Short vs Feature Film - Seeking advice from my peers!
- Thread starter film3412
- Start date
If all I wanted to do was to make money, I wouldn't have made 1,500-odd posts here.
If all i wanted to do was make money i would live my crime thriller instead of fake it for a camera
On the short first side, I was thinking about Sonnyboo's In the Trenches of an Indie Film and I remembered this discussion. Sonnyboo could correct me if I misunderstand the story told by ITTOAIF, but if I do understand right, they made a short first which attracted talent and funding which led to the making of Horrors of War. Maybe they had every intention of making the feature regardless. But the documentary does seem to show how, at least in that example, a good short led to the chips falling into place for their feature.
Though yeah, a ton of shorts obviously never lead to features. But that has to largely come down to that bunch's determination, talent, skill, fortitude etc.... not that those things guarantee anything either...
Though yeah, a ton of shorts obviously never lead to features. But that has to largely come down to that bunch's determination, talent, skill, fortitude etc.... not that those things guarantee anything either...
I'd like to point out that not a single person suggested that the Original Poster of this thread to make MULTIPLE shorts with his FORTY GRAND. As has been said a GREAT short can be made on hundreds. So in theory, the OP can have a youtube channel coming out with a few new shorts a month for the next few years? Right? Too late to do math like rayw there... perhaps you'll find out how many average shorts he can make with that 40k? XD
If there is a statistical chance of being noticed, would it be higher with 40 shorts each having a budget of 1k? Or how about 80 shorts having a budget of around 500$ each?
You could create quite the Youtube fan base with that many quality videos (QUALITY! YOU NEED TO ALSO BE A GOOD FILMMAKER). Heck, that sounds like the amount of videos that could create a fan base strong enough to easily fund even more shorts on ADs and Kickstarter? And more shorts means a continuation of more fanbase until you have such a loyal fan base (I'd say in a few years) to be able to fund a feature. (Like Youtubers such as Fred, Shawn Dawson, etc can do because they've created that Youtube fan base over the years.)
If there is a statistical chance of being noticed, would it be higher with 40 shorts each having a budget of 1k? Or how about 80 shorts having a budget of around 500$ each?
You could create quite the Youtube fan base with that many quality videos (QUALITY! YOU NEED TO ALSO BE A GOOD FILMMAKER). Heck, that sounds like the amount of videos that could create a fan base strong enough to easily fund even more shorts on ADs and Kickstarter? And more shorts means a continuation of more fanbase until you have such a loyal fan base (I'd say in a few years) to be able to fund a feature. (Like Youtubers such as Fred, Shawn Dawson, etc can do because they've created that Youtube fan base over the years.)
There are Youtubers that do it. Approximately 2 weeks to work on each one. Those 40 will be spread out over more than three years. I assume he's not the only person with ideas in what he could find for a recurring crew.
Plus screenwriters exist for a reason, perhaps spend a few days looking at the lesser known screenwriters and picking up a script or two from them every once and awhile (sounds like moderate networking chance to me, who knows maybe that screenwriter will hit the big one and will want to take his/her favorite director with them!).
Quality over Quantity of course. But who are we to know if he can't make a quality short in 2 weeks? He seems to have some sort of skill that people have invested 40k into him. Other youtubers with no investors can do it. Some do moderate quality videos each week.
He wants to take longer than 2 weeks for one he thinks he can REALLY flesh out with awesome-ness? Sure do it, Youtube has no deadline! Lol. 40 shorts is nothing compared to some of these YouTubers who have hundreds of shorts of which are both great and incredible horrible. (He could even make a network YT channel from grass roots like Rooster Teeth did, He'd be the producer/owner of it of course.)
sorry i just don't believe you can pump out quality like that
even charlie chaplin sucked when he was on contract to put one out every week or two. maybe i have higher standards than what you're talking about.
90% of the shorts out there are terrible and if someone is only spending a week making them month afte month, i probably don't want to spend my time watching it.
even charlie chaplin sucked when he was on contract to put one out every week or two. maybe i have higher standards than what you're talking about.
90% of the shorts out there are terrible and if someone is only spending a week making them month afte month, i probably don't want to spend my time watching it.
And now I'm reminded of another pair of I.T.ers who made a short before the feature to help raise interest. I think that's one of the reasons they made it, anyway? Did it help raise more funds, or no? Maybe Nick or Phil could shed some light on how much it helped or didn't help their funding campaign. Full disclosure: I would have contributed to their Indiegogo campaign even if I hadn't first seen the short. But I was sure impressed by it, it increased my excitement in the project, and it gave me more confidence handing over my humble sum. I have to believe, though, that it helped to encourage other funders to fund...perhaps in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofDvi9Y2lxk&feature=relmfu
I don't mean to argue that the OP should make a short first. I'm just posting examples of shorts being made first as they occur to me. And I like it when they are people that we "know." =)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofDvi9Y2lxk&feature=relmfu
I don't mean to argue that the OP should make a short first. I'm just posting examples of shorts being made first as they occur to me. And I like it when they are people that we "know." =)
great thread!