Why do some people only make shorts and no feature?

[AudioPostExpert]

Oh okay. So far I label my audio takes with the same name as the video take, so I hope to keep them in order.

Labelling your audio takes properly certainly helps and makes the job possible. However, consider the dialogue editor's workflow: Spot a problem in the dialogue, find the alt takes, audition the alt takes for an acceptable alternative, import the alt take, edit and sync the alt take. Now consider the workflow with reel and take numbers in the meta data and with time-code: Spot the problem in the dialogue, right click "import alt takes to separate tracks", wait a couple of seconds for the software to automatically import and edit all the alt takes, audition them and sync the best one. Maybe you save 5-10 mins (if the files are well labelled), which doesn't sound like much and doesn't have much of an impact on a short. However, do this 100-400 times in an average feature and you could be wasting as much as a week or more of the dialogue editor's time (and therefore your budget).

But you say fantastic shorts do better than a mediocre feature uh... I was planning on making a really good feature, but it depends on what you mean by mediocre.

Just looking at the numbers, it's incredibly difficult (not far off impossible) to make a really good feature for $50k, it's very difficult to make a really good one for $500k! Whereas with $50k you could potentially make 2 or 3 fantastic shorts and IMO you are more likely to get noticed for a fantastic short than for a mediocre feature. In all likelihood a mediocre film is the best you are likely to achieve with a $50k budget. This statement is a huge generalisation though, IE., is probably true on balance rather than always true. There's also the consideration, mentioned by others, that a $50k feature might re-coup it's costs, whereas that's far less likely even for a fantastic short.

Just in case what I've written has made your potential decision too easy , you should also consider that making a good budgeted feature is not just a scaled up version of a good micro-budget short, although a huge amount of what you learn from making shorts is transferable to budgeted features.

Then we'll agree to disagree.
Maybe it's my musical "upbringing" but you don't start with a Chopin Concerto. You need to hone your talents, and you do that with good teachers.

I don't disagree with your premise that doing shorts can be a good way to learn the vast majority of the disciplines required to make a feature. What I disagreed with was that doing shorts "you learn all of the disciplines needed to do a feature project."

You mentioned that one needs "good teachers" to hone one's talents, and I agree this analogy is applicable to filmmakers with regard to audio. In my experience though, the vast majority of filmmakers who make very low budget shorts use free or very cheap audio personnel, audio personnel who themselves have little knowledge or experience of professional audio workflows or of why professionals use those workflows. Without this knowledge themselves, they obviously can't teach it to aspiring directors, let alone be "good teachers". I've mentioned before that you Alcove are a rarity! I would say probably fewer than 1% of those offering audio post services to low budget shorts filmmakers have anywhere near your level of knowledge or experience.

Directors of shorts are therefore likely to fall into filmmaking habits which balance costs against benefits for shorts but that same balance can be quite different on a feature and can cause problems. In the example I gave of the first time director, he probably doesn't know that it's even possible to shoot a film without (for example) time-code sync'ing the cameras to the audio recorder, whereas most directors who have shot a number of lo/no budget shorts probably don't know why time-code sync'ing is important for a feature and would be more likely to ignore/avoid this additional cost.

G

 

[harmonica44]

That is true, about audio people not having as much experience that are willing to do shorts. It seems where I live, most audio people who have responded to adds, say they mainly are doing features at their level, and are not interested in shorts.

Well if I am going to make 2 or 3 fantastic shorts for $50,000, that's a lot of money for just a 10-15 minute movie. I will have to come across a short film script that I really believed in. Most of them I have come across to find something to do, hasn't really been very promising. A lot of them I have a bad feeling about and are not really good or compelling stories. But perhaps maybe you cannot write much of a story for 10 minutes, so it's okay for the story to not be that interesting. Is this right, or do I need to find a story that will really grab the investors?

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Well if I am going to make 2 or 3 fantastic shorts for $50,000, that's a lot of money for just a 10-15 minute movie. I will have to come across a short film script that I really believed in. Most of them I have come across to find something to do, hasn't really been very promising.

Pros will become much more interested in your short if you can pay them properly. The main reason they are not interest now is because shorts almost never pay properly.

As a director, you need to demonstrate truly exceptional story telling skills. I would think in general that would be easier to achieve with a truly exceptional script.

As shorts are relatively quick to make and if you really are thinking of sinking say $20k into one, I would strongly advise you to get at least a few no budget shorts under your belt first. I also don't really see any advantage to say a 15min short. 8-10mins should be enough to impress those who need to be impressed and the more money you can invest per minute of film the better quality you should be able to achieve. I would only consider a 15min short if you find a truly exceptional script which cannot be done in less than 15 mins.

G

 

[Zensteve]

Why do some people only make shorts and no feature?

Because they want to.

Short films are an artform in their own right. Why is a "feature" film considered more legitimate, if we're talking about meaningful story-telling?

 

[harmonica44]

Well so far the shorts I have in mine more are about 15 minutes. It's very difficult to write something that is shorter, cause their is not enough time to wrap up everything and leave no loose ends. There is one short I wrote that should come out to five minutes, but that's random slapstick, and not a coherent story at all.

So one thing I don't get is, is making a 'fantastic short' for 20,000 compared to a mediocre feature for 50,000. Why does the budget determine if it's mediocre or fantastic? I thought Paranormal Activity was a fantastic movie, and that was shot for 15,000 and it got distribution, and people know of it. There was a feature at a local film festival last year that was done for 3 million, and it was like watching paint dry. It probably will not get distribution, at least not to the point where people will hear about it as much as PA. But that's just a guess, and how I and other people at the festival thought about it.

So if money determines what makes it fantastic or not, what am I spending the money on exactly, compared to a good short film script that will cost 3000 to make?

 

[Sweetie]

At the high level, a budget doesn't dictate quality, the script and the people you use and the quality you need dictate the budget. At a lower level your budget dictates who and what you can use, thus dictating the quality. You can bring the cost down by using a script that costs less to make, the same principles apply.

While I disagree with APE's take on the situation, it doesn't mean that he's right or wrong. In some situations I'm sure he's right (regarding spending a high amount of money on a short that gets attention) though if you do, make sure you do the right marketing for it. Make sure you know the path to getting noticed. Eg. Getting your short nominated to the Academy Awards so the right people take notice. I'm sure this process is even harder (and probably more expensive) than making a kick ass short. If you don't take steps to ensure that the right people take notice, all your spending is for naught cause even you know what the likelihood of a short giving you a return on your investment.

I still see the best way to kick start your career. To make movies that make a profit, even if it is just a DVD release. What's going to be an easier sell to investors and/or producers? You being one of 10000 who make a great short, or you're the first timer this year who made a profit on the first movie s/he made.

Now APE is right on this. You need to make sure the deliverables are up to scratch, audio, video, story. It doesn't mean you need a dolby track to be successful on your first film, you just need to know what is necessary for what you're trying to achieve.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

So one thing I don't get is, is making a 'fantastic short' for 20,000 compared to a mediocre feature for 50,000. Why does the budget determine if it's mediocre or fantastic? ... So if money determines what makes it fantastic or not, what am I spending the money on exactly, compared to a good short film script that will cost 3000 to make?

By definition, a highly experienced professional production sound mixer (for example) will have experienced most of the pitfalls of recording production sound and will know how to avoid or how to work around those pitfalls. You might be incredibly fortunate and find a talented young and cheap PSM who even with prosumer equipment somehow luckily avoids all the pitfalls and does as good a job as our highly experienced professional PSM. The chances of this actually happening though are slim to none. Now multiply that extremely slim chance across every craft in the filmmaking process: Screenwriter, Producer, Director, DP, Camerperson/s, PD, PSM, Actors, Sound Designer/Foley/Mixer, Editor, Composer/Musicians, etc! Having a budget big enough to enable you to hire highly experienced and talented pros does not guarantee a fantastic result (nothing does) but it massively increases the likelihood.

I've covered your example of Paranormal Activity in other threads but in a nutshell, you can't make a good theatrical feature for $15k! However, you can make a feature for $15k which demonstrates enough potential to attract an investor to pump in the hundreds of thousands required to make it theatrically distributable. There are quite a few here on indietalk who seem to advocate this route but according to the figures the chances of this happening are somewhere around 1 in 10,000.

G

 

[2001 Productions]

These threads seem to all diverge into the same argument.

APE is absolutely right: a feature without a properly mixed soundtrack will not be theatrically distributable. How many indie features have a prayer of being distributed theatrically? Again, APE is probably right with his 1 in 10,000 figure.

If you think you have a chance at a theatrical exhibition deal, then pump what you need to into the film to put it at that level. If not, then determine at what level you will be content with the result.

I don't understand this incessant debate that has emerged over the course of several threads now.

 

[jax_rox]

Well so far the shorts I have in mine more are about 15 minutes. It's very difficult to write something that is shorter, cause their is not enough time to wrap up everything and leave no loose ends.

15 minutes is okay, as long as every single one of those minutes counts. I've watched (and shot!) shorts that run 12 minutes and feel really long, and I've watched (and shot!) shorts that run 20 minutes and feel perfectly timed.

Writing shorts is hard to do, but there are many <12 minute ones that are great.

So one thing I don't get is, is making a 'fantastic short' for 20,000 compared to a mediocre feature for 50,000. Why does the budget determine if it's mediocre or fantastic?

Feature films are a lot more expensive than short films. Of course, script is paramount - without a great script you've got nothing. I personally like to work with good scripts, so my assumption is that your script is good, as a great script made for $100,000 is generally better than an awful script made for $10,000,000, dependent on a whole bunch of factors, but you don't want to make a bad script either way.

For $20,000 on a 3-day short film shoot (going by local prices, which are more expensive than hubs like LA, NYC):
You could hire:
Arri Alexa with a 5-set of Zeiss Ultra Primes, support kit (incl. FF, Sachtler fluid head and Ronford legs, matte box, filters etc.) (~$10,000)
Aaton Cantar w/ Sennheiser MKH416 boom kit (~$1,200) OR a pretty good sound guy with his own kit for the same price or cheaper
Lighting kit incl. 2x 1.2k HMI PARs w/ lenses, plus a few Kino Flos and a few Fresnels as well as a few floppies, flags, silk etc. (~$3,000-$3,500)
Catering for ~15-20 px (~$1,000-$1,500)
Steadicam Operator for 1 day w/ full kit (~$1,500)

A more conservative budget, allowing a bit more for post etc. might be eliminating the steadiop, and shooting on an Epic with Zeiss Super Speeds and full support kit for ~$5,000 which would leave you ~$8k (just under half) for post, in particular sound post. Keep in mind that your sound post on a short is not going to be the same as a feature - you're not going to be distributing your short theatrically (apart from festivals).

Assuming everyone worked for free. You could shoot it on a Scarlet or an F3 and save maybe $2k that you could use to pay everyone a day rate.

Assuming your feature is ultra quick at maybe 24 days, you wouldn't get much change out of $20k if you rented a 5DmkIII for 24 days, and a set of Compact Primes, and an audio guy/equipment.

Now, a great story on a 5DmkIII with no sound post is going to be better than something like 'The Room' shot on Alexa. But, assuming similar quality of story, people are going to notice a film with high productions values shot on an Alexa with proper audio post much more than another micro budget 5D movie.

You could blow $20k on food. You could spend $20k on a Key Grip with truck.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I don't disagree with Sweetie or that making a profitable DVD may indeed be a good route into the industry. I would say though that if you do take the short film route, you're going to have to really stand out from the crowd and you've got to do substantially better than being just one of Sweetie's 10,000 great short filmmakers.

jax_rox's post demonstrates that while $20k may seem like a great deal of money to someone who has made shorts for a few hundred or a few thousand, $20k doesn't in fact go very far. In JR's first example, you have blown $20k and still only have a good PSM and a steadycam operator, plus some great equipment and decent food! In other words, having a decent budget is not a cure all, it still requires a great deal of ingenuity and balancing of compromises to achieve what you want. This is because as the budget increases so does the expectation of everyone involved in making and financing it! To make a short for $20k which is marginally better than the average no budget short is relatively easy but for $20k you don't expect to be competing with the average no budget short, you ideally want to be competing with the very best shorts.

This also explains why the $3m film you saw was "like watching paint dry". $3m might sound like a huge sum of money for a feature but it's not, even films with budgets 10 times larger have a considerable number of choices to make about how and where they will need to compromise. The filmmakers in your $3m example obviously made some poor choices when it came to spending the budget and balancing the compromises. Maybe they compromised on a cheap picture editor and/or sound designer who failed to give the film energy, pace and involvement, maybe they compromised on unconvincing actors, maybe the director is a poor film story teller, maybe they needed to spend more on tightening up the script or maybe it was another compromise. In JR's second example, he allows $8k (40%) of the budget for audio post and you'd expect something pretty special for that amount. However, great sound does NOT make a good film, unless it's matched by great acting, at least very good cinematography, great editing, script, etc. Spending 40% of the budget on sound is going to mean greater compromises in other areas, the most likely outcome is an average film with great sound and that, is poor filmmaking! The great skill of the Producer/Director at any budget level is in identifying what resources are needed, what resources you have and then allocating the appropriate amount of your time, effort and budget to making a good film. For example, maybe you've written a great script yourself, maybe you've got access to cheap but highly talented actors, a cheap but great DP and a great picture Editor willing to work for very little. In this case, maybe 40% of your budget on audio post would be appropriate to balance the compromises and make a fantastic short but that's an awful lot of maybes and are you being truly objective about how good those cheap actors, DP, Picture Editor and script really are? I would expect under average circumstances that somewhere around $2k would probably be a more appropriate amount to spend on audio post for say an 8min, $20k short, to correctly balance the compromises. Of course there is no average film, just as there is no family with 2.4 children, so you've got to work out this balance individually for every film you make.

If I were someone watching a film (short or feature) who is in a position to employ or influence the career of a Producer or Director, I would notice a very good film and would ask myself about the strengths and weaknesses of the whole package. If one aspect of the film is weak, (the sound or the acting or cinematography, for example) I would be more inclined to discount that Producer or Director because they are likely to cause me or film investors difficulties in that area/s in the future. The exception would be the Director who demonstrated some truly extraordinary genius in some of the filmmaking areas. In which case hiring someone who causes difficulties in other filmmaking areas might still be worth the gamble that with the correct incentives the Director's abilities in those weak areas can be improved.

G

 

[CraigL]

One thing I feel compelled to comment on here, is I hear a lot of effort going into making a short or feature exclusively with the goal of having it launch a career. That' can't be your motivator; you have to love doing this, it's bloody hard work, and it's long hours and it's frustrating and it's amazing and it's exciting. But, if you don't love doing it, I really believe you won't be any good at it. If you found a short you like, shoot it with what you have, with friends, with anyone. Who says because you shot it once on a T2i with internal audio, you can't reshoot it with a RED and timesync'd audio and a crew of 20 later?

I guarantee you, you will learn something on every single short or scene or shot you do. And it will be a long time before they turn out exactly like you envisioned it in your head.

I don't know. It's taken me a few years to build up a few thousand dollars worth of equipment; joining numerous groups to find two or three people really committed to what it takes to get a good short done on little/no budget; dozens of tests to learn the gear and the challenges. And still, something new is learned on every single shoot. I'm proud of the shorts, because we showed up (amazing how many filmmaker "wannabes" can't even get that right!) and we finished it. They might not be Sundance worthy, but every single time we've learned how to make the next better.

But what I do know, is that know I have far more practical knowledge than I did two years ago, I have two or three people that I've worked with and I can trust, and when we start laying out our money to do a real showcase product, I'd be lost without the experience from the previous productions.

One thing I learned very early on, is to not treat a short like a short. We do the whole procedure; full shotlist, storyboard (when we can), blocking recce's, blocking software/diagrams, lined script, breakdown sheets, shot logs, clapper, script supervisor, etc. We probably could get away with skipping a few, but my philosophy is I plan to do this professionally one day, so I better start doing it that way (as best I can) now.

I really thought I knew what to expect before I started, I'd done a TON of reading and learning, but I'm very glad I didn't have the money to jump right in as I would have failed miserably. I would have learned an awful lot, but at a great expense. Also, when I start working with pros now, I'll be able to learn so much more as I've run into many of the issues and understand much better what happens from start to finish.

But just sitting there waiting for that "one" project, whatever it is... that could take a long time.

CraigL

 

[harmonica44]

I don't disagree with Sweetie or that making a profitable DVD may indeed be a good route into the industry. I would say though that if you do take the short film route, you're going to have to really stand out from the crowd and you've got to do substantially better than being just one of Sweetie's 10,000 great short filmmakers.

jax_rox's post demonstrates that while $20k may seem like a great deal of money to someone who has made shorts for a few hundred or a few thousand, $20k doesn't in fact go very far. In JR's first example, you have blown $20k and still only have a good PSM and a steadycam operator, plus some great equipment and decent food! In other words, having a decent budget is not a cure all, it still requires a great deal of ingenuity and balancing of compromises to achieve what you want. This is because as the budget increases so does the expectation of everyone involved in making and financing it! To make a short for $20k which is marginally better than the average no budget short is relatively easy but for $20k you don't expect to be competing with the average no budget short, you ideally want to be competing with the very best shorts.

This also explains why the $3m film you saw was "like watching paint dry". $3m might sound like a huge sum of money for a feature but it's not, even films with budgets 10 times larger have a considerable number of choices to make about how and where they will need to compromise. The filmmakers in your $3m example obviously made some poor choices when it came to spending the budget and balancing the compromises. Maybe they compromised on a cheap picture editor and/or sound designer who failed to give the film energy, pace and involvement, maybe they compromised on unconvincing actors, maybe the director is a poor film story teller, maybe they needed to spend more on tightening up the script or maybe it was another compromise. In JR's second example, he allows $8k (40%) of the budget for audio post and you'd expect something pretty special for that amount. However, great sound does NOT make a good film, unless it's matched by great acting, at least very good cinematography, great editing, script, etc. Spending 40% of the budget on sound is going to mean greater compromises in other areas, the most likely outcome is an average film with great sound and that, is poor filmmaking! The great skill of the Producer/Director at any budget level is in identifying what resources are needed, what resources you have and then allocating the appropriate amount of your time, effort and budget to making a good film. For example, maybe you've written a great script yourself, maybe you've got access to cheap but highly talented actors, a cheap but great DP and a great picture Editor willing to work for very little. In this case, maybe 40% of your budget on audio post would be appropriate to balance the compromises and make a fantastic short but that's an awful lot of maybes and are you being truly objective about how good those cheap actors, DP, Picture Editor and script really are? I would expect under average circumstances that somewhere around $2k would probably be a more appropriate amount to spend on audio post for say an 8min, $20k short, to correctly balance the compromises. Of course there is no average film, just as there is no family with 2.4 children, so you've got to work out this balance individually for every film you make.

If I were someone watching a film (short or feature) who is in a position to employ or influence the career of a Producer or Director, I would notice a very good film and would ask myself about the strengths and weaknesses of the whole package. If one aspect of the film is weak, (the sound or the acting or cinematography, for example) I would be more inclined to discount that Producer or Director because they are likely to cause me or film investors difficulties in that area/s in the future. The exception would be the Director who demonstrated some truly extraordinary genius in some of the filmmaking areas. In which case hiring someone who causes difficulties in other filmmaking areas might still be worth the gamble that with the correct incentives the Director's abilities in those weak areas can be improved.

G

Okay thanks. I think with movie that was 3 million, the main problem was that the script needed to be either tightened, or expanded with more plot. Just not enough happened for a feature length run time. Perhaps more background sound effects would have helped too in my guess.

One thing I feel compelled to comment on here, is I hear a lot of effort going into making a short or feature exclusively with the goal of having it launch a career. That' can't be your motivator; you have to love doing this, it's bloody hard work, and it's long hours and it's frustrating and it's amazing and it's exciting. But, if you don't love doing it, I really believe you won't be any good at it. If you found a short you like, shoot it with what you have, with friends, with anyone. Who says because you shot it once on a T2i with internal audio, you can't reshoot it with a RED and timesync'd audio and a crew of 20 later?

I guarantee you, you will learn something on every single short or scene or shot you do. And it will be a long time before they turn out exactly like you envisioned it in your head.

I don't know. It's taken me a few years to build up a few thousand dollars worth of equipment; joining numerous groups to find two or three people really committed to what it takes to get a good short done on little/no budget; dozens of tests to learn the gear and the challenges. And still, something new is learned on every single shoot. I'm proud of the shorts, because we showed up (amazing how many filmmaker "wannabes" can't even get that right!) and we finished it. They might not be Sundance worthy, but every single time we've learned how to make the next better.

But what I do know, is that know I have far more practical knowledge than I did two years ago, I have two or three people that I've worked with and I can trust, and when we start laying out our money to do a real showcase product, I'd be lost without the experience from the previous productions.

One thing I learned very early on, is to not treat a short like a short. We do the whole procedure; full shotlist, storyboard (when we can), blocking recce's, blocking software/diagrams, lined script, breakdown sheets, shot logs, clapper, script supervisor, etc. We probably could get away with skipping a few, but my philosophy is I plan to do this professionally one day, so I better start doing it that way (as best I can) now.

I really thought I knew what to expect before I started, I'd done a TON of reading and learning, but I'm very glad I didn't have the money to jump right in as I would have failed miserably. I would have learned an awful lot, but at a great expense. Also, when I start working with pros now, I'll be able to learn so much more as I've run into many of the issues and understand much better what happens from start to finish.

But just sitting there waiting for that "one" project, whatever it is... that could take a long time.

CraigL

Well as far as love what I man doing. I love making a script I think will work with audiences. I guess that's why I feel like doing a feature, cause I got a couple that I think would. Hard to find a good short that will blow audiences out of the park, and set it apart from other shorts, of such a quick run time.

15 minutes is okay, as long as every single one of those minutes counts. I've watched (and shot!) shorts that run 12 minutes and feel really long, and I've watched (and shot!) shorts that run 20 minutes and feel perfectly timed.

Writing shorts is hard to do, but there are many <12 minute ones that are great.


Feature films are a lot more expensive than short films. Of course, script is paramount - without a great script you've got nothing. I personally like to work with good scripts, so my assumption is that your script is good, as a great script made for $100,000 is generally better than an awful script made for $10,000,000, dependent on a whole bunch of factors, but you don't want to make a bad script either way.

For $20,000 on a 3-day short film shoot (going by local prices, which are more expensive than hubs like LA, NYC):
You could hire:
Arri Alexa with a 5-set of Zeiss Ultra Primes, support kit (incl. FF, Sachtler fluid head and Ronford legs, matte box, filters etc.) (~$10,000)
Aaton Cantar w/ Sennheiser MKH416 boom kit (~$1,200) OR a pretty good sound guy with his own kit for the same price or cheaper
Lighting kit incl. 2x 1.2k HMI PARs w/ lenses, plus a few Kino Flos and a few Fresnels as well as a few floppies, flags, silk etc. (~$3,000-$3,500)
Catering for ~15-20 px (~$1,000-$1,500)
Steadicam Operator for 1 day w/ full kit (~$1,500)

A more conservative budget, allowing a bit more for post etc. might be eliminating the steadiop, and shooting on an Epic with Zeiss Super Speeds and full support kit for ~$5,000 which would leave you ~$8k (just under half) for post, in particular sound post. Keep in mind that your sound post on a short is not going to be the same as a feature - you're not going to be distributing your short theatrically (apart from festivals).

Assuming everyone worked for free. You could shoot it on a Scarlet or an F3 and save maybe $2k that you could use to pay everyone a day rate.

Assuming your feature is ultra quick at maybe 24 days, you wouldn't get much change out of $20k if you rented a 5DmkIII for 24 days, and a set of Compact Primes, and an audio guy/equipment.

Now, a great story on a 5DmkIII with no sound post is going to be better than something like 'The Room' shot on Alexa. But, assuming similar quality of story, people are going to notice a film with high productions values shot on an Alexa with proper audio post much more than another micro budget 5D movie.

You could blow $20k on food. You could spend $20k on a Key Grip with truck.

What if instead of that equipment we just shot a feature on my equipment, the NTG-3 mic, the FR2-LE, and the Canon T2i, and whatever cameras the DP I get happens to have? And since a good steadiop is expensive to find, what if we just went hand held for the mobile shots. Such as walk and talk shots, and the chase/fight scenes?

 

[wheatgrinder]

shoot, Iv been working on my last two short films for almost a year!

Shorts are their own medium. I think shorts have a lot more utility today then they ever did in the past!

You have shorts that are a huge hit, monetarily successful (though not via ticket sales) and critically acclaimed. Heck, before I started MAKING films, I never new short films existed! Now, the form is coming into its own, the form fits the always connected, multitasking, instant gratification, I want it NOW, world that is emerging. Its the net baby, it really did change everything.

 

[jax_rox]

What if instead of that equipment we just shot a feature on my equipment, the NTG-3 mic, the FR2-LE, and the Canon T2i, and whatever cameras the DP I get happens to have? And since a good steadiop is expensive to find, what if we just went hand held for the mobile shots. Such as walk and talk shots, and the chase/fight scenes?

It gets back to my question of: what do you want from this? If you simply just want to make something, make whatever you want with whatever you've got.

 

[harmonica44]

I want to make a successful feature out of a choice of scripts I feel strongly about mainly. Successful as in DVD distribution. If theater is offered, than that's a bonus, but mainly DVD for sure.

 

[jax_rox]

I want to make a successful feature out of a choice of scripts I feel strongly about mainly. Successful as in DVD distribution. If theater is offered, than that's a bonus, but mainly DVD for sure.

So... why were you considering a short then..?

 

[8salacious9]

in no disrespect harmonica, sometimes i wonder just what thread your gonna start up next and what your point is, how you make up these threads where you find the time to think of these questions and why you dont spend a good amount of time trying them out thoroughly before even posting them.

its not that i have a problem with you asking questions its your asking of a question, then coming back with an answer that kind of defeats the point of you even asking the question in the first place.

 

[Jack Lynt]

One thing I feel compelled to comment on here, is I hear a lot of effort going into making a short or feature exclusively with the goal of having it launch a career. That' can't be your motivator; you have to love doing this, it's bloody hard work, and it's long hours and it's frustrating and it's amazing and it's exciting. But, if you don't love doing it, I really believe you won't be any good at it. If you found a short you like, shoot it with what you have, with friends, with anyone. Who says because you shot it once on a T2i with internal audio, you can't reshoot it with a RED and timesync'd audio and a crew of 20 later?

I guarantee you, you will learn something on every single short or scene or shot you do. And it will be a long time before they turn out exactly like you envisioned it in your head.

I don't know. It's taken me a few years to build up a few thousand dollars worth of equipment; joining numerous groups to find two or three people really committed to what it takes to get a good short done on little/no budget; dozens of tests to learn the gear and the challenges. And still, something new is learned on every single shoot. I'm proud of the shorts, because we showed up (amazing how many filmmaker "wannabes" can't even get that right!) and we finished it. They might not be Sundance worthy, but every single time we've learned how to make the next better.

But what I do know, is that know I have far more practical knowledge than I did two years ago, I have two or three people that I've worked with and I can trust, and when we start laying out our money to do a real showcase product, I'd be lost without the experience from the previous productions.

One thing I learned very early on, is to not treat a short like a short. We do the whole procedure; full shotlist, storyboard (when we can), blocking recce's, blocking software/diagrams, lined script, breakdown sheets, shot logs, clapper, script supervisor, etc. We probably could get away with skipping a few, but my philosophy is I plan to do this professionally one day, so I better start doing it that way (as best I can) now.

I really thought I knew what to expect before I started, I'd done a TON of reading and learning, but I'm very glad I didn't have the money to jump right in as I would have failed miserably. I would have learned an awful lot, but at a great expense. Also, when I start working with pros now, I'll be able to learn so much more as I've run into many of the issues and understand much better what happens from start to finish.

But just sitting there waiting for that "one" project, whatever it is... that could take a long time.

CraigL

I really appreciate your post (as well as the posts of the others, of course). This thread was just about going to put the final nail in the coffin of whatever aspirations to make films I have, when you spoke up and offered a more hopeful, inspiring spin on things. Maybe it gives me more to think about before giving up on the idea. So thanks. =)

 

[Mister X 101]

To me a short is art work. I can put my own creatness to work and I want to get my feet wet with the film industry. A feature, you are limited to those who fund you to do what they want in hopes of profit. You don't have too much to say in that. I hope to do a whole feature one day as well.