High quality shorts vs. low quality feature?

L

londonfilmmaker

Okay, I'll admit it. I'm a perfectionist. I'm the type that wouldn't dream of putting his/her name to something publicly until I was fairly certain it was going to have an audience. I've made a few micro budget shorts between collaborators/hobbyists/film school students and in my opinion my experience is at the point where I feel i can take that next step and put something out there that will gain even an ounce of attention.

Anyway.

For most of us dealing with micro budgets, every penny counts and freebies are even better. I've managed to source a bit more money for my next attempt. I've got two ideas I really want to explore.

Feature length films are obviously more marketable/sellable as they are but a good short can lead to attention and word of mouth as well. I plan on hiring a DP/gear next time round to take things up a notch production wise. Both my concepts are one location/few actors so costs are primarily audio kit hire and camera kit hire/DP. A lot of my collaborators/crew will work for free/food and a couple are very proficient (just lacking kit!)

Rental rates for a feature length shoot (lets be very conservative and say 14 days) will start to run very high, whereas for say a week/10 days worth i could get two shorts made.

I'm leaning towards the shorts as I can really focus on perfecting every second of such a short length of time whereas at this level (fulfilling the writer/producer/director/location manager/casting director/everything role!) I certainly wouldn't have the money, time or energy to focus on every second in such quality.

My question is:

Would you rather make two high(er) quality shorts or one lesser quality feature?
 
This is an often asked question, and it's very understandable. When you have enough money to get something off of the ground, but you're not sure what to do with it. Come up with a distribution plan for both the shorts and the feature, and think about which one is more likely to happen. The one that will propel you film career forward, is more likely to happen, and will get your money back is the one you should go with. There's a great discussion on the subject here:

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=49804
 
ChimpPhobiaFilms said:
This is an often asked question, and it's very understandable. When you have enough money to get something off of the ground, but you're not sure what to do with it. Come up with a distribution plan for both the shorts and the feature, and think about which one is more likely to happen. The one that will propel you film career forward, is more likely to happen, and will get your money back is the one you should go with. There's a great discussion on the subject here:

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=49804
Click to expand...

Thankyou for the excellent thread discussion link, will give it a read.

(note to self: use the search button...)
 
Would you rather make two high(er) quality shorts or one lesser quality feature?
Click to expand...

Obviously the answer is a higher quality feature.

Given the choice between the two you gave, I'd go with the feature. Hunt and hunt and hunt until you find a script that you can make well within your budget.

I suggest to make a feature film, you at least have an asset that you can possibly sell and a feature film credit under your belt. As with everything, it also depends on your situation and what your goals are. A short may help you achieve those goals faster.
 
A fantastic feature length story shot on Hi-8 beats any short filmed with all the available equipment on Paramount's lot. A no-brainer, really.

Good luck.
 
Easy answer. Make shorts to gather experience (you did) or if you are obsessed by an idea which only works as a short. Otherwise try hard to go long, even with minimal budget.
 
Some of the hottest young directors in Hollywood got their careers started by making high-quality short films. The caveat, however, seems to be that each and every one of these career-starting short films is very heavily SFX-driven.

Otherwise, in my opinion, there's not much value in spending any significant amount of money on a short film. If you've got money for a production, make a feature. Unless you happen to be an SFX guru, then you're probably better off making a KICK-ASS short.
 
Martin McDonagh started off with 60K short,even though I am pretty sure he would be able to secure enough money for low budget feature. On the other hand Aronofsky for 60K$ made a feauture (but he was shit at short films :D)

It all depends on your goals,there are so many routes to follow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top