i know we all strive for longer pieces, but frankly if a filmmaker out there cannot hold my attention, why should i keep watching.

i say, learn, practice, shoot films that are engaging 1, 2, 3, or even 5 minute pieces, before jumping to a piece that will be 20-30 minutes or more.

invest time, effort, and money into a shorter, tighter, more engaging 3 minute piece, instead of scurrying to create a 30 minute epic.

quality is what counts, not quantity.

I think that is a good point. Within 5 minutes or so, you should be able to have a nice, tight, finished piece where you worked on all sorts of technical aspects of filmmaking (and writing!).

My first short was nine minutes and I'm not sure that it wasn't too long!

Mark M
Sugar Free Productions

I must respectfully disagree. In my opinion, pieces under 5 minutes are too short to be fully appreciated for what they are. They are so short that if you DO like them, they just make you want more, and they end up feeling sort of empty. And ironically enough, it's a bit harder to create a REALLY good one minute film than a REALLY good ten minute film.

Now that I think about it though, the running time has virtually no consequence whatsoever, when you think about it, does it really matter how long something is as long as it's good? I don't think so.

But more of a good thing is always a good thing, so make good films as long as possible.

Well even long "Good" movies can get redundant, but that's not what you meant probably. I agree and disagree. I think some people just don't have the ability to tell a story in 1-5 minutes and then others that can't tell a longer story. My first short was 12 minutes (it was too SHORT) I cut scenes out and such because I wanted to get it on triggerstreet.com but that ended up ruining my movie. (my fault)

[This message was edited by AFC President on July 09, 2003 at 02:05 PM.]

Good thoughts and I can see both sides. I still opt for the shorter time - maybe because I'm so "short attention-spanned"!

Since I have no technical background in filmmaking (just picking this up a couple of years ago), I assumed that a shorter piece (five minutes for the sake of debate) would be easier to make into a technically proficient movie than a thirty-minute piece would.

However, I have to agree that it is harder to write one-minute piece than a ten minute piece. I'm not sure that I would make less than a four-six minute piece. Anything less might be more difficult to achieve balance in the story/script (ie: beginning, middle, end).

However, I think the appropriate answer to all of this is: if you have a script you think is good, then the movie needs to be long enough to convey the story and message to the audience!

Mark M
Sugar Free Productions

Well, I agree it is harder to amke a good 5 minute movie then it is to make a good 30 minute one.

I have just recently gotten to the point where I actually have written and shot some 10 min shorts. "Intersection" was 28 minutes, and several before that were 15 to 20.

With a truly short short you dont have time for character development. The first act has to be VERY short, and you must learn to trim the fat. Often, you have to establish who a character is (in relation to your story) with one or two lines of dialouge. I mean, if you envision the njanitor as a drunk, but it dosent have anything to do with the plot, it dosent belong. Now if he ends up driving drunk, and killing another character, then it does.

If you can make a tight, effective short then chances are you can tell a much larger more complex story. I would also say try concentrating on a shorter short. Start with a one dimensional story. Set up, then punchline. From there, develop more and grow as a film maker.
R. Michael

"Luck, is when opportunity, meets preperation." "There are 3 sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth, and none of us are lying" -Robert Evans