Short Film? What is it?
- Thread starter Scorer
- Start date
Technically, it ENTIRELY depends upon the venue.
Film festivals and distributors will each have their own subjective TECHNICAL criteria.
Just ask 'em.
What you're proposing, at 20-40min, is going to be a short by almost all standards.
Solved.
Now...
To continue with the agreed O.T. subject GE, JR, & GA find themselves embroiled in, ya'll know you guys are debating the distinction between fine art (GE & JR) and commercial art (GA + largely myself), right?
In the world of fine art people spend whatever fiscal and time resources they have to make whatever they want to mostly entertain themselves, and if someone else appreciates the final piece - GREAT!
And if someone else wants to buy it - WONDERFUL!
But making a "profit" off of it was never the goal along the way.
Sure the artist would probably accept a few bucks for it, but... eh... so what if no one even cares.
In the world of commercial art people spend whatever fiscal and time resources they budget for for the express reason of selling the product for a greater amount than has been "invested".
Income or Profit = Revenue - Expenses.
Think of most retail and commercial media as commercial art: magazines, newspapers, TV programs, even the news is more commercial art than "the goodwill of the journalistic community to keep us all informed." Pfft! Ha!
Commercial Art --->
The last example you posted with the magazine is a perfect example of the mergence of the two.
IMO, movies are are a mergence of the two. You have your crew who are contributing to this piece of fine art, and then you have your Producers and Distributors who market it as a piece of commercial art.
Movies are a commercial endeavour, for sure. But I don't think in the film world, either is exclusive of the other - you can't have major commercial success without fine art aspects. Even if you think a certain script is not much more than commercial drivel, the cinematography or sound design within that film is often a piece of high quality fine art.
You can certainly have fine art without the commercial success, and whether you want to exclude commercial success because you want to make sure the fine art aspect is as good as it can be is a personal decision that each person has to make.
I'm not suggesting that you should make movies and send yourself broke, or a million dollars in debt simply because 'we've made a masterpiece.... that will never sell'. What I am saying is you should focus on creating the best product you can with the budget you have.
$1,000 may be what works for you, but to imply that anyone working with higher budgets is simply on an ego-trip or having a wank is well, a false implication, to say the least.
Realistically, as a Director or DP you should be worrying about your own fine aspect area, and allowing the Producer to deal with the money and commercial side.
IMO, movies are are a mergence of the two. You have your crew who are contributing to this piece of fine art, and then you have your Producers and Distributors who market it as a piece of commercial art.
Movies are a commercial endeavour, for sure. But I don't think in the film world, either is exclusive of the other - you can't have major commercial success without fine art aspects. Even if you think a certain script is not much more than commercial drivel, the cinematography or sound design within that film is often a piece of high quality fine art.
You can certainly have fine art without the commercial success, and whether you want to exclude commercial success because you want to make sure the fine art aspect is as good as it can be is a personal decision that each person has to make.
I'm not suggesting that you should make movies and send yourself broke, or a million dollars in debt simply because 'we've made a masterpiece.... that will never sell'. What I am saying is you should focus on creating the best product you can with the budget you have.
$1,000 may be what works for you, but to imply that anyone working with higher budgets is simply on an ego-trip or having a wank is well, a false implication, to say the least.
Realistically, as a Director or DP you should be worrying about your own fine aspect area, and allowing the Producer to deal with the money and commercial side.
"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."
You must have a lot of time. I do not. I am 47 years old, I have a six figure plus day job that consumes most of my life. The hours I would have to spend to find location A for free are worth more to me than the $750 to be able to find location A in a few hours. The hours it would take to shoot with a 3 person crew are worth more to me than paying a 12 person crew, etc... etc... etc.... The movie I could shoot with a 3 person crew for $500 is not a movie I have any interest in making at this point.
You must have a lot of time. I do not. I am 47 years old, I have a six figure plus day job that consumes most of my life. The hours I would have to spend to find location A for free are worth more to me than the $750 to be able to find location A in a few hours. The hours it would take to shoot with a 3 person crew are worth more to me than paying a 12 person crew, etc... etc... etc.... The movie I could shoot with a 3 person crew for $500 is not a movie I have any interest in making at this point.
And yet you're here on indiefilm making comments to a mostly young, stuggling or just plain outright broke group of filmmakers about paying for large crews, locations and expensive shorts.
What I'm saying is that great films can be made for next to nothing if one quits listening to the choir.
We've both made our positions clear and readers can decide for themselves -- either they can choose make a short film themselves or open their pocketbooks PAY to have it done (with their help).
-----------
re: art. While one is free to create a $1,000 to $10k piece of art barely worth $100 in value to anyone, don't let artists who made expensive shorts con you into believing YOU have to spend that same amount on your short.
Last edited:
Hiring equipment, paying for the right locations, spending some money on Production Design etc. is not paying for someone else to make your film, it's paying to make your film better.
No-one has said anyone must spend $1,000 to $10k. You can make a film for $1,000, or you can make a film for $100,000. That doesn't mean it's not a film, but clever budgeting and good above the line crew is going to get you more out of the $100,000 than the $1,000.
Now if you piss $100,000 into catering, then yeah it's probably a waste (although, everyone discusses the on-set catering), but that's not the issue being discussed.
Anyone who reads any of the topics on here will know that 99% of us regulars repeat the 'story is king' mantra and that it doesn't matter what equipment you've got if you've got a good story and conversely if your story is bad, all the equipment in the world isn't going to make up for it.
But that doesn't mean that simply because you don't like to spend more than your set budget on a short film, that no-one else can or they're simply using it as an ego trip.
Jax rox, how about this, I posted it on one of ray's threads and I thought it fits here too:
If one has talent, it'll show whether they spent $1 or $100k.
If one has talent, it'll show whether they spent $1 or $100k.
I've seen reasonable films made for next to nothing and I've seen films with great potential made for next to nothing but I've never seen that potential realised into a great film that was made for next to nothing. You appear to have an extremely different opinion to me or the general public of what constitutes a "great" film.
G
So again, you don't pay anybody..... Your crew is all volunteers.... What do they eat.... You have NO interest in spending what it takes to get someone very skilled in their craft (be it MUA, DP, Grip, whatever) to work on your films...
70% of my budgets are the cost of paying cast and crew, because I don't expect skilled professionals to work for free. At a very reduced rate, maybe, for free, nope, I wouldn't.
CAN'T spend money because you don't have it, totally understand. Don't WANT to spend money because you have some philosophical opposition to it, don't get at all.
Last edited:
I fed the cast/PAs, always. 
I DP'd, directed and edited myself. If an indie filmmaker can't do these three, then they're not going to get too far without paid help.
Also, did a lot of the grunt work myself. I didn't ask anyone to do something I wouldn't do myself.
End result: their names on imdb, a ton of festivals to attend, a DVD available at Amazon.com and BRAGGING RIGHTS about appearing in a feature film, especially one that they would not hestitate to show their friends.
I've a hunch most would get on board for the next project.
------------
Gonzo, I wouldn't expect you to create a no-pay indie project using your colleagues in the film business, but you CAN make a feature film for (mostly) no crew/cast pay, heck, even a good one if you wanted to using talented non-professional actors and PAs.
I DP'd, directed and edited myself. If an indie filmmaker can't do these three, then they're not going to get too far without paid help.
Also, did a lot of the grunt work myself. I didn't ask anyone to do something I wouldn't do myself.
End result: their names on imdb, a ton of festivals to attend, a DVD available at Amazon.com and BRAGGING RIGHTS about appearing in a feature film, especially one that they would not hestitate to show their friends.
I've a hunch most would get on board for the next project.
------------
Gonzo, I wouldn't expect you to create a no-pay indie project using your colleagues in the film business, but you CAN make a feature film for (mostly) no crew/cast pay, heck, even a good one if you wanted to using talented non-professional actors and PAs.