Short vs Feature Film - Seeking advice from my peers!

F

film3412

I'm in a unique situation with a feature film I have been developing and am hoping to get some advice on here to help clarify my strategy moving forward.

I am a film maker (writer/director) with several shorts and a feature under my belt. They have screened at many festivals and in some cases been awarded, but I haven't pursued distribution for my feature as I wasn't completely satisfied with the final result and don't want it to be released publicly at this point.

As of this year, I was able to secure partial funding for my follow up feature film, something I have been writing for some time. The film could be done for about $70k, and I have $40k of it raised. I believe the script is far better than my previous feature and that is likely why i have had an easier time securing some funding. With that said, given my experience on my first feature, I am starting to have doubts about shooting a feature at this low of a budget - even though it is still much higher than my first.

I have been thinking a lot about shooting a short film based around the same concept as the feature, to use as a pitch that may help me secure more funds down the road. If I were to do this, I would of course need to put the feature on hold indefinitely until I can raise more funding. I'm really torn at this point.

Option 1 is to go forward and do it on a micro-budget and muscle through it like I did on my last film.
Option 2 is to put the development on hold temporarily and use a portion of my development funds to shoot a 10 minute short that will be submitted to festivals and other potential financiers.

What do you think? Based on your experience - Can short films really be used to leverage more funding for a feature these days? Or am I better off shooting it on the shoestring budget that I have access to?
 
Forget shorts. Never spend more than a few hundred bucks on a short. It's DOA when completed. You've already done a feature, so why even consider a short?

Shoot your feature with what you have. $40k is plenty if you think outside of the box.

Good luck.
 
Hello new dude :cool:

Shorts are great for practice, and filmmakers should do a few before making a feature. Not doing shorts before a feature is like jumping into the deep end before practicing in the shallow end. It sounds like you have a good amount of money and you have had some experience doing (good) shorts.

If I were you, I'd make a feature.
 
What is your plan to recoup your fetaure's budget?

A short film is vastly more likely just going to be a financial loss - unless you want to showacse your screaming/b!tching cool SFX skilz, and even then it's a pretty long shot towards pulling in more development money.
You'd be better off spending any money for a short on bribing a distribution marketable actor take interest in being in your feature. THEN you could bring attention to your project.
 
Last edited:
IMO, it depends on:

-What the feature is. Is it a really simple, low-concept drama that you can shoot with little lighting on a cheap camera? Or is it a high concept thriller?

But, more importantly:

What do you want out of this endeavour? Shorts will get you 0 return on your investment. Features may or may not get you more than 0 return on your investment.

With that said, you can make a pretty kick-ass, high quality short film featuring a bunch of high quality equipment and professional talent for $10-20k.

When it comes to a feature, however, $40k just doesn't go very far, because you're not shooting for 5 days, you're shooting for 4-6 weeks. You could easily chew up 1/4 of it in hire of a Blackmagic Camera kit... ($1,500/week becomes $9,000 for six weeks..)
 
ChimpPhobiaFilms said:
Apparently, the guy who made this short :http://vimeo.com/33025640 is going to be making a feature because some major studio people saw it.
Click to expand...

Ditto Neill Blomkamp's short that got him the District 9 gig - note Neill was a CGI/effects whiz when he directed this short:

Alive In Joburg - Neill Blomkamp
http://vimeo.com/1431107

Ditto the folks who created the billion dollar Saw franchise.

The script was optioned by a producer in Sydney for a year but the deal eventually fell through.[12] After other failed attempts to get the script produced in Australia from 2001 to 2002,[10] literary agent Ken Greenblat read the script and suggested they travel to Los Angeles, where their chances of finding an interested studio were greater.[15] Wan and Whannell initially refused, due to lack of traveling funds but the pair's agent, Stacey Testro, convinced them to go.[15] In order to help studios take interest in the script, Whannell provided A$5,000 (US$5,000) to make a seven-minute short film based on the script's jaw trap scene, which they thought would prove most effective. Whannell played David, the man wearing the Reverse Bear Trap. Working at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Whannell and Wan knew cameramen who were willing to provide technical assistance for the short.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saw_(film)

But I'd probably go with a low-budget feature too - particularly if the screenplay is very good.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dadPWhEhVk

$300 Panic Attack
has led Fede Alvarez to
$17,000,000 'The Evil Dead' (remake)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clZ33uAE_7Q
 
Last edited:
Supposedly Jesús Orellana is in big budget talks due to his no budget solo short debut 'Rosa'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRGVXREvjww

rayw said:
A short film is vastly more likely just going to be a financial loss - unless you want to showacse your screaming/b!tching cool SFX skilz, and even then it's a pretty long shot towards pulling in more development money.
Click to expand...
 
rayw said:
What is your plan to recoup your fetaure's budget?

A short film is vastly more likely just going to be a financial loss - unless you want to showacse your screaming/b!tching cool SFX skilz, and even then it's a pretty long shot towards pulling in more development money.
You'd be better off spending any money for a short on bribing a distribution marketable actor take interest in being in your feature. THEN you could bring attention to your project.
Click to expand...

Yes you're right. I wouldn't expect the short to make any money whatsoever, just help to raise more funds for the feature. At that point though I would be going for closer to $250k for the final budget. Thanks for the advice!
 
Sweetie said:
How much equity has been given away for the $40k?
Click to expand...

I think my original post wasn't actually very clear. Even if I raise the entire $70k, I'm not sure that is enough. I know it can be done on that budget and I have done a feature on much less than that. But I wonder if I am better off taking time with this film. Even if it takes an extra year. And getting the financing to make this something bigger.
 
jax_rox said:
IMO, it depends on:

-What the feature is. Is it a really simple, low-concept drama that you can shoot with little lighting on a cheap camera? Or is it a high concept thriller?

But, more importantly:

What do you want out of this endeavour? Shorts will get you 0 return on your investment. Features may or may not get you more than 0 return on your investment.

With that said, you can make a pretty kick-ass, high quality short film featuring a bunch of high quality equipment and professional talent for $10-20k.

When it comes to a feature, however, $40k just doesn't go very far, because you're not shooting for 5 days, you're shooting for 4-6 weeks. You could easily chew up 1/4 of it in hire of a Blackmagic Camera kit... ($1,500/week becomes $9,000 for six weeks..)
Click to expand...

The film is do-able location wise on the budget and it has a small cast. The additional funding would help with securing some potential name talent.

As for gear, I own a post facility and also own lots of camera gear including a red epic and blackmagic camera, so the visual quality is not a concern to me. It is more the overall scope of the project. Getting the right talent attached and having money left over for marketing.
 
IndiePaul said:
Ditto Neill Blomkamp's short that got him the District 9 gig - note Neill was a CGI/effects whiz when he directed this short:

Alive In Joburg - Neill Blomkamp
http://vimeo.com/1431107

Ditto the folks who created the billion dollar Saw franchise.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saw_(film)

But I'd probably go with a low-budget feature too - particularly if the screenplay is very good.
Click to expand...

This seems to work really well for horror/sci-fi/genre films. My film is more of a dramatic thriller that is far more dramatic than it is thriller. So the more I think about it, going the short film route may not be the way to go.

However, I am still questioning moving forward as is, and wondering if I may want to apply for grants and/or film lab programs to help develop the idea into something bigger...
 
get a kick-ass short out there and market your feature
if you don't have anything great yet that you've made then keep making shorts. if you've already made a fantastic short, then move on and make your feature! use that short to inspire confidence in your abilities, along with your script.

even if you were to take this idea and spend tens of thousands on the short (not recommended - make a cheap short but still have it awesome!) the audience won't just magically appear. you have to find a way to market yourself and your work. market yourself as a PROVEN commodity when it comes to quality products.

that's my 2 cents, but I haven't done any of it yet.. it's basically my existing plan
 
sfoster said:
get a kick-ass short out there and market your feature
if you don't have anything great yet that you've made then keep making shorts. if you've already made a fantastic short, then move on and make your feature! use that short to inspire confidence in your abilities, along with your script.

even if you were to take this idea and spend tens of thousands on the short (not recommended - make a cheap short but still have it awesome!) the audience won't just magically appear. you have to find a way to market yourself and your work. market yourself as a PROVEN commodity when it comes to quality products.

that's my 2 cents, but I haven't done any of it yet.. it's basically my existing plan
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm feeling. My gut is telling me to do a short version first. My small investment for the feature won't go away, and the short can only make that film better, regardless of if I raise money from it directly.

Appreciate your insight.
 
First of all, I disagree strongly with the idea that there's no point in a short. As others have mentioned, it's not unheard of for a short film to lead to a director securing a big-budget feature film. That being said, it's also already been discussed that this tends to only be the case with SFX-driven films. At least that seems to be the case so far as I can tell.

For your film, I realize you want name talent, but is the "name" you can get for an extra $10-30K really going to help make your film better? It'll most likely help market it, but will the film actually be better? I'm inclined to think no.

I think you should just make it happen, on $40K. You've got a bird in the hand, why are you even looking in the bush?! Get the best actors you can find, and shoot that indie darlling that will take the film fests by storm! :)
 
film3412 said:
This is exactly what I'm feeling. My gut is telling me to do a short version first. My small investment for the feature won't go away, and the short can only make that film better, regardless of if I raise money from it directly.

Appreciate your insight.
Click to expand...

My pleasure. :)
 
rayw said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dadPWhEhVk

$300 Panic Attack
has led Fede Alvarez to
$17,000,000 'The Evil Dead' (remake)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clZ33uAE_7Q
Click to expand...

Darn, only $300.00 looks like I could get my Feature made after all if I make a good short, Fede definately deserved a shot at a film with a decent budget after that!
 
I'm just going to ramble and put out some thoughts...........

90% of the indie filmmakers out there are fooling themselves badly in one way or another. Most of them overrate their own talents and/or skills. I see a myriad of variations on the theme come through my studio - a nice script, but poorly shot and acted; a crappy script/story, but it looks gorgeous; etc., etc., etc.

I am a film maker (writer/director) with several shorts and a feature under my belt. They have screened at many festivals and in some cases been awarded,
Click to expand...

Okay, you won an award. Did you get the award at some obscure regional festival? Or was it at prestigious name festival? That makes a real difference, a difference measured in funding and the support that you will receive from potential collaborators. For instance, I would be much more inclined to give you a reduced rate on the audio post if your award was from Sundance than if the award was from the Joe Small Festival in Dinkytown, USA. Your crowd funders will be inclined to give more generously if you won an award at a prestigious festival.

Now, a basic formula for business:

Time = Money

blog-time-money.jpg


And I'm sure that you're familiar with the quality triangle:

fast-good-cheap.gif


goodfastcheap.gif


As you most probably have become more and more aware filmmaking is all about details. The smaller your budget the more you have expend time instead. This makes low/no/mini/micro budget filmmaking an exercise in patience.

So now is the time to be patient. You've got $40k. What other ways can you obtain more funding? While you work on your funding issue review your script with someone who can be objective. There may be problems that you don't see. When that is done start putting together your story boards and your shooting script. These determine your allocation of funds. See? While you try to get the entire $70k you'll get a better look at where you can trim the fat.

Be patient!!! I know that you want to start shooting; we all like to get to the fun part. Be patient, be disciplined.

As a one-man-band audio post facility my work is full of contradictions. I just want to get on to the fun stuff - making and/or editing the sound effects. But I always start with the dialog edit. Dialog editing can be very boring and very frustrating; it is also rewarding in several ways. The first reward is I become intimately familiar with the story and the characters. It's boring and PITA, but while doing the dialog edit I put together my Foley and sound effects cue sheets; the reward is that when I do finally get to the Foley and sound effects I know exactly what needs to be done and can spend my time being creative and having fun, rather than worrying about "did I get everything?" The third reward is the boring, frustrating part is (mostly) done - and it sounds great!

So you should do the same. Be disciplined. Be patient. Do an extensive preproduction.

Okay, I'll stop rambling.

br111e_good_luck.gif
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top