Dissapointing...

[Alcove Audio]

Not bad at all. I'll just quickly blurt out my impressions...



I didn't care for the wall to wall music, and it could have used some real sound design.

The concept is not overly used, but nothing revolutionary either.

Looked nice.

Acting was okay.

A little too much talk-talk; it needed some more action.

Needed more tension at the resolution point.




Uncle Bobs score : B-/C+

[ItDonnedOnMe]

Originally Posted by finderskeepers

I always imagine I'm in the desert selling a bucket of sand.
"Hey want to buy my sand, it's special?"
"Nahh. We are making our own sand right now."

That's the problem with selling sand in the desert. If you want to be successful, you've got to take the sand from the desert and sell it somewhere they're short on sand. The trick is finding those places.

As great as indietalk is, the truth is it (and any other filmmaking community, site, etc) is the desert. It's a great place to find advice, and support, and inspiration - but it's not the place to find your audience.

Places like YouTube and Vimeo aren't either, they're too broad, too general. Your audience may be there, but they're distributed too broadly to have much chance of reaching them, especially through chance discovery. As platforms they can help amplify a popular film, but you've got to find that popularity elsewhere.

You have to start by knowing who in particular would want to watch your film... if the answer is 'anyone' or 'everyone' then it means you either don't really know the answer, or your film isn't really distinctive enough to stand out among the rest.

Unfortunately I think that may be part of Brooksey's problem. His film is good - but there are a lot of good short films being made these days. I don't see much that makes it distinctive, makes it stand out from all the other good films, makes it speak directly to any specific audience. That's not a knock against the film, but it's a strike against it when it comes to getting people to watch it.

I think you'll need to chalk this one up to experience, and move on to the next film. Only this time, identify an audience first. Figure out who they are, where they are, how you're going to reach them - and what you're going to put in the film that will make that particular audience take notice, identify with it, share it with their friends, etc.

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Originally Posted by GuerrillaAngel

As soon as your short is finished, it's dead. Good thing you didn't sink $15,000 into it like some people I know.

I don't think having a short in your resume is impressive to anyone that matters anymore. Start to work on a feature.

Good luck.

Except that f you haven't cut your teeth on several shorts there is a 99.99999997% chance your feature will be a complete disaster most likely running off the rails and never even being completed because you don't know what the F you're doing.

[Kholi]

Originally Posted by Gonzo_Entertainment

Except that f you haven't cut your teeth on several shorts there is a 99.99999997% chance your feature will be a complete disaster most likely running off the rails and never even being completed because you don't know what the F you're doing.

So, you're saying, if you've never completed a short film then you're basically going to have a disastrous feature film? Unless you're in the negligible percentage point that could possibly have a successful one?

Inversely, that means you believe that doing short films somehow raises the chances of a successful feature film production? as if they are the same thing? Just confusing, is all.

Topic Question:

Not necessarily to the OP, but if you want your short to be seen by someone that matters be ambitious about your subject matter and production overall. There's one opinion here that states a short is dead once it's done, and as if it's bad to spend fifteen thousand dollars on it.

I'm not a major advocate of short films, but I'll say that you should probably cross check info before listening to odd blurbs like this. I can easily point you to at least three short films in the last year that did a lot for the careers of filmmakers.

They weren't new to this stuff, though, and the production value is clearly above "good".

[Alcove Audio]

What many of us are saying is that practice makes for proficiency and efficiency. Yes, there are those who manage to make a passable feature their first time around, but they are an extremely miniscule minority.

The difference between an amateur and a professional is that a professional learns from mistakes. And most of us are going to make LOTS of mistakes when we start out. That's what learning is all about. It's a lot more economical to make those mistakes on a small level doing shorts that will never get anywhere rather than blowing large amounts of money doing a feature that will never get anywhere.

[directorik]

Originally Posted by Kholi

So, you're saying, if you've never completed a short film then you're basically going to have a disastrous feature film? Unless you're in the negligible percentage point that could possibly have a successful one?

Inversely, that means you believe that doing short films somehow raises the chances of a successful feature film production? as if they are the same thing? Just confusing, is all.

To me this isn't confusing at all.

It seems to me that the more practice you have at anything the
better you are at it. That doesn't mean you cannot make a good
feature without making any short films. And it doesn't mean you
will make a successful feature if you make several short films. But
yes, I think doing short films raises the chances of a successful
feature film production. How could it not?

And since making several short films is less expensive than making
several feature films, making a few shorts before tackling a feature
seems like really good advice.

[2001 Productions]

And, Brooksy, you think shorts are frustrating? Wait 'til you spend years of your life and thousands of dollars on a feature, only to watch it languish on a shelf because (presumably) you weren't fortunate enough to land name talent for it.

Done it three times in 20+ years -- spent more than $80,000 of my own money and haven't seen a dime. Do you know the definition of insanity?

[Kholi]

Originally Posted by directorik

To me this isn't confusing at all.

It seems to me that the more practice you have at anything the
better you are at it. That doesn't mean you cannot make a good
feature without making any short films.

This isn't what the comment said, it said the exact opposite.

And it doesn't mean you will make a successful feature if you make several short films.

Logical, but the comment was not.

But yes, I think doing short films raises the chances of a successful
feature film production. How could it not?

Maybe, maybe not.

And since making several short films is less expensive than making
several feature films, making a few shorts before tackling a feature
seems like really good advice.

Depends on what the shorts or the features are.

Never said it was bad advice, there wasn't any advice being given, just a statement that didn't make sense (as it was stated almost too plainly).

[Kholi]

Originally Posted by ItDonnedOnMe

That's the problem with selling sand in the desert. If you want to be successful, you've got to take the sand from the desert and sell it somewhere they're short on sand. The trick is finding those places.

As great as indietalk is, the truth is it (and any other filmmaking community, site, etc) is the desert. It's a great place to find advice, and support, and inspiration - but it's not the place to find your audience.

Places like YouTube and Vimeo aren't either, they're too broad, too general. Your audience may be there, but they're distributed too broadly to have much chance of reaching them, especially through chance discovery. As platforms they can help amplify a popular film, but you've got to find that popularity elsewhere.

You have to start by knowing who in particular would want to watch your film... if the answer is 'anyone' or 'everyone' then it means you either don't really know the answer, or your film isn't really distinctive enough to stand out among the rest.

Unfortunately I think that may be part of Brooksey's problem. His film is good - but there are a lot of good short films being made these days. I don't see much that makes it distinctive, makes it stand out from all the other good films, makes it speak directly to any specific audience. That's not a knock against the film, but it's a strike against it when it comes to getting people to watch it.

I think you'll need to chalk this one up to experience, and move on to the next film. Only this time, identify an audience first. Figure out who they are, where they are, how you're going to reach them - and what you're going to put in the film that will make that particular audience take notice, identify with it, share it with their friends, etc.

This is advice, and good advice. Realistic, and honest.

But, I typically agree with Donned, anyway.

[NickClapper]

I think the age old debate of 'shorts vs a feature' will never be fully solved. It's totally subjective: some people will need the practice to make a decent film, some people will make a decent film straight away and some people could use all the practice in the world and they'd still never make something worthwhile as a feature. There will never be a definitive answer but I think these are solid factual points:

1.) More practice will not make you worse as a filmmaker. It might put you off filmmaking altogether but it is likely to be a positive influence, if it has any influence at all.

2.) If you are making short films for a large, commercial audience then you are barking up the wrong tree. You should make shorts so that you have some narrative work to show potential investors, maybe pick up some festival laurels, maybe meet some interesting cast and crew. But there is no big market for short films so disabuse yourself of that sense of disappointment and get on with some shameless self-promotion.

3.) Tackling a feature film is an entirely different beast to a short. Artistically, logistically and financially the similarities between the two are like the difference between riding a trike and a motorcycle. It's possible to make 100 shorts and still be overwhelmed by the process of shooting a feature. Yes, shorts will help but, in the long run, there are innate characteristics in all successful directors that make it possible for them to shoot features.

4.) If you find the process of shooting shorts fun, shoot shorts. If you find the process ok but would enjoy it if there were more pay-off then, at a certain point, you'll have to accept that you've come as far as you can with the short film medium. Sometimes real ambition gets in the way of finding the process enjoyable.

5.) If you're spending $10,000 on short after short eventually you'll have the piss or get off the pot. Money's hard to find so don't blow it. If you've got it to shoot a short, then shoot a great short. But don't think that just because you've got $10,000 in your bank right now, all you can do is shoot a short. Patience and economy will serve you well in the long run.

Just some thoughts

[Kholi]

Originally Posted by NickClapper

I think the age old debate of 'shorts vs a feature' will never be fully solved. It's totally subjective: some people will need the practice to make a decent film, some people will make a decent film straight away and some people could use all the practice in the world and they'd still never make something worthwhile as a feature. There will never be a definitive answer but I think these are solid factual points:

1.) More practice will not make you worse as a filmmaker. It might put you off filmmaking altogether but it is likely to be a positive influence, if it has any influence at all.

2.) If you are making short films for a large, commercial audience then you are barking up the wrong tree. You should make shorts so that you have some narrative work to show potential investors, maybe pick up some festival laurels, maybe meet some interesting cast and crew. But there is no big market for short films so disabuse yourself of that sense of disappointment and get on with some shameless self-promotion.

3.) Tackling a feature film is an entirely different beast to a short. Artistically, logistically and financially the similarities between the two are like the difference between riding a trike and a motorcycle. It's possible to make 100 shorts and still be overwhelmed by the process of shooting a feature. Yes, shorts will help but, in the long run, there are innate characteristics in all successful directors that make it possible for them to shoot features.

4.) If you find the process of shooting shorts fun, shoot shorts. If you find the process ok but would enjoy it if there were more pay-off then, at a certain point, you'll have to accept that you've come as far as you can with the short film medium. Sometimes real ambition gets in the way of finding the process enjoyable.

5.) If you're spending $10,000 on short after short eventually you'll have the piss or get off the pot. Money's hard to find so don't blow it. If you've got it to shoot a short, then shoot a great short. But don't think that just because you've got $10,000 in your bank right now, all you can do is shoot a short. Patience and economy will serve you well in the long run.

Just some thoughts

I can't seem to find the +Reputation button, so I am forced to post a +1 for the Clapper. xD

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

The guy who has never piloted a 10' boat MIGHT succeed at driving the ocean liner, but I don't wanna be on board.

[Brooksy]

Dang. I am overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude for everyone who took the time to give their opinions on this topic. And also to anyone who watched the piece and gave some feedback. Thanks with my entire filmmaker heart! It means a lot to me. Anywho...

So I agree and disagree with many of the points given here. Some people said that I need to figure out my audience. I know exactly who would enjoy my piece and exactly who wouldn't enjoy my piece, it's getting those people to give me the time of day that is difficult. More importantly it was mentioned that I was being to vague with my line of "People who matter." I agree that is much to vague. In reality I know the exact person who I would show my short film to. I would sit this person down and show the piece. Personally I think that person would enjoy it. Quite a bit. Enough to the point where I think that person would make three phone calls. That person would set up meetings work with the writer on refining everything so it would become either A) A major network pilot. B) Turned into a feature script to be pitched to major motion picture companies that could get the film made.

I know that this person could do it because they are a big force in the Sci-Fi world in television, Film, and comic books, even web series.

The problem I keep seeing is there is no plausible way of getting infront of this person's face. There is no Film Festival that they are going to be at. There is no way of contacting the person directly. Even if I had the contact info, I'm a nobody. Nobody is going to give me a 7 minute 45 second shot. Again I just feel that there should be something out there that helps give us as filmmakers a chance to put our pieces infront of that one person who can make two phone calls and change our lives.

I understand it won't be easy. I don't want easy. I want difficult. But there has to be some kind of way for us to be able to see that carrot.

[ItDonnedOnMe]

I see the process of learning to do anything well as a series of three step cycles.

First you learn on a conceptual level - you read about how to do something, watch some tutorials, take classes, etc.

Next you attempt to apply what you've learned in a practical situation - you write a script, shoot it, edit it, apply the concepts to creating something real.

Finally you process what you've done - look back at what worked and what didn't, compare the theory you've learned to the real world experience of attempting to implement that theory. You asses both your successes and the areas you need improvement.

And then you repeat the whole process, going back to the learning phase in an attempt to improve on the areas of weakness you've identified in the previous time around. This is truly a never-ending cycle, but the more you repeat it the finer-grained your refinements and improvements become, while at the same time things that challenged you early on become almost second nature and require less and less conscious attention.

From this perspective I feel there's a significant advantage to making these cycles short - there's a finite limit to what you can learn well at one time, and shorter learning cycles allow you to focus most of your attention on just one or two new things each time around. The key to learning is the repetition of the cycle.

Simply because of it's scope making a feature is necessarily a long learning cycle, and doesn't lend itself well to this learning process, especially in the early cycles. Given the same time frame one could probably make 6 or a dozen shorts and learn quite a bit faster. Certainly - there are aspects of making a feature that can only be learned by actually making a feature, but by getting the stuff that's not specific to features out of the way first you'll be able to focus your limited attention on the things that only making a feature can teach you.

Of course, money can change this equation significantly. A first-time director with no previous filmmaking experience can likely make a decent feature with the right budget - if they spend the money to hire professionals who've already been through this extended learning cycle within their respective fields. Even in that case though having some experience will likely produce better results as it will allow one to better judge the skills, talent and work of those they hire.

It's easier than it's ever been to make short films these days. It's still a lot of hard work. For those starting out the only reason I can see not to do it is if one's hoping to skip the hard work of gaining experience that comes with any advanced skill. To me that's like hoping to become a kung-fu master without years of training and practice. While that may make a great plot point for your first feature film, it's not likely to make that film great.

[EuropeanDistributor]

I just watched the short and I have to say I quite enjoyed it.
The premise was good and so was the execution.
It kept me wanting more.

That being said I think your goals are a bit unrealistic.

There isn't a person in the world who will watch your short film and make a phone call and set you up with a feature film production or a tv-pilot. The business doesn't work that way.

I get what you are saying though. I have a list of people who I think if I had 15 minutes alone in a room with I could greenlight a whole bunch of projects. I also know that that isn't realistic at all.
In my mind I am confident that I would be able to do it, but realistically that would be a long shot.

Sure if you could get a powerful and a respected producer to believe in your project, he could set you up with the right people, but that doesn't mean that a movie deal or a tv-deal would just magically happen with a phone call.

If you believe that you can turn your short into a feature, there is only one person in the world who can make it happen, and that is you.

You have to make that movie yourself. You allready did a 7 minute one, why can't you make a 90 minute one too?