There are iconic short films.

Here it is, step by step.

You can make an iconic short film. You can get paid for it. Make a good commercial. That's it. The only way this ever works.




You can use the money from your success at commercials to make a short film. Short films are best sold as music videos.




After proving yourself, gaining experience, and making some money to buy equipment and network, you can attempt to make a feature.

Here in this video you can see the direct transition from a director filming a music video, and then directing a major film 10 years later.

 
I was told that going into commercials was a good way to break into film, because Jerry Bruckheimer did it that way.
A lot of people did it that way. David Fincher is a good example. Think of it this way, films are about entertaining people, at least commercially viable ones are. First, try to entertain people for 30 seconds. If successful, move up to 3 minutes, if successful, move up to 43 minutes, if successful, move up to 100 minutes.

If you can't keep a person's attention for 30 seconds, it stands to reason that you won't be able to do it for 200 times that long.
 
Good point, Nate North, but I'm very busy with my work now, though, if all goes well, I may be able to build a second business - I was thinking of going into commercials a few years ago, but, like everyone, I was struggling with the aftermath of the Great Recession. Now that it's over, this is very possible.

And, while I'm a business person at heart, my ultimate goal is still to be a sci-fi writer-EP, so I may still want to do the short films, just to satisfy my creative impulse.
 
I've been thinking about this.

I'm not a film buff, and my interest is in science fiction, written and multimedia. I am therefore in no position to say what would be iconic and what would not. But we are now in an age, when the masses, both left and right, are in revolt against the establishment, whoever that may be, and, while we don't discuss politics here, we are still affected by the world we live in. In the film industry, the Oscars are losing relevance, apparently, because viewership is declining, and many on the right (like me) hold the Hollywood elites in contempt for their views. So the elites of the film industry may also not be in a position to say what would be iconic and what would not, because they don't decide for the masses.

The question, then, is what would be iconic. I would say that iconic is in the eye of the beholder, but, if I was to set a test, I would say that iconic is what the majority of film goers would consider iconic. There are issues with this, because I didn't even know Pulp Fiction was iconic, and many of the younger generation who like film also don't know who the Blues Brothers are. But most people know Star Wars, Star Trek, and the Flintstones, so these would be iconic.

These are just random thoughts in the late evening, but I like writing, which relaxes me, and, if I have an audience, so much the better.
 

directorik

IndieTalk's Resident Guru
The dictionary definition of iconic is "Symbolic, emblematic, or representative"
An icon is "a person or thing widely admired especially for having great influence or significance in a particular sphere"

Even though you are unaware of most to the short films I mentioned they did have
great influence or significance in short film making. So would be considered iconic.

But you have an excellent point: what has great influence or significance to you
would be iconic - to you. So "Eye of the Beholder" is accurate in both the general
discussion and the specific short film.
 

indietalk

IndieTalk Founder
Staff Member
Admin
In describing iconic to a smaller audience perhaps Cult is the better descriptor
 
The dictionary definition of iconic is "Symbolic, emblematic, or representative"
An icon is "a person or thing widely admired especially for having great influence or significance in a particular sphere"
Agreed, but for which segment of society? The Oscar-Hollywood crowd or the military-science fiction right-wing crowd? And I understand that many films that don't do well in North America become hits elsewhere, which complicates matters further.
In describing iconic to a smaller audience perhaps Cult is the better descriptor
And, yes, some films like Repo Man are cult hits, but that only proves my point. As the global society fragments, it's harder and harder to say what would be iconic. If that term was to refer to what the majority of the population would agree on, then there would indeed be very few such films.
 

indietalk

IndieTalk Founder
Staff Member
Admin
You are getting lost in your own minutia. Instead of using labels tell us what you are looking for.
 

indietalk

IndieTalk Founder
Staff Member
Admin
Once you stop trying to label things it makes finding them much easier.

"Iconic short film" <-- A label

"A short film that the mainstream will recognize the title of that is usually reviewed very favorably." <-- Not a label, also not the definition of iconic, just an example of how if you help us, we can help you!
 
OK, I've been thinking about this.

To me, iconic means the film is still recognized by the current generation of movie goers. I have asked some of the younger generation about what they would think as iconic, and some don't even know of the movies I mentioned, in particular, "Blues Brothers".

With that in mind, "The Wizard of Oz" is iconic, but not "Pulp Fiction"; "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" are iconic, but not "Forbidden Planet". My definition may be unreasonable, but, in the end, my opinions don't matter, and I'm just putting this out for discussion. And you have all been wonderful, giving me great intellectual stimulation with your thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Top