Standard length of short film
- Thread starter Blasfemy
- Start date
Welcome!
I've seen short films that are 60 seconds. I've seen short
films that run 45 minutes. The Academy (Oscars) define a
short films as anything under 40 minutes. Festivals range
all over the place but most request shorts to be in the one
minute to 40 minute range.
I've seen short films that are 60 seconds. I've seen short
films that run 45 minutes. The Academy (Oscars) define a
short films as anything under 40 minutes. Festivals range
all over the place but most request shorts to be in the one
minute to 40 minute range.
There is no standard anything under 90 is short over is a feature.
Depending on where you get your information.
The Academy sets a short as 40 minutes and under
and feature as a movie over 40 minutes. That seems
a pretty good standard to understand, if not follow to
the letter. Many festivals have a 60 minute and above
length for a feature.
Five minutes seems a good length for a short.
The Academy sets a short as 40 minutes and under
and feature as a movie over 40 minutes. That seems
a pretty good standard to understand, if not follow to
the letter. Many festivals have a 60 minute and above
length for a feature.
Five minutes seems a good length for a short.
True but when I spoke with producers they always want something over 90. Just from experience, but it all depends. I would say anything can be a short.
There are several "feature" films that are just over 60 minutes. El Mariachi from RR is only 71 minutes but it is considered a feature.
There is also this thread:
http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=22578
Here is what defines "feature length", so anything shorter would be considered a "short"...
There is also this thread:
http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=22578
Here is what defines "feature length", so anything shorter would be considered a "short"...
I go to quite a few screenings, and one thing that I have noticed is that, for the most part, the shorts which get the best response are usually in the 5 - 8 minute range. Notice that I said they get the best response, not that they are necessarily the better product. Also, most low/no/micro-budget features that do well at festivals run 85 minutes or less. I think this has a lot to do with attention span more than anything.
Before everyone jumps all over me please re-read and make note of the qualifications I noted; I'm fully aware that there are numerous exceptions to the rule.
Before everyone jumps all over me please re-read and make note of the qualifications I noted; I'm fully aware that there are numerous exceptions to the rule.
Actually I agree with this 100%. The 5-8 minute range are not to long for Internet consumption, but also long enough to tell a lot of stories (not all).
As for features, 85-90 minutes are the most people seem to tolerate of a movie with no recognizable stars... it's a fad that comes and goes, but is more consistent. It seems audiences are far more willing to tolerate exposition if it's being delivered by someone they know from TV or movies already.
I think the talent of an actor and writer has a lot to do with whether someone will sit through a lot of dialog and/or exposition.
The sad fact is, most indie films have bad acting in them...and no one wants to sit through less-than-believable acting for very long...let alone a dialog-heavy feature. Usually, when a 'name' actor is involved, people aren't just OK with dialog because they know the actor...it's probably more likely that the acting is good (hence them being a name).
If that makes sense.
Cheers.
The sad fact is, most indie films have bad acting in them...and no one wants to sit through less-than-believable acting for very long...let alone a dialog-heavy feature. Usually, when a 'name' actor is involved, people aren't just OK with dialog because they know the actor...it's probably more likely that the acting is good (hence them being a name).
If that makes sense.
Cheers.