $2,000. Plus all sorts of different people have different equipment. When I was at film school we could make great things for free if we wated to, but that's because we essentially had $10,000 worth of gear rental for free.
Plus I get back to my question of 'are you implying that on your sets, the cast and crew don't deserve pay because you're trying to keep costs down, but you're more than happy to take in as much profit from DVD sales yourself as possibe..?'
And I'm not in the business of cutting corners, I agree with Gonzo.
The short answer is that there are a lot of people in this business, yes there are those who enjoy a good ego trip, but the majority of those I know and work with do it because they love it, and work with challenged budgets to make the best that they absolutely can. Some care a lot about making their money back, some don't
As well, you can't decide a blanket rule because each film and each situation is different. Some films can get away with minimal lighting, all handheld, one location, easy dialogue scenes. Some can't. One short I worked on recently was about a girl with a pet sheep - now do you say 'well there's no way I can make it because I'll have to spend $200 on renting sheep'? No. You say, 'wow $200 is so cheap' and you make the film. That's what sets you apart, making something great, something different, not balking at the possibility of doing something a little less high budget simply because it's going to cost a couple hundred dollars.
And every film's different, some films you could shoot for $300, some you couldn't shoot for less than $2,000. Plus all sorts of different people have different equipment. When I was at film school we could make great things for free if we wated to, but that's because we essentially had $10,000 worth of gear rental for free.
Plus I get back to my question of 'are you implying that on your sets, the cast and crew don't deserve pay because you're trying to keep costs down, but you're more than happy to take in as much profit from DVD sales yourself as possibe..?'
Jax Rox, being that you are a paid professional, do you think perhaps you might not be the ideal person to comment in this particular thread, especially with this being INDIEfilm and all? Sure, all comments are of value, but any line of discussion that equates shorts with massive amounts of dollars isn't particlarly useful for the newbie who started the thread.
Gonzo, "cutting to the bone", "screw it, it's good enough" is not how I work. You're equating low budget with lousy product. Inside the box you're in, you CAN'T see how features can be made any other way.
Whereas I look for bits of excellence available to me at no or low cost and assemble these elements into a feature film.
Gonzo, "cutting to the bone", "screw it, it's good enough" is not how I work. You're equating low budget with lousy product. Inside the box you're in, you CAN'T see how features can be made any other way.
Whereas I look for bits of excellence available to me at no or low cost and assemble these elements into a feature film.
Few points here:
Firstly, just because someone is paid, does not mean they are not working on indie films. In the local industry, we don't have studios, and low budget as classified by the governing body is considered as anything <$5million.
Independent or 'indie' film doesn't necessarily mean $200 budget on the weekend. It simply means independent from a major studio. Movies like Little Miss Sunshine are independent films, and certainly weren't made for $200.
Secondly, my comment was not that you must spend copious amounts of money on any film venture if you want it to succeed. My comment was simply, to say blanketly that all short films should be made for <$1,000 or they're not worth what is being paid for them is incorrect. If you spend $5,000 on a short film that takes place in one room in your house, you don't light it and shoot on a DSLR, just with really expensive lenses and four monitors and the best tripod available etc., then yes that could be considered a waste of money, but that comes down to having a good crew surrounding you and being able to find the happy medium where your film still looks better than having no lights, cheap lenses, no sound etc. but isn't costing you a million dollars unnecessarily.
Thirdly, the OP didn't ask 'how much money should a short cost' they asked how long a short is generally perceived as.
Lastly, I understand that there are many who do film as their hobby, in their spare time and are still really passionate about it and get as good a product as they possibly can. I don't mean to take away from that at all, I simply speak from my own experience and try to help as best I can through that. I think the more micro budget sets operate like real sets, the better the quality of work gets, and the better the industry as a whole gets, and it makes you more employable if you do decide to one day quite your day job and give Hollywood a crack.
I think you should strive for the greatest product you can get with what you can afford. If the hire of a lens set that's going to make your film look 10x better, or the hire of a sound kit or sound professional that will make your film sound 20x better, is $100 over the $1,000 that is apparently GA's limit, then you should still rent them if you can afford to.
But anyway, we've drifted way OT.