Some people where I live hope to make a few shorts and hope to get their first offer to direct a feature from those. But is that possible? Do companies hire people who have never self financed their own feature before? Cause I tell people they should use their money to make a feature, instead of just keep making shorts, unless I am wrong?
Why do some people only make shorts and no feature?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
Yes.
The only time you'd be folly to make a short instead of a feature is if you're looking for financial return. A feature is easier to sell, even via self-distribution than a short. You may make money from a feature. You won't make money from a short.
But, if it's to get noticed a feature isn't inherently better simply because it's a feature. If you can prove you have the skills to make a great, compelling short film then almost all of those skills are completely transferrable to a feature.
If you were looking to showcase your best work, and that was the only reason for your film endeavour - you'd be better off spending $10,000 on making an amazing short film, than spending $10,000 on making an average, (basically) 0 budget feature.
I know people personally who have gotten picked up for feature films based on the shorts they'd made in the past.
In fact, from a storytelling point of view, a short is much harder to pull off as you have much less time to do any sort of character or story development, to the point where an audience cares about your characters and your film.
Last edited:
Oh okay, I guess it does work then. I am comtemplating if making a feature in the future for $50,000 is worth it, or should I just use the money for a few shorts instead.
The making of shorts is two things.
First, it's a learning experience; you learn all of the disciplines needed to do a feature project.
Second, in many ways it's a weeding out process; many find that actually doing the hard work is much different than just talking or writing about it. Most just give up entirely, and a few discover that they really enjoy only one particular aspect of the filmmaking process and pursue careers as editors, sound folk, ADs, etc.
First, it's a learning experience; you learn all of the disciplines needed to do a feature project.
Second, in many ways it's a weeding out process; many find that actually doing the hard work is much different than just talking or writing about it. Most just give up entirely, and a few discover that they really enjoy only one particular aspect of the filmmaking process and pursue careers as editors, sound folk, ADs, etc.
It is learning experience, but it seems that the people I know would be better off learning on their own, without spending money on a bigger production. Then once they learn on their own, just save your money make a feature, since it seems that distributors and people in the movie business may admire features more. Unless I'm wrong of course. Cause now these people I have met are out of money by the time their last short comes along.
There is a difference in dedication between making a short and making a feature film. A short can be done in a week, even less. Making a feature film requires a lot more talents to come into play, including your ability to organize and motivate others.
While you can find people willing to invest in you after only doing a short, the list grows if you do the same top quality of work in a feature. The downside to a feature: You don't have a safety net (excuse) if the film doesn't manage to make any money like you do with shorts.
Admire is probably the wrong word for it. More like value.
While you can find people willing to invest in you after only doing a short, the list grows if you do the same top quality of work in a feature. The downside to a feature: You don't have a safety net (excuse) if the film doesn't manage to make any money like you do with shorts.
Admire is probably the wrong word for it. More like value.
The shorts also fill your prospectus that you use to approach investors in your feature. They prove that you can take a project from start to finish with quality product for output.
Getting together a few thousand dollars to shove into 90 minutes as a show case would be better served shoving it into 20-30 minutes as you'll see more of that budget represented on screen for prospective investors, rather than having it all go to craft services for your shoot.
Getting together a few thousand dollars to shove into 90 minutes as a show case would be better served shoving it into 20-30 minutes as you'll see more of that budget represented on screen for prospective investors, rather than having it all go to craft services for your shoot.
A short is almost nothing like undertaking a feature film, and any savvy investor will likely require that most of your team's composed of people who have done a few feature films, especially a sound set of Producers.
The good thing about shorts is that they're just shorts, and you don't have to worry too much about someone not liking the entirety of it. Features are a lot more dangerous in that regard, but having a feature under your belt (finished) gets you much farther faster, if it's watchable at least.
If I had fifty thousand dollars to spend I would use ten of it and do what I could with that. Whether that's a really low budget throw-away feature film to learn on or two shorts, even one short, but I would not spend fifty thousand dollars of my own on anything in my fledgling career other than doubling it by investing in something else.
The good thing about shorts is that they're just shorts, and you don't have to worry too much about someone not liking the entirety of it. Features are a lot more dangerous in that regard, but having a feature under your belt (finished) gets you much farther faster, if it's watchable at least.
If I had fifty thousand dollars to spend I would use ten of it and do what I could with that. Whether that's a really low budget throw-away feature film to learn on or two shorts, even one short, but I would not spend fifty thousand dollars of my own on anything in my fledgling career other than doubling it by investing in something else.
If your short film could also be adapted into a feature film some companies may seek you out. I believe that District 9 was originally a short film by Neill Blomkamp and the studio hired him on as the director to turn it into a feature.
I think shorts are inherently done for practice. Like Jax said, you most likely won't make money from a short, but it is a stepping stone to bigger features.
I think shorts are inherently done for practice. Like Jax said, you most likely won't make money from a short, but it is a stepping stone to bigger features.
Just for a change Alcove I'm going to disagree with you on this one.
In my experience, those who have only worked on shorts previously tend to be very sloppy with their working practises when it comes to audio. What is just a bit of an annoyance in a short, becomes a very serious problem on a full length feature. Finding alt takes when none of the files are properly labelled, there's no proper sound log, no meta-data and no time-code is a bit of a pain when your short has 100 audio files to search through but when you've got a feature with 3,000 audio files it becomes an almost impossible nightmare. In fact, I've been involved in at least one feature which had to be shelved as it was impossible to find the required alt takes in any sensible time frame and the producer couldn't afford all the ADR which was therefore required.
H44, there are pros and cons both ways as others have explained. I personally would put the funds into a fantastic short rather than a mediocre feature. And, just FYI, I once made a feature with a brand new director who had never made even a short before but still attracted about $3m funding. The investors made sure though that he was surrounded by very experienced personnel; Producer, AD, DP, Editor, etc., oh, and me of course!
G
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.
Well in order to keep making shorts I will have to hire good DPs and good PSMs. Cause people are not going to look at a short of mine and say 'this guy needs a good DP and good PSM, but he can direct. They are going to want good video and audio even though I am just the director. They want good everything even though I am just looking to direct. So I can either hire a DP and PSM for shorts, or go all out and hire them for a feature.
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. But on here a few months ago, I asked how many of you self funded your first feature, as oppose to got funding, from people liking your shorts, and almost all of you said you had to self fund your first feature. So it seems rare shorts can get your foot in the door, on your way to a funded feature.
And to respond to Knightly, what you do mean by craft services? Are you saying that if I just make shorts, that I can use the rest of my budget for a feature, that already has a deal lined up with investors?
Well in order to keep making shorts I will have to hire good DPs and good PSMs. Cause people are not going to look at a short of mine and say 'this guy needs a good DP and good PSM, but he can direct. They are going to want good video and audio even though I am just the director. They want good everything even though I am just looking to direct. So I can either hire a DP and PSM for shorts, or go all out and hire them for a feature.
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. But on here a few months ago, I asked how many of you self funded your first feature, as oppose to got funding, from people liking your shorts, and almost all of you said you had to self fund your first feature. So it seems rare shorts can get your foot in the door, on your way to a funded feature.
And to respond to Knightly, what you do mean by craft services? Are you saying that if I just make shorts, that I can use the rest of my budget for a feature, that already has a deal lined up with investors?
Last edited:
It's rare that anything gets you on your way to a funded feature, regardless whether you've made a feature or a short. Except money -- lots and lots of money.
If I may presume to answer for knightly, "craft services" refers to non-catered food (usually snacks) available for the cast and crew on set. I believe what he is saying is that a short film that can be shot in a day or two will require a much smaller investment overall than a feature would. You can often get cast and crew for very cheap if not free, if the time commitment is brief, but you always, ALWAYS have to feed them well. That adds up fast over long shoots.
As an example, a friend of mine made a feature several years ago for $6,000. He's worked professionally in film for several decades, so he called in many favors to get a pro crew for next to nothing. $5,000 of the $6,000 was spent on food.
Last edited:
Of course not. As the director, you're seen as the guy in charge. If you cannot choose the right people for the job on a short, how could you possibly be responsible enough to complete a feature and be responsible to return a profit to investors.
If you're looking for a short cut, they don't exist. You need to know your stuff and work hard. You need to know people and have people know you. There is no way around it.
He means feeding your crew. You know, with food. If you only have a few thousand to make a feature, you're going to spend the majority of that feeding your army.
Oh okay. But the DPs and PSMs do not come cheap. They want to be paid, or at least the ones I have met so far. That is if you want ones that are good enough to make a good impressionable short. If I don't get a good DP or PSM then it will not have good video or audio. So their is still quite a bit of money involved.
Last edited:
Of course they want to be paid. We all want to be paid. But sometimes you can get them for cheap.
DP's and sound recordists are like everyone else in the biz: they survive from job to job. Oftentimes they'll have a week or more between paying gigs. Unless they're at the level where they command many thousands per job, they'd much rather work a day or two for a few hundred bucks than earn nothing at all in the interim.
On a short film you can often reach an accommodation. Since they don't have to block out a huge span of time for you, many pro crew people are willing to fit your shoot into a 2 or 3-day opening in their schedule at a substantially reduced rate. If another gig comes up for them, they are usually more than willing to hook you up with a replacement who needs the work, the idea being that the replacement might do the same for them at some point.
This has been my experience, but - as always - your mileage may vary.
Oh ya for sure, when I said they want to be paid, I did not mean that as a complaint or anything. I like paying people to do good work. Unfortunately most actors so far at least for me, can only work about one day a week on a movie, which means it takes 3 weeks to finish a short about, for three days work. Cause most can only work on Sat or Sun, but sometimes not both for everyone. But in the future I may be able to schedule quicker shoots.
Well I am looking over scripts for shorts, that writers won't mind me doing, and scripts for features. What if I choose to do the best script? If the best is a feature, than I use my feature money, if the best are shorts, than I do shorts. Cause investors always want the best story probably as well right? Or do they more so care about technique, since the story is not mine? They probably care for a director to be able to know a good story on paper. Of course if I were to do a feature, I would not jump on it right away, but save up and practice towards it.
It is a gamble though, cause more people value a feature, but it's much more of a loss if it doesn't get picked up.
Well I am looking over scripts for shorts, that writers won't mind me doing, and scripts for features. What if I choose to do the best script? If the best is a feature, than I use my feature money, if the best are shorts, than I do shorts. Cause investors always want the best story probably as well right? Or do they more so care about technique, since the story is not mine? They probably care for a director to be able to know a good story on paper. Of course if I were to do a feature, I would not jump on it right away, but save up and practice towards it.
It is a gamble though, cause more people value a feature, but it's much more of a loss if it doesn't get picked up.
Last edited:
No-one plans to make a mediocre feature. Every one who has ever made a film in their lives thought their film was going to be really good. Even that guy who made The Room.
As 2001 says, it's rare that anything gets your foot in the door. An acquaintance of mine is a Director who took the short he made in his final year of film school, put it in front of investors and ended up with a $500,000 budget to turn it into a feature.
I've also Camera Assisted for first time Directors who have secured funding despite the fact they've never made anything before. As APE says, there's always a team of highly skilled people around them - in this case, there was also a more experienced Directing 'mentor' who was paid to be on set as well.
If you want to make a career out of directing feature films, I'm not convinced that there is any one strategy that is better than any other, insofar as breaking through to your first fully-financed feature. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and I suspect that the connections one makes has more to do with it than anything else.
I really like Kholi's logic on this subject. Besides what he already said, I only want to add that the best way to get good at something is to do it. If you want to be good at making feature films, make feature films.
I really like Kholi's logic on this subject. Besides what he already said, I only want to add that the best way to get good at something is to do it. If you want to be good at making feature films, make feature films.
Just for a change Alcove I'm going to disagree with you on this one.
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.
In a way, that's my job; they come in with audio that's completely FUBAR, and I teach 'em how to do it better. Those who learn to do it the right way find out that there's a reason for quality production sound and proper file naming. Okay, it works maybe 15% of the time, but those are most of my repeat customers.
If they're smart, they apply the lessons to the rest of their disciplines - thorough prep makes for a better (and more fun) shoot and easier post, which leads to superior product.