I am really fed up with this ridiculous versus mentality. Short films and feature films have there place. Go where your heart takes you. Neither way is wrong.
I seriously believe that every person has to make his own journey and that could be feature or short as a first project, heck if we're talking about storytelling there are more and more options available. I guess it's a matter of knowing where you want to be heading and following that route and sometimes by doing this you stumble on unexpected paths which end up being your true calling.
@@davetinoco exactly. a lot of these amateurs preaching that you have to jump straight into features have no idea how important it is to first learn how to manage a film production to its completion. it's bizarre for anyone to think that they'll be able to pull off a feature without learning the necessary steps of making short films.
I've seen so many features in the last 10 years that were made by people that didn't have a basic understanding of the craft, much less of the art of filmmaking. Yes, there have always been bad films, but never this bad on a basic level--and never so many. The reason you should make shorts, and a lot of them, is to hone your craft and hopefully find your voice. Just because you can make a feature relatively cheaply now, doesn't mean you should. And there's this; you can make a ton of crappy shorts. But if you make one bad feature, you'll never raise money for a 2nd one.
This this THIS. Some of the films I've seen the last couple of years are so bad, they aren't fit to shine Uwe Boll's shoes. We're not even talking bad, but completely incompetent of the absolute basics - focus, exposition, camera movement, structure.... jesus the 360 degree rule, my god, I've seen features where they don't know what it is!
It's pretty disappointing that nobody really talks about whether the story you have in mind is better served as a short or a feature. Like, how about you make the thing that best serves the story? To me, if the story in a feature film could ultimately be whittled down to a short and still be as compelling (or better), make the short. If the short leaves you wanting more (in a good way), WELL...give 'em more! This was posted years before the real streaming boom, but now there are just so many options for you to get your work seen in a particularly "professional" way. So make the most professional thing you can that serves the story in the best way and put it out there.
I still think a well made short film will serve you better than a low budget, shitty feature film. Making a short to help serve a feature you're making will help you with investors because it will show them what you're trying to do as opposed to you telling them it will be good.
I'm currently in film school now. When I graduate I won't be making short films but I do make short films now. It's a fantastic way to learn how framing, lighting, and filmmmaking in general works. Also, being able to create a powerful story in say under 5 minutes isn't as easy as you may think. Making short films is a great learning experience but I agree that if you want to become "well-known" you should start on the feature length films eventually. I don't think anyone should just jump into a feature, it doesn't make sense. There's too much preparation needed.
Short films are for beginners and should be done to learn the craft of filmmaking. To see your potential, to make mistakes, to learn from those mistakes and improve. Once you've mastered short films and beleive you are ready to go big then you can move on to features. You can also use a short to pitch a feature. Show that you are capable of directing the idea.
I think people to do short films to hone their craft more so when people do a feature it will be much better because you can do load of short films and more opportunities to try new things unlike a feature where you have to stick to that toned film for ages I hope that makes sense lol
Hay David, I totally agree with you and your philosophy. The guy James Cullen Bressack doesn't make sense to me at all. Why would he encourage or advise an inexperienced filmmaker / film student to not produce a short but produce a full feature? Shorts are a good way like you said to hone their craft and figure out how a to run a film set, manage time, manage money, develop their style of storytelling, work with trained/untrained actors, and getting a hands-on understanding on how to run a set. Not to mention what to do after all the content has been captured and set for post-production. These guys all have good points but advising an aspiring filmmaker not to make a short can lead to financial suicide and damage a filmmakers reputation. Making a film is easy.......especially when you learn to know what your doing. Short films are alive it's the best training anyone can experience.
Jeez... thank you. That's the whole point. There are so many garbage features out there because people don't take the time to learn the craft of storytelling-which is the reason for doing shorts.
Jeez, what type of logic is behind it? Do feature first? Really? It's like telling a guy, who wants to get into a boxing school, to go to fight a pro straight away. You probably can imagine the result, right? One of them said about 50k for a feature? Come on, if you want to draw some attention on your skills (working with actors, cinematic vision, blocking, and what so ever) to make like 3-5 shorts in different genres for the same 50k looks much more promising to me. And how else would you gain your experience? Usually, those first half dozen shorts is the thing that helps to find a way to yourself, to start hear and actually listen to yourself and, of course, sharpen your understanding and speed. What kind of sh*t would be that feature if it's your first thing? It's like 'I've read a tonne of books and seen a million videos on youtube and vimeo, so I'm ready to make my own feature film'. Too idealistic. And too stupid.
True... however, some people are natural boxers, and even if they lose their first fight with a pro boxer, they’ve still put up enough fight to prove to people that he’s/she’s got some talent and might be worth putting their bet into. The thing is, we can never know who are natural visual storytellers who can jump right into it, but what we do know is that there are a lot of other factors to moviemaking that require experience and don’t come naturally.
@@whengrapespop5728 The whole idea of "innate talent" is bullshit. Anyone who jumps right into making a feature without making some shorts first is just setting themselves up for failure. Not to mention the fact that investors aren't stupid. They won't give you money if you haven't proven yourself. *This isn't the 80s or 90s anymore.* It's a FAR better investment to make a couple no-budget shorts AT LEAST; something you can be proud of and something that will show them that you can FINISH something.
Feature film is the ultimate goal , short film is to know how actually the film making works ...it helps to test your skills and improving them ..eventually to help you to become a film maker !
@@DenAwesomeFilmmaker But then I have to also congratulate them because I can't get shit happening and they obviously can and are in the position where they have 50 grand to spend on a film. So there's that.
I don't like the assumption that Shorts and Low budget features ARE just a step in the path along to becoming a big hollywood director. There is absolutely nothing wrong with just staying at that level of budgets. There can only be a finite number of studio directors, there can be an infinite number of independent filmmakers. How many people on channels like this, "experts" have actually made films that you recognise? That is how rare becoming mainstream is. There can be happiness and creative satisfaction in striving to be the best independent filmmaker you can be
But people have gotten hired for projects via shorts, especially punchy ones that grab genre studios’ attention for hiring It’s a weird ecosystem nowadays
Not exactly true IMHO. The idea that both of these things are mutually exclusive paths is kinda nonsensical, given the evidence. Yes, everyone makes shorts in film school. But nobody wants to see what you made in film school because what you made in film school SUCKS (almost guaranteed).
It's whatever with this debate...depends on where you are in life and what your pockets/resources look like. Ol boy said he had $7000 at 18 just to throw at a movie and free actors cause "everybody wants to act". Another dude was talking about just throwing up $50k. Really? Yeah with those resources and a good story, I say hell yeah go do your feature. There's no excuse. Okay so what if you have a story you can tell in 15min, $1500 and free actors who are all grown ass adults with responsibilities? Making that short is a waste of time, huh? So basically don't make anything unless you have at least $5,000 and can pay people to act for a few weeks, so you can get at least 80 min on the screen. Okay. Cool.
I don’t buy this “everyone wants to act” schtick I hear so often. From my experience and from observation, I’ve noticed that, unless you live in a filmmaking hub, like LA or New York City, 90% of your pool is going to be made up of some highly deluded individuals. You write a great script? You will find that the talent pool thins very quickly (that is, if you truly understand what real talent and drive actually looks like).
Story goes without saying, I think this video is more about what to start out with to be seen if you already have good stories. Plenty of people hav good stories, but producing a movie is a lot more than that.
3:16 - I know this video is 7 years old, but who tf is making a $50K VFX short film? For what/who would that ever be for? With 50K you could pump out 7-8 quality short films. That was so weird for him to ever make his point like that.
My son is so keen for us to finally make a feature but so far we have only made shorts and I don't understand why you would want to make a feature from the start - the first few films you make will not be causing waves unless you're David Lynch or Steven Spielberg and mistakes are bound to be made so I feel the best time to take the quantum leap to features is when you can make a decent short. A five minute short that is hard to watch is a lot less costly then a 90 minute feature that is just as hard to watch but now 18 times longer. Our recent shorts have been selected in a couple of festivals but it is not at the level I want it to be as yet so will likely continue to make shorts till I get a lot better. Hopefully by the time I am ready to make a feature I will have made some relationships with other filmmakers as I see a feature is just too much for the lone filmmaker while a 5 to 10 minute short is a lot more achievable. Also I would think the trend is more towards viewers favoring shorts over features with shortening attention spans and the current trend for shorter videos on tik tok and yourutbe.
Forget all of this noise. Go make a short film. You need to start somewhere. Write that script. Make that movie for low budget and hone your craft. It's nonsense to think you can pull off a feature without making at least a couple of short films. Spend far less time making a short, submit it into festivals and try to win some awards. Build that resume first. If you spend all your life trying to make a feature, you'll have nothing to show for.
At least there's a chance with a bad short film of people watching the whole thing because it doesn't run very long. A bad feature, people will stop watching after 15 minutes
If you can compress a story in a single or minimal locations, with interesting characters, seductive dialogue, you engage an audience into empathy, exhilaration, pathos, struggle, and resolution for 90+ minutes. If the story is plot-driven or character-driven can dictate whether it's best as a short or a feature. Does the story need more than 8 minutes to effectively tell a story? What is my budget? How good is my talent? What is the availability? How skilled are my collaborators? Is my gear capable of achieving what I want. Do I spend three weeks shooting a short with multiple takes to be a polished gem, or do I spend those weeks and compress my time with single-take scenes and compromise the ambition or acting quality? There are so many variables. The two most important things are: "Who am I making this film for?" and "Will this film steer my future career in the direction to where I want to go?"
I agree with both make it as long as it has to be for that story. Me personally, people are constantly telling me to "make short films" and I keep saying no. I made 10 or so music videos, some which were pretty long and more like a short film than a music video. They just don't appeal to me anymore. Short films to me seem like an example of what you could do "if" you had the chance. But features in general (to me, anyway, not putting anyone down) are the full package. the full story, the final thing, moment captured in time. Even if it's a bit crap, it's complete, it's done. It'll have it's own flavour. But that said, short films are good at showcasing technique, or an "idea". Basically, like Chopin's Preludes. haha
People who don't go to film school are the people who make short to get their things right. We also started it by a mere smartphone only & here we are making our own way into the world of filmmaking.
For these 'folks' on this program saying that making film shorts is dead, foolish and waste of time are extremely misinformed. The Simpsons started out as a series of 1 minute animated shorts on The Tracey Altman Show back in 1989 on Fox Network. Those shorts spin off into longest running cartoon show ever. Almost 40 years later, The Simpsons is proof that a proof of concept like film shorts can springboard into something bigger. South Park, Beavis And Butthead, Powerpuff Girls, District 9, Pixels are just many examples how film shorts was turned into a successful show or a full length movie. Folks seriously need to educated before throwing out there opinion as facts.
It all depends on how you want it nowadays. A subject of two friends goes on an adventure to catch a rare butterfly species in the woods!! can be made into a short or feature. It all depends on how you tells the story and your skills. With a Camera and a script you can make Shorts or features now. You can do a 10 min or a 90 min version with a bunch of friends and free actors on your DSLR or Mirrorless with all the borrowed equipments. All you want is time and patience for a feature. Shorts are better for TH-cam,Vimeo etc
By the numbers, first features are garbage. The rare exception proves the rule. A wise newb will learn to play chopsticks before attempting Tchaikovsky.
If you want to test and improve your technical prowess, variety and short films will help. But if you want to text yourself as a consistent writer/storyteller you’d have to focus more on short film. Just my opinion
In music, don't go to music school, and spend the money on a studio and start recording., Don't go to film school, get a great camera with the money instead and start writing and filming.
oh my god, literally just tell the story you want to tell and stop worrying about investors. if your story is long, make it a feature. if your story is short, make it a short. i really hate this stupid mentality about "wasting time" and courting investors. you really shouldn't be making movies if this shit keeps you up at night, and this is how you become a dishonest artist.
Good luck making that feature WITH NO ONE TO GIVE YOU MONEY. This is a business, not quite an art gallery (no offense). *It's the 20th/21st century art form. It merges art AND commerce.* Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that a story should be as long as it needs to be, but let's not forget the practicalities, here! (It sucks but it's wiser than being overly idealistic, most professionals will tell you the same thing)
Short films are cool if you want to just make films as a hobby. But for us that shoot videos full time and need money to move our life ahead we need to make money, I ask my friends why they are making shorts when shorts don't make money. It makes no sense
when they talk about 'feature films' can you ask them 'how long' they mean? A feature can run from 46 minutes to 90 minutes or more. For the writer and the budget 'how long' means a lot. I take it that these guys mean 90 minutes.
what's up with the advice james cullen bressack is giving? how can he advise a film student to just make a full feature and not to make a short? his advice is kinda like giving a set of car keys to the baby but the baby hadn't figured out how to walk. man make short films all in the name of development and understanding general principals of filmmaking
Another commenter kind of said the same thing, except he compared it to putting a guy who wants to be a boxer in a fight with a pro boxer. However, as I said to him, some people are natural boxers, and even if they lose their first fight with a pro boxer, they’ve still put up enough fight to prove to people that he’s/she’s got some talent and might be worth putting their bet into. The thing is, we can never know who are natural visual storytellers who can jump right into it, but what we do know is that there are a lot of other factors to moviemaking that require experience and don’t come naturally.
Then make the short YOU would like to see. There's stuff I hate seeing in shorts all the time, so I'm going to make one that _I_ would like to see. Same goes for features.
Wow a lot of entitled butthurt people in the comments. Reality is too tough on you guys huh? Just do whichever you're comfortable with whether its shorts or features but the advice in the video are people who have been through both and now you all are butthurt and questioning whether their advice is legit or not? Keep staying in the comments and hating instead of making films..
Good scripts are definitely out there. Some might get bought. Most never get produced. Mediocre scripts are produced much more often. They are less original, more formulaic. Something that has commercially worked before will get made again.
That guy saying that some worker who is afraid of getting fired because he risked to give you money from his boss? Listen to those words better... It's idiotic! So the fate of that one trembling worker is more important than the fate of a film that will be seen by the whole world? C'mooon, that's kindergarden state of affairs! They hardly even say anything about the artistic side of the deal, about whether the film is awesome or shit? It all depends on just some one worker that is trembling for his lousey job that can not justify asking money from the boss? That's really cowardly and childish of him. I was a better opinion of the industry, thought it's more mature grand and brave. The boss himself should go "WOW! I want to sponsor that!" Hope this is just this one guy who has such a pathetic view on the industry.
Short films to practice are ok, but they should only put on youtube so you gather followers -- because ultimately, what will sell your feature film to the festivals is your personal brand. For the first couple of short films, don't even put them on youtube, they'll be bad, so only show them to friends and family and gather feedback. Do not spend time in short film festivals, they're a waste of time. After a couple of years, when you have both a growing following and experience, then go for the feature. The feature is the one most people in the industry care about, because it shows that you are able to fulfill a project from its beginning to its end. That's the bottomline.
All this focus on investors and money. I get that that's the nature of getting your films made, but I think anyone with half a brain in the film industry would say that a well made short is better than a badly made feature. Certainly a shoe string budget short will usually be cheaper and less time consuming to make than a low budget feature, and you can make more of the former and develop your filmmaking/storytelling skills by making them. In that sense there's no substitute for practice and experience, and no one's going to make something amazing straight out of the gate (just look at the early films of some famous directors if you don't believe me).
I am really fed up with this ridiculous versus mentality. Short films and feature films have there place. Go where your heart takes you. Neither way is wrong.
I know. It's a ridiculous argument. The decision to do a short versus a feature a lot of the time is getting people's time.
Exactly.
I seriously believe that every person has to make his own journey and that could be feature or short as a first project, heck if we're talking about storytelling there are more and more options available. I guess it's a matter of knowing where you want to be heading and following that route and sometimes by doing this you stumble on unexpected paths which end up being your true calling.
“After film school don’t make any short films...” but, what if we didn’t go to film school?
That’s why we make short films.
Short films also teach you how to manage a budget, how to get a project to completion, how to network, how to be resourceful.
@@davetinoco exactly. a lot of these amateurs preaching that you have to jump straight into features have no idea how important it is to first learn how to manage a film production to its completion. it's bizarre for anyone to think that they'll be able to pull off a feature without learning the necessary steps of making short films.
I've seen so many features in the last 10 years that were made by people that didn't have a basic understanding of the craft, much less of the art of filmmaking. Yes, there have always been bad films, but never this bad on a basic level--and never so many. The reason you should make shorts, and a lot of them, is to hone your craft and hopefully find your voice. Just because you can make a feature relatively cheaply now, doesn't mean you should. And there's this; you can make a ton of crappy shorts. But if you make one bad feature, you'll never raise money for a 2nd one.
Silvie Monk: I couldn't agree more. And thus the market today is over saturated with mediocre features than good ones.
Totally agree, I've directed 3 shorts and now finishing my 4th. Just finished my feature script but imma do 2 more shorts then shoot my feature.
This this THIS. Some of the films I've seen the last couple of years are so bad, they aren't fit to shine Uwe Boll's shoes. We're not even talking bad, but completely incompetent of the absolute basics - focus, exposition, camera movement, structure.... jesus the 360 degree rule, my god, I've seen features where they don't know what it is!
@@PandyBong Don't you mean the 180 Degree Rule??? (not trying to be a dick, I totally agree)
@@firstlast-oo1he that’s the one :)
It's pretty disappointing that nobody really talks about whether the story you have in mind is better served as a short or a feature. Like, how about you make the thing that best serves the story? To me, if the story in a feature film could ultimately be whittled down to a short and still be as compelling (or better), make the short. If the short leaves you wanting more (in a good way), WELL...give 'em more!
This was posted years before the real streaming boom, but now there are just so many options for you to get your work seen in a particularly "professional" way. So make the most professional thing you can that serves the story in the best way and put it out there.
When you are a clear-mind director... You will don't care much about serve a story. Filmmaking is not to talk about, just do it
Exactly!
I still think a well made short film will serve you better than a low budget, shitty feature film.
Making a short to help serve a feature you're making will help you with investors because it will show them what you're trying to do as opposed to you telling them it will be good.
Tangerine is a low budget feature with the iPhone 5 as the camera and it was a great film.
I'm currently in film school now. When I graduate I won't be making short films but I do make short films now. It's a fantastic way to learn how framing, lighting, and filmmmaking in general works. Also, being able to create a powerful story in say under 5 minutes isn't as easy as you may think. Making short films is a great learning experience but I agree that if you want to become "well-known" you should start on the feature length films eventually. I don't think anyone should just jump into a feature, it doesn't make sense. There's too much preparation needed.
Short films are for beginners and should be done to learn the craft of filmmaking. To see your potential, to make mistakes, to learn from those mistakes and improve. Once you've mastered short films and beleive you are ready to go big then you can move on to features. You can also use a short to pitch a feature. Show that you are capable of directing the idea.
I'm making shorts in order to hone my skills before making a feature film
I think people to do short films to hone their craft more so when people do a feature it will be much better because you can do load of short films and more opportunities to try new things unlike a feature where you have to stick to that toned film for ages I hope that makes sense lol
Hay David, I totally agree with you and your philosophy. The guy James Cullen Bressack doesn't make sense to me at all. Why would he encourage or advise an inexperienced filmmaker / film student to not produce a short but produce a full feature? Shorts are a good way like you said to hone their craft and figure out how a to run a film set, manage time, manage money, develop their style of storytelling, work with trained/untrained actors, and getting a hands-on understanding on how to run a set. Not to mention what to do after all the content has been captured and set for post-production. These guys all have good points but advising an aspiring filmmaker not to make a short can lead to financial suicide and damage a filmmakers reputation. Making a film is easy.......especially when you learn to know what your doing. Short films are alive it's the best training anyone can experience.
If story is worth telling to people then make it whether it is short film or feature film.
Jeez... thank you. That's the whole point. There are so many garbage features out there because people don't take the time to learn the craft of storytelling-which is the reason for doing shorts.
Jeez, what type of logic is behind it? Do feature first? Really? It's like telling a guy, who wants to get into a boxing school, to go to fight a pro straight away. You probably can imagine the result, right? One of them said about 50k for a feature? Come on, if you want to draw some attention on your skills (working with actors, cinematic vision, blocking, and what so ever) to make like 3-5 shorts in different genres for the same 50k looks much more promising to me. And how else would you gain your experience? Usually, those first half dozen shorts is the thing that helps to find a way to yourself, to start hear and actually listen to yourself and, of course, sharpen your understanding and speed. What kind of sh*t would be that feature if it's your first thing? It's like 'I've read a tonne of books and seen a million videos on youtube and vimeo, so I'm ready to make my own feature film'. Too idealistic. And too stupid.
True... however, some people are natural boxers, and even if they lose their first fight with a pro boxer, they’ve still put up enough fight to prove to people that he’s/she’s got some talent and might be worth putting their bet into. The thing is, we can never know who are natural visual storytellers who can jump right into it, but what we do know is that there are a lot of other factors to moviemaking that require experience and don’t come naturally.
@@whengrapespop5728 The whole idea of "innate talent" is bullshit. Anyone who jumps right into making a feature without making some shorts first is just setting themselves up for failure. Not to mention the fact that investors aren't stupid. They won't give you money if you haven't proven yourself. *This isn't the 80s or 90s anymore.* It's a FAR better investment to make a couple no-budget shorts AT LEAST; something you can be proud of and something that will show them that you can FINISH something.
Feature film is the ultimate goal , short film is to know how actually the film making works ...it helps to test your skills and improving them ..eventually to help you to become a film maker !
Exactly!
Do both.
A $50,000 short film? Why would anyone do that?
Seen some do it... Usually fails...
@@DenAwesomeFilmmaker You could make five features for $50, 000. Well I could.
@@cinemar Exactly
@@DenAwesomeFilmmaker But then I have to also congratulate them because I can't get shit happening and they obviously can and are in the position where they have 50 grand to spend on a film. So there's that.
Wow everybody has a different take on this subject.....I guess it’s up to the person. Art is Art. Do what you Feel in your gut.
Just annoys me how contradictory it all is.
I don't like the assumption that Shorts and Low budget features ARE just a step in the path along to becoming a big hollywood director. There is absolutely nothing wrong with just staying at that level of budgets. There can only be a finite number of studio directors, there can be an infinite number of independent filmmakers. How many people on channels like this, "experts" have actually made films that you recognise? That is how rare becoming mainstream is. There can be happiness and creative satisfaction in striving to be the best independent filmmaker you can be
Shorts are for practice, Features are for building and growing a career.
But people have gotten hired for projects via shorts, especially punchy ones that grab genre studios’ attention for hiring
It’s a weird ecosystem nowadays
Not exactly true IMHO. The idea that both of these things are mutually exclusive paths is kinda nonsensical, given the evidence.
Yes, everyone makes shorts in film school. But nobody wants to see what you made in film school because what you made in film school SUCKS (almost guaranteed).
Always great advice. "You've got to absolutely love the project or you will never have the wherewithal to complete it."
It's whatever with this debate...depends on where you are in life and what your pockets/resources look like. Ol boy said he had $7000 at 18 just to throw at a movie and free actors cause "everybody wants to act". Another dude was talking about just throwing up $50k. Really? Yeah with those resources and a good story, I say hell yeah go do your feature. There's no excuse. Okay so what if you have a story you can tell in 15min, $1500 and free actors who are all grown ass adults with responsibilities? Making that short is a waste of time, huh? So basically don't make anything unless you have at least $5,000 and can pay people to act for a few weeks, so you can get at least 80 min on the screen. Okay. Cool.
It's funny how the advocates of doing feature length are focused on $ and those focused on learning craft advocate for the short.
spot on
I don’t buy this “everyone wants to act” schtick I hear so often. From my experience and from observation, I’ve noticed that, unless you live in a filmmaking hub, like LA or New York City, 90% of your pool is going to be made up of some highly deluded individuals.
You write a great script? You will find that the talent pool thins very quickly (that is, if you truly understand what real talent and drive actually looks like).
It’s amazing how little story was mentioned
Story goes without saying, I think this video is more about what to start out with to be seen if you already have good stories. Plenty of people hav good stories, but producing a movie is a lot more than that.
3:16 - I know this video is 7 years old, but who tf is making a $50K VFX short film? For what/who would that ever be for? With 50K you could pump out 7-8 quality short films. That was so weird for him to ever make his point like that.
Making a feature with little experience is exceptionally risky.
I'd rather make a good dense short film instead of a feature that makes me fall asleep halfway through.
My son is so keen for us to finally make a feature but so far we have only made shorts and I don't understand why you would want to make a feature from the start - the first few films you make will not be causing waves unless you're David Lynch or Steven Spielberg and mistakes are bound to be made so I feel the best time to take the quantum leap to features is when you can make a decent short. A five minute short that is hard to watch is a lot less costly then a 90 minute feature that is just as hard to watch but now 18 times longer. Our recent shorts have been selected in a couple of festivals but it is not at the level I want it to be as yet so will likely continue to make shorts till I get a lot better. Hopefully by the time I am ready to make a feature I will have made some relationships with other filmmakers as I see a feature is just too much for the lone filmmaker while a 5 to 10 minute short is a lot more achievable. Also I would think the trend is more towards viewers favoring shorts over features with shortening attention spans and the current trend for shorter videos on tik tok and yourutbe.
Thanks film courage! This video make me decide what should I do!! Thanks for the work you guys do!! Really, really valuable!!
Our pleasure! Enjoy the process as much as you can.
What did you decide to do?
Forget all of this noise. Go make a short film. You need to start somewhere. Write that script. Make that movie for low budget and hone your craft. It's nonsense to think you can pull off a feature without making at least a couple of short films. Spend far less time making a short, submit it into festivals and try to win some awards. Build that resume first. If you spend all your life trying to make a feature, you'll have nothing to show for.
shorts will never die, there will always be an audience for them.
At least there's a chance with a bad short film of people watching the whole thing because it doesn't run very long. A bad feature, people will stop watching after 15 minutes
If you can compress a story in a single or minimal locations, with interesting characters, seductive dialogue, you engage an audience into empathy, exhilaration, pathos, struggle, and resolution for 90+ minutes. If the story is plot-driven or character-driven can dictate whether it's best as a short or a feature. Does the story need more than 8 minutes to effectively tell a story? What is my budget? How good is my talent? What is the availability? How skilled are my collaborators? Is my gear capable of achieving what I want. Do I spend three weeks shooting a short with multiple takes to be a polished gem, or do I spend those weeks and compress my time with single-take scenes and compromise the ambition or acting quality?
There are so many variables. The two most important things are: "Who am I making this film for?" and "Will this film steer my future career in the direction to where I want to go?"
I agree with both make it as long as it has to be for that story. Me personally, people are constantly telling me to "make short films" and I keep saying no. I made 10 or so music videos, some which were pretty long and more like a short film than a music video. They just don't appeal to me anymore. Short films to me seem like an example of what you could do "if" you had the chance. But features in general (to me, anyway, not putting anyone down) are the full package. the full story, the final thing, moment captured in time. Even if it's a bit crap, it's complete, it's done. It'll have it's own flavour. But that said, short films are good at showcasing technique, or an "idea". Basically, like Chopin's Preludes. haha
0:30 Oh, no wonder I never get anything done... I'm just too ambitious. Darn!
how would one go about to get interviewed on your channel?
Correct answer: It depends
Currently making video essays in the meantime while I write my shorts!
Good Filmmaking write*
Short films are not dead in the water lol
It's like saying poetry, haikus, and short stories are dead.
Plus that dudes desk was a mess I’m taking what he says with a grain of salt
Isn't this a short film?
LOL. That's funny
Not really, you could argue it's similar in some regards to a documentary but it's just a compilation.
People who don't go to film school are the people who make short to get their things right. We also started it by a mere smartphone only & here we are making our own way into the world of filmmaking.
For these 'folks' on this program saying that making film shorts is dead, foolish and waste of time are extremely misinformed. The Simpsons started out as a series of 1 minute animated shorts on The Tracey Altman Show back in 1989 on Fox Network. Those shorts spin off into longest running cartoon show ever. Almost 40 years later, The Simpsons is proof that a proof of concept like film shorts can springboard into something bigger. South Park, Beavis And Butthead, Powerpuff Girls, District 9, Pixels are just many examples how film shorts was turned into a successful show or a full length movie. Folks seriously need to educated before throwing out there opinion as facts.
It all depends on how you want it nowadays.
A subject of two friends goes on an adventure to catch a rare butterfly species in the woods!! can be made into a short or feature. It all depends on how you tells the story and your skills.
With a Camera and a script you can make Shorts or features now.
You can do a 10 min or a 90 min version with a bunch of friends and free actors on your DSLR or Mirrorless with all the borrowed equipments.
All you want is time and patience for a feature.
Shorts are better for TH-cam,Vimeo etc
By the numbers, first features are garbage. The rare exception proves the rule. A wise newb will learn to play chopsticks before attempting Tchaikovsky.
Most of these people are really abrasive and off-putting. Insecurity (and compensatory egotism) radiate off of them.
Simple when you are learning start with shorts and once you have mastered a short make longer films until you are ready to make a feature
If you want to test and improve your technical prowess, variety and short films will help. But if you want to text yourself as a consistent writer/storyteller you’d have to focus more on short film. Just my opinion
Finger man (1955) is a good movie. I hope he had permission if it's like the original.
"Go hard or go home"! Meaning, dream big, think big, and go big...feature films BABY!
This is awful advice in today's film industry.
Awesome channel just subscribed! = : )
Great to hear, thanks James!
In music, don't go to music school, and spend the money on a studio and start recording., Don't go to film school, get a great camera with the money instead and start writing and filming.
Do what your budget and time allows you to do
oh my god, literally just tell the story you want to tell and stop worrying about investors. if your story is long, make it a feature. if your story is short, make it a short. i really hate this stupid mentality about "wasting time" and courting investors. you really shouldn't be making movies if this shit keeps you up at night, and this is how you become a dishonest artist.
Good luck making that feature WITH NO ONE TO GIVE YOU MONEY. This is a business, not quite an art gallery (no offense). *It's the 20th/21st century art form. It merges art AND commerce.*
Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that a story should be as long as it needs to be, but let's not forget the practicalities, here! (It sucks but it's wiser than being overly idealistic, most professionals will tell you the same thing)
Can someone explain time what a feature film is? Google was indecisive.
Generally, a feature is anything over 45 minutes. Anything under 45 is considered a short.
Generally.
Great video
The phrase that the short film proponents kept forgetting is, "Proof of Concept".
Awesome!
Short films are cool if you want to just make films as a hobby. But for us that shoot videos full time and need money to move our life ahead we need to make money, I ask my friends why they are making shorts when shorts don't make money. It makes no sense
when they talk about 'feature films' can you ask them 'how long' they mean? A feature can run from 46 minutes to 90 minutes or more. For the writer and the budget 'how long' means a lot. I take it that these guys mean 90 minutes.
what's up with the advice james cullen bressack is giving? how can he advise a film student to just make a full feature and not to make a short? his advice is kinda like giving a set of car keys to the baby but the baby hadn't figured out how to walk. man make short films all in the name of development and understanding general principals of filmmaking
Thank you very much. good advice
Another commenter kind of said the same thing, except he compared it to putting a guy who wants to be a boxer in a fight with a pro boxer. However, as I said to him, some people are natural boxers, and even if they lose their first fight with a pro boxer, they’ve still put up enough fight to prove to people that he’s/she’s got some talent and might be worth putting their bet into. The thing is, we can never know who are natural visual storytellers who can jump right into it, but what we do know is that there are a lot of other factors to moviemaking that require experience and don’t come naturally.
A feature I feel like is just a bunch of short films put together.
a pitch is what it is called
I don't like watching shorts.
Then make the short YOU would like to see. There's stuff I hate seeing in shorts all the time, so I'm going to make one that _I_ would like to see. Same goes for features.
@@firstlast-oo1he You are right.
I ignored all this negative bollocks and I went straight to a 500 min drama series. I'm making an episode for like $7,000 each
How did it turn out sir?
Ashton Grist, yeah, how did it turn out?
Wow a lot of entitled butthurt people in the comments. Reality is too tough on you guys huh? Just do whichever you're comfortable with whether its shorts or features but the advice in the video are people who have been through both and now you all are butthurt and questioning whether their advice is legit or not? Keep staying in the comments and hating instead of making films..
Good scripts are definitely out there. Some might get bought. Most never get produced.
Mediocre scripts are produced much more often. They are less original, more formulaic. Something that has commercially worked before will get made again.
That guy saying that some worker who is afraid of getting fired because he risked to give you money from his boss? Listen to those words better... It's idiotic!
So the fate of that one trembling worker is more important than the fate of a film that will be seen by the whole world? C'mooon, that's kindergarden state of affairs!
They hardly even say anything about the artistic side of the deal, about whether the film is awesome or shit? It all depends on just some one worker that is trembling for his lousey job that can not justify asking money from the boss? That's really cowardly and childish of him. I was a better opinion of the industry, thought it's more mature grand and brave.
The boss himself should go "WOW! I want to sponsor that!"
Hope this is just this one guy who has such a pathetic view on the industry.
No that one trembling guy sums up the whole industry.
Short films to practice are ok, but they should only put on youtube so you gather followers -- because ultimately, what will sell your feature film to the festivals is your personal brand. For the first couple of short films, don't even put them on youtube, they'll be bad, so only show them to friends and family and gather feedback. Do not spend time in short film festivals, they're a waste of time. After a couple of years, when you have both a growing following and experience, then go for the feature. The feature is the one most people in the industry care about, because it shows that you are able to fulfill a project from its beginning to its end. That's the bottomline.
i call cap on that book report story
All this focus on investors and money. I get that that's the nature of getting your films made, but I think anyone with half a brain in the film industry would say that a well made short is better than a badly made feature. Certainly a shoe string budget short will usually be cheaper and less time consuming to make than a low budget feature, and you can make more of the former and develop your filmmaking/storytelling skills by making them. In that sense there's no substitute for practice and experience, and no one's going to make something amazing straight out of the gate (just look at the early films of some famous directors if you don't believe me).