All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
It's been over a year since anyone posted in it. Looks like it's all features too. I have kind of a fascination with shorts lately, and the idea of what a short should be. I researched it online a little last night, and found some pretty contrasting views. The most common view seems to be that a short is simply a shorter version of a feature, that it needs all the same components. But there were some other views out there that a short is a very different animal, so has very different rules.
As I was thinking this over, I had a desire to see some of the best examples of how it should be done, and knew there had to be great examples on SS. So I thought people could suggest the ones they thought fit the bill.
I think if anyone wants to voice in on what they think a short should be, whether it is a smaller version of a feature or something very different, that would be cool too. I am interested in it anyway.
you can also read all of Matias Caruso's "Mr. Z" shorts for how it should be done. Especially the 5 pager. He pretty much wins every time he enters at MP.
I think if anyone wants to voice in on what they think a short should be, whether it is a smaller version of a feature or something very different, that would be cool too. I am interested in it anyway.
This might generate some discussion. I have never really considered the question...
My idea on shorts, though I am now seriously reconsidering it, has been kind of like the City Slickers philosophy. My thinking has been that a short should focus on "one" thing. A short should aim to leave you with a single lasting impression, whether that's from a really memorable image, a powerful emotion, or a really strong thematic point. Everything that happens in the story should funnel towards hammering that one thing.
If it tries to do more than that one thing, then it weakens itself, loses focus. So a lot of things you need in a feature you don't necessarily need or want in a short. The last thing you want is for it to become muddled.
I read last night where a short needs to have all the things a feature should have: you're character must really want something, and there must be some type of journey filled with obstacles, and then finally a resolution.
I'm just not sure where I stand on that. I think having all that can be important, but this was presented as though these things are necessary, and without them you don't really have a story. It seems to me that is very narrowing. To me, to the extent that those things allow a story to create that lasting impression with the audience, they are good and essential. But where they weaken that lasting the impression, they are a detriment. To me it's leaving the memorable, powerful impression that counts.
As I said, I'm really early on the learning curve, so those are my current thoughts and I will read closely the opinions of those more experienced.
Shorts can be anything really. They are a much freer form of art than features generally.
You can be very abstract and people are more accepting of it in a short period, whereas they get bored after 5 minutes.
Simple stories well told often work well for shorts.
The critical factor in all writing, perhaps in all forms of human endeavour is asking yourself "What are you trying to achieve?".
If you want to create the next web sensation like Annoying Orange, your goal in writing your short is very different than if you are writing it as a promo for a feature film eg SAW, or writing something to win a Golden Bear.
Some general rules:
Skit 0-3 PAGES. This is a set up and gag punchline.
People often dismiss super shorts on here...perversely imo. If you can tell a story in 30 seconds you can make adverts. Plus there are a lot of super short competitions that pay well. Pia is very good at those.
5-15 Pages standard length.
The longer it gets, the better it needs to be. In festivals they can put in two 5 min films for your 10 minute piece, so your longer piece has to be better than all the 5 minute competiton. (The goal of a short is to be filmed ultimately, that's why I'm mentioning festivals). Tend to be one story line, often circular in nature. Start and end in the same place, with everything changed. 10 minutes plus will often introduce one subplot to juxtapose with the main story.
My favourite shorts on here (if they are still arfound) of that length are Requiem by Martin Lancaster, The Pool by Death Monkey (probably gone because they made it into quite a high budget film) and Dog Run by Phil Clarke Jr.
20 pages plus. Looking at a story that could conceivably win the major awards. Massive concept, mini feature type film.
Technical considerations aside, your definition of story above is largely consistent with the traditional view of story in film in general. Film=Motion, but all Great Truths are static. Unlike other art forms to create great truths you have to put two ideas into conflict and then present a winner or an amalgamtion (there's a better word for what I mean..where two things create a better third) to reveal great truth, hence the saying Drama=Conflict.
Modernism changed a lot of those beliefs, although they've become by far the pre-dominant form again. The shorter timescale allows you greater leeway because people don't miss the strong narrative so much in that space of time.
My 4 favorite shorts that I've read here are "The Forgotten Christmas Tape" by Brian M, "The Chocolatier" by Alffy, "American Soil" by Screenrider, and "Santa's Sleigh Ride Saga" by Cam17. I may have Cam17's title slightly wrong - can't remember.
I'm gonna take a moment to discuss shorts that quickly come to my mind, either because they influenced me, because they succeeded, or because they did not quite succeed.
This was written under the limitation of a 5 page competition. It also could be correctly criticized as being a little too familiar, something we've all seen before. But other than that, I think it's a pretty good example of what a successful short does. There is a dilemma involved, and a horrible range of choices. The choice ultimately made is completely logical, so no real shock or twist here, and nothing to stimulate any kind of intellectual debate. But it ends with an image that is powerful and stays with you. That power is slightly lessened by the familiarity of things, but this is still a good example of how a short should work, I think.
This was the "winner" of the Feb OWC. IMO this script did indeed stand tall above the other entries, despite some real logic flaws in the story. Some of that is attributed to the fine building of suspense from the outset. Other things didn't work so well, such as the attempt at character arc through the use of flashback, which only convoluted things and contributed to some logic flaws. But it succeeds because of the lasting image it leaves one with, where the protagonist takes up the mantle of the antagonist at the end.
This was very clever, and for lack of a better word, "trippy". It takes you on a strange journey through a visionary world, and I like that kind of stuff. Where this short fails is that it lacks any power, despite the fact that the subject is so serious. As you travel on this Alice in Wonderland type journey, you don't know if it's supposed to be scary, comical, or just dreamy. All three of these are present, and that makes the ending thought provoking, but without any true power, either emotionally or intellectually.
A popular Feb 2011 OWC entry, the writing here was not only well crafted, but the dialogue really sparked characters to life. The writing was so excellent that it definitely had an impact on me as a new writer. Where this story failed, IMO, was that it does not leave any lasting impression. I remember the pirate talk was outstanding, but I don't recall what they said. No powerful emotion or image was created, no thematic issue was touched, and the twist did not really leave a mark.
The ending leaves a lasting impression, in the vein of "be careful what you ask for!" This would probably be on my list of favorites, though it has kind of a lot of stuff in it for a short. If I had my suggestion on this, it would be to somehow reduce the number of legendary creatures to something more manageable. But the end gives it a power that heroically saves the day.
This was another extremely popular Feb OWC entry, crafted by one of the best pure writers on the site. And it is indeed extremely well crafted, with dialogue that really brings the characters to life. But like Them, this left no lasting impression with me, no powerful image or emotion. If one had to pick the key moment, I guess it would have to be when the grandfather pushes the kid in to fight the witch and save the world, but that does not leave a lasting image. So while the script is fun to read, the story I think fails on this account.
Might as well touch on my Feb entry, Lullaby. It too failed. The ending had the opportunity to create a lasting impression, but it did not because the development during the story failed to raise the emotional stakes. A boy being sacrificed by his mother should have a power to it, and this did not. One was left to observe it at a distance rather than feel the pain of the boy or his mother. While the image had potential to be memorable, the audience is too busy wondering what the heck is going on and why the mother is doing what she is. That robs this story of any potential punch, leaves us flat.
Ok, those were ones I could think of, I may think of more tonight. Thanks for contributing, this does help. Rick, the notion of films being motion that revolves around static Great Truths is very useful. Very. Others here have probably heard that before, but that's new to me.
Remember that you can't win no matter what you do. Write what you like, and then find filmmakers who share similar sensibilities, and then market the finished product to people with similar sensibilities.
Look on IMDB..a film can be given 10 out of 10 by one person and 1 out of 10 by another. "some of the best dialogue I've heard!" "The dialogue was rubbish, made no sense!".
There will always be people that don't get it, so don't worry about it.
Scottish Lullaby was far, far from a failure by the way. Could it be tightened up? Probably, but it was evocative, different and intelligent.
If made there would be a lot of people saying it was rubbish, pretentious, made no sense, it wasn't horror...just like a film like Anti Christ made by one of the best living Directors got attacked by some...as though they are the custodians of what's right and wrong and what you are SUPPOSED to write or make.
On the other hand there would be those that were deeply moved by its poetry, philosophy and its gothic terror.
I don't have a good memory for shorts. Some good ones have been mentioned here, a few some of my favorites from recent memory, but I can't remember any I'd call the greatest of all time. I've memories of being floored by a handful of scripts but I can't, for the life of me, remember them.
For the sake of interest, I'll throw out Pia's Covert Careers, Z's Numbers, Bert's Think Of Me And I'll Be There and Shelton's One Last Fix. Those are the ones that come into mind at present.
Remember that you can't win no matter what you do. Write what you like, and then find filmmakers who share similar sensibilities, and then market the finished product to people with similar sensibilities.
Look on IMDB..a film can be given 10 out of 10 by one person and 1 out of 10 by another. "some of the best dialogue I've heard!" "The dialogue was rubbish, made no sense!".
There will always be people that don't get it, so don't worry about it.
Scottish Lullaby was far, far from a failure by the way. Could it be tightened up? Probably, but it was evocative, different and intelligent.
If made there would be a lot of people saying it was rubbish, pretentious, made no sense, it wasn't horror...just like a film like Anti Christ made by one of the best living Directors got attacked by some...as though they are the custodians of what's right and wrong and what you are SUPPOSED to write or make.
On the other hand there would be those that were deeply moved by its poetry, philosophy and its gothic terror.
While I agree in spirit with what you've said there, Rick, you have imbued it with an implicit message that suggests criticism of Lars von Trier is wrong, invalid or at the very least, it's a result of not getting it (i.e. not being susceptible to the qualities of poetry, philosophy). Which is ironically the same position of the "custodians" in reverse. It's far too complex a study (the appreciation of film) to express in such terms, IMO.
Everyone has an opinion and like it was said: "nobody knows anything."
Oh, it's true you can't win, so I am talking about my own evaluations of these scripts, including my own. I am trying to come to my own understanding of what a short should be, as indicated in the previous post. And to sum it up, it should create one powerful, memorable impression, something that stays with the audience.
I've never been to a film festival, but I am thinking if one watches a great many shorts, certainly you need something memorable to not get lost in the shuffle. So everything should be designed towards that powerful impression.
I have been trying to consider Dressel's "Penny" in that context, which I had listed as an all time favorite. Under close examination, but the criteria I just laid out, it's a little tougher to uphold my original view. There is no powerful emotion of theme involved, nothing insightful or intellectual. So that leaves image. Does it create a powerful image?
Well, we can't just say two kids at tables with pennies is powerful. But I do think there is power to this tale, though it's kind of like an impressionist painting, it's hard to put a finger on. For me, it had a Norman Rockwell quality to it. The fact that the kid was paying from his table, instead of making money, gave it a quirkiness that makes it memorable. If this was made any longer, it would not work for me, and probably could be shorter, but as it is, it works for me at creating a lasting impression. I suspect if you ask me about this short a couple of years from now, I will still remember it and the basic image and plot, and that means it has a certain hard to define power. Something was truly created, and I would actually say captured. I suspect if this film were well made, and one saw it among a hundred shorts at a festival, this would at least be one they would remember.
Phil's vampire short about the guy and his wife leaves a memorable image. The resolution is different than what one would expect in these type films. That one actually probably needs to be lengthened and expanded a bit to add to its power.
For myself, this is what I want my shorts to be, and want to learn: to give them the power to leave one lasting impression. I think I came closer with my last short, but I probably need more distance from the writing to evaluate better.
Hopefully some powerful short links will be posted here for ones I haven't seen.
Of course, there's a ton I *haven't* read yet...so this list is far from comprehensive.
I'd give a nod to Pugumentary, too, but fear being deemed biased.
Not saying that these scripts are necessarily perfect. But they're each satisfying and organic in their own way.
Admittedly, there's still a vast amount of shorts still to read. And thanks to this thread, I've got a chance to cherry pick some of the better ones!
BTW: a casual reader of this post might comment that I'm leaning rather heavily towards 'dog oriented' scripts. Maybe true - in part - but if the scripts weren't great in regards to several other criteria, I wouldn't include them!
Not trying to be a party pooper here, but IMHO, the other thread "Simply Recommended" is better titled. This one is called "greatest SS shorts of all time" yet most of the people posting are fairly new and have only read newer shorts and is mostly mentioning those... I don't see how that is the greatest of all time.
"Simply Recommended", IMO, is not a very good title at all. Recommended what? Someone glancing at that would have no idea what it's about. Recommended can mean anything.
I wanted to focus on shorts. That includes general discussion about them, and people listing examples of favorites. The title was just meant to get attention and encourage people to post some examples of their favorite shorts here. I would love to get lists of the old shorts here. Maybe we can transfer some links from that thread. Seems to be no harm in the idea. I wasn't aware of the other thread, which no one has posted in for over a year.
Shorts. That's all I wanted in this one. If no one contributes, not the end of the world.
I didn't start reading shorts until the Feb 2011 OWC. Though I've certainly read a lot since then, a staggering number have been posted here over the years. I definitely have developed a fondness for them, and also appreciate how early on the learning curve I am as far as [i]what a great short should look like.
I'm gonna be the outcast here and say I place a heavy rating of shorts I read, or write, on filmability. Why the fuck do people learn this format, write in this fashion, if they're going to write such an over-the-top budgetted story???
Yes, yes, anything can happen on film.... For a major studio!!! To me its pointless to write a high budget short. "If the story's good, just write it." Bullshit! If the stories good and the budget would be ridiculous, go write a fucking short story. If you aspire to see real people act out your lines and speak your words, tailor the fucken budget.
I've read many a great shorts here that no filmaker would want to even attempt. Call me a sell-out, a cop-out, whatever... It gives me no greater pleasure then to see my script acted out. THAT is why I write screenplays. Many of the best writers around here should concentrate on writing short stories IMO and give up this format unless their dream is to truly see their work on film.
Thank you for pointing that out Chuff, that works better. I should have hit the link, I just read the post. My bad.
I started this because I wanted to read the older shorts you mentioned. If there was already a thread for this, I would have just gone to it. So I was hoping people would simply post links here. I was also hoping for some discussion on shorts technique and theory. Which happened, though I would love more.
Then, after I started the thread, I got a message from a member saying two things: a) this was a great idea, and that I should try to list some scripts near the top. So I modified my post to do that.
And b) that the old guard would probably be very unhappy and try to kill this.
That was the message I got about 5 minutes after the thread was started, before anyone posted, before I was told about the Recommend link.
I have since received other messages saying the like the thread. But it's not my call. I just wanted to learn more about shorts through discussion, and through seeing classic shorts here I was unaware of.
James, thanks for joining the discussion. Those are the kind of opinions I think we're looking for.
I really am not sure why my quote is there though. Are you talking about my work? If you are talking about the Station, it is true, that could not be filmed on low budget. But that took one day out of my life to write. The other stuff I attempt is, as you advise, aimed at very low budget. I'm not sure what you're angry about. I haven't really written anything I expect to see filmed anyway. I'm have been more just trying to learn how to write.
Pia, I must be guilty of being very unclear in what I'm saying, and maybe that all stems from the title of the thread, so maybe that could have been better worded.
I simply wanted a list of great SS shorts, for my own personal use, so I could read and learn; and I wanted a little discussion on how best to construct shorts, whether shorts should be treated like smaller features or something different.
I thought perhaps others might be interested in the same. People could each have their own list. Might be useful to us.
I never conceived it would in any way be controversial or lead to arguments.
No one has PM'd me any suggestions on a short to read.
If I could have not had to post shorts here, and got away with it, and just used links others put, I would have. But I realized at some point that was selfish. So I posted some examples of shorts I do know about. And I made clear that I only know a small sample, and I am very inexperienced when it comes to evaluating.
The PMs I received were just in support of the thread and the idea behind it. I did not say you were unhappy, or happy...I have no idea. I hope you're happy.
I hope that clears it up. Maybe we're better off just deleting the d@mn thread. Not worth the aggravation.
Just retitle it great shorts at SS. The greatest of all time is bad since I have read maybe near 1000 by now and I realize how many great ones I've read that are not being mentioned.
Why don't I mention them? I can't remember the titles....
I tell you what: if Pia posts 5 of her favorite shorts, ones not already mentioned, I will change the name. And Bert, you are correct, I didn't know I could do that. I thought only a moderator could.
I think the point of art is to present a theme. That is to say, to share with the world an opinion that will have some impact on the way they think or act.
In short stories or short film we generally accomplish this by the resolution of a conflict which, upon examination, points to our theme. Failing that, we present a situation, or an object in a situation, and convey an attitude towards that situation or object.
So, if we want to explain to the world that it is important to plan for the future, we tell the story (in script form) of the ant and the grasshopper (the grasshopper plays all summer while the ants work to gather food for the winter, the grasshopper laughs at the ants for refusing to abandon their food-gathering to play with him, when winter comes the ants live an easy life underground and the grasshopper dies).
Or, for the real arthouse types, perhaps we make a film that consists of nothing but a man digging a grave, and at the very end of the sequence, he gets into it and lays down. No conflict, per se, but if done effectively it could convey an attitude.
Or maybe we just sit on a still image of a city skyline, but the soundtrack consists entirely of cows mooing. Or maybe, we start on the city and the soundtrack is filled with unpleasant, discordant noises, and then we pan over to nature and now the soundtrack is pleasant and concordant.
Obvious ideas. My point, though, is that I think the one criterion of a short film is that it conveys a theme, and I think that that is always accomplished through one of the two methods that I mentioned in my second paragraph above.
I agree with Heretic (Polanski aside!). It seems pretty evident that a short is essentially a microcosm of a feature script - just condense the standard structure. This question delves deeper into what is a story and how is it told.
Arthouse films work when the audience and crew haven't disappeared up their arses.
I'm gonna be the outcast here and say I place a heavy rating of shorts I read, or write, on filmability. Why the fuck do people learn this format, write in this fashion, if they're going to write such an over-the-top budgetted story???
Yes, yes, anything can happen on film.... For a major studio!!! To me its pointless to write a high budget short. "If the story's good, just write it." Bullshit! If the stories good and the budget would be ridiculous, go write a fucking short story. If you aspire to see real people act out your lines and speak your words, tailor the fucken budget.
I've read many a great shorts here that no filmaker would want to even attempt. Call me a sell-out, a cop-out, whatever... It gives me no greater pleasure then to see my script acted out. THAT is why I write screenplays. Many of the best writers around here should concentrate on writing short stories IMO and give up this format unless their dream is to truly see their work on film.
James
I think you do have to be careful with budget in this day and age. What's really impossible to a few talented filmmakers with a bit of time, some VFX training and a few green sheets?
Ultimately standards are getting higher all the time..the days of filmmakers making it with a low budget flick like Clerks may be gone...it's like a different era of filmmaking altogether. A lot of the filmmakers getting snapped up now are making Hollywood style Epics in their bedrooms.
I love thematic stuff. But as you pointed out, a short can have power without a theme. Like your man digging the grave for himself.
I liked Pia's zombie story, and I don't think it's thematic. I mean you can always create some kind of thematic label for something, but I think here the story was built around the powerful image of a woman who makes a terrible but logical choice.
I think the key for a short is to really try and hit one thing very powerfully. And for me, power is the key word. That's what I want to try to do with my shorts in the future. Whether it's a powerful theme or idea, or a memorable image, or a strong emotion like love or loyalty, or terror.
I haven't really written anything I expect to see filmed anyway. I'm have been more just trying to learn how to write.
Was nothing aimed at you Kevin. I am just arrogant enough to believe I think I know what would make better film then most on this site. Arrogance is a slight necessity for a screenwriter IMO. Definetly was not targeting any of your work. I haven't read Station yet. But, there will come a time with online sources that help you learn to write become boring... Tell me how many raving reviews you've seen on this site.??? Front to back??? WE all like to point out each others faults. Many of us feel its our duty to try. If you're confident, write a fucking feature and try to sell it. Til then, I'll visit your shorts. I write mine for filmakers, not other writers. Just hoping it will catch someone's fancy...
I think you're playing around with the organic nature of your story and venturing into a minefield of contrivance if you aim for those end goals. Ultimately, you're trying to engineer an emotion manipulatively - and yes, there's a school of thought to say film is just that. We all know what's provocative or powerful within a story - the job of the writer is surely to give the filmmaker the tool to give rise to the possibilities we've outlined in the blueprint. Therefore to strive for some resonating power is to risk losing the essence of the story.
Not arguing. Just putting across my POV.*
* My point of view is not designed to do anything but state my point of view.
And b) that the old guard would probably be very unhappy and try to kill this.
hahaha and I can only wonder who wrote that.
A Simply Recommended Shorts thread could be handy. Of course when you have a different person passing through and posting a great short they just read of the 2300 on the site, the thread could get exorbitantly large in a hurry. Not that I'm complaining; I'm kinda null on the whole thing but I've always preferred the regular Simply Recommended Scripts thread. I always felt it served its purpose.
I've read so many shorts on here I can't even think of one to contribute...
I've written 3 features, and a couple of 30 pagers that I might turn into a feature. Plus I'm 25 pages into a new feature I just started. But it's a process. When I write a feature that I feel is good enough, I will see where I can take it. But for now, it's about writing and learning for me.
The learning actually started at the Feb OWC. I had little clue how to write, started learning from feedback there. To be honest, I don't know much about movies either. I spent the last 20 years out every night, and not at the movies.
I've become a fan of shorts, because it's a great testing ground for concepts, and a great way to learn by getting feedback. And I've become interested in the short itself. Even if by some miracle I sold a script and found work in the field, I would still be interested in shorts. It's like being at the bar and telling a story that gets everyone's attention. You have to be able to do it in a certain amount of time. There's an art to it.
As usual, I feel most are completely missing the point.
That point being, write a solid, well written script, with good characters, a good story, something unique, something memorable, and on top of everything else, something that works.
It doesn't matter if it's a short or a feature. It doesn't matter if there's some deep theme or character study. It just has to fucking work and entertain those who choose to read it.
Same goes with films. There are so many "critics" in here, who talk just like Pro critics, analyzing this and that, throwing out BS that has absolutely nothing to do with what the writer/film maker was after.
Look at all the successful films over the years. Look at why they were successful. It's not because of some deep theme or meaning that the makers were after or the critics decided to play up. They're successful because of a few different reasons...
Star Power - be that the actual stars, or the "stars" behind the film.
Entertainment value - A biggie through and through.
Pure damn luck - All to often the case, as so many "great movies" do crap at the BO, yet so many crapfests rake in the money.
You can look all you want at success stories and try to emulate them, but the bottom line is that you don't need to. Take from them what you can, but be your own person, write in your own voice, and show the fucking world what you got.
Shorts ain't where it's at. Very few care about them more than just a good read for 10 minutes of their time.
I think this site lacks for horror. Haven't read anything worthy of a recommend in some time. James
I dunno... 'Teaching with Violence' ain't bad at all imh. I'd def. recommend it. And, for a complete change of pace 'West Side Markets' - great visuals... and for quintessential British humour: AA's EMD, and Rendevous' The Key, though I'm not sure if the latter is still up.
I really think this thread should be linked with the other one though 'Simply Recommended' - says me who put it here.
Some of the stuff you said I agree with - the parts about your own voice, etc.
But I will disagree that dissecting a film is tantamount to pontificating as a 'Pro critic'. I enjoy reading from both ends of the spectrum, if you will.
Ultimately, though - who cares? It's just a set of views.
There may not be money in shorts, Jeff, but you may underestimate what they can lead to. I just read a story a couple months ago about a director who won an award with his short(something about a clown who can't cry) and who's gotten real work in Hollywood now out of it.
Granted, that was a director, not a writer.
Chuff, that's not an argument. It's a snipe. The internet is wonderful for that, isn't it?
OK, pontificater, I assume you are AA...correct? You changed your name?
<y point being, in simple words, is that successful movies are seen by Millions of everyday, normal peeps, who go to see those movies for entertainment purposes. When the movie ends, they either like it or dislike, based on whether or not they were entertained.
Sure, not 100% like that, but pretty damn close.
But, it actually doesn't even matter, cause once they've paid for their ticket, it's locked in to the BO results...but to me...it does matter. A movie should be good...period. Whether or not it makes a shitload of cash is obviously the goal, but I feel like film makers should be making movies that the general public should be happy they shelled out their $5-$15.
It's the damn critics who "tell" is what's good and what's not, but we really don't even need that. If it's good, it is good, and if it's not, then it's obvious.
Again, write a good script, make it shine, make it hit hard, and then...well...good luck.
Kev, I think you're being a little sensitive. Just fooling around - I just wanted to lighten the mood. We ALL spend too much time on here. And I'm a sad little keyboard warrior man!
Jeff,
Yeah, a name change. Chuff is my alter ego. Nah, just time for a name change 'cos my full name is a bit formal, which makes people think I'm formal. Which I am actually not. At all.
There may not be money in shorts, Jeff, but you may underestimate what they can lead to. I just read a story a couple months ago about a director who won an award with his short(something about a clown who can't cry) and who's gotten real work in Hollywood now out of it.
Granted, that was a director, not a writer.
Chuff, that's not an argument. It's a snipe. The internet is wonderful for that, isn't it?
Did you not read my Mrs Pepprercron thread in General chat?
First time writer, signed to biggest talent agent in LA, already paid for first feature.
Out of curiosity, I trudged all the way to the back of the Board (76 pages!) and found the very last short.
Not an author I recognize -- and apparently not that great a script -- but how does that even happen? Dead last haha. Must be some kind of honor for that:
And just for the heck of it -- since Helio has been back around lately -- an ancient one of his that I always liked, though I did not comment on it at the time. I was always kind of surprised this one never got picked up:
As usual, I feel most are completely missing the point.
That point being, write a solid, well written script, with good characters, a good story, something unique, something memorable, and on top of everything else, something that works.
It doesn't matter if it's a short or a feature. It doesn't matter if there's some deep theme or character study. It just has to fucking work and entertain those who choose to read it.
Same goes with films. There are so many "critics" in here, who talk just like Pro critics, analyzing this and that, throwing out BS that has absolutely nothing to do with what the writer/film maker was after.
Look at all the successful films over the years. Look at why they were successful. It's not because of some deep theme or meaning that the makers were after or the critics decided to play up. They're successful because of a few different reasons...
Star Power - be that the actual stars, or the "stars" behind the film.
Entertainment value - A biggie through and through.
Pure damn luck - All to often the case, as so many "great movies" do crap at the BO, yet so many crapfests rake in the money.
You can look all you want at success stories and try to emulate them, but the bottom line is that you don't need to. Take from them what you can, but be your own person, write in your own voice, and show the fucking world what you got.
Shorts ain't where it's at. Very few care about them more than just a good read for 10 minutes of their time.
Entertainment is obviously important...although a slow moving, philosophical film can be as entertaining as a mindless action flick in its own way...albeit to a different, and probably smaller crowd.
It's pretty hard to think of films that are good that don't have strong themes though, as much as you regale against the idea. Even popcorn flicks like Die Hard, Jaws, Aliens etc deal with deeper issues than what's just on the surface.
In some ways it's also a dangerous path for writers to go down..if you dismiss the depth of writing and are concerned purely with entertainment, there really isn't that much use for a writer. You might as well just break out the guns, have a few actors running around, throw a few explosions in.
Even the top 50 biggest grosing films of all time...the ones with the marketing budget to allow for pre entertainment shows this:
There's only Pirates of the Caribbean, Alice in Wonderland, Transformers, Spiderman 3, and perhaps Da Vinci Code that aren't heavily built around strong themes...and they're probably arguable.
As for the point about shorts...probably couldn't be more wrong. Saw, The Raven, Attack of the Killer Robots, The Silent City, Mrs Peppercorn, Mama, Alive in Joburg...honestly the list is probably near endless of the people who've gone straight from shorts to making features. You've even had people go from making fake trailers (That zombie clown thing recently, Hobo with a Shotgun) to making features.
Shorts are an excellent proof of concept...they demonstrate the technical ability of the makers and showcase its potential popularity.
What shorts rely upon more than anything else is that the filmmakers who make them, make them to an excpetional level and then market themselves and the film to its maximum potential (which is by far the hardest aspect of filmmaking).
It's probably easier to get signed up to a major agency with a short that's well made than it is writing features because it's easier to write a tight as hell, top quality short, get it made and get it out there, than it is to write a top quality feature.
I do have to say that you or anyone else who is going to contest that movies like Jaws, Alien, and Die Hard involve deep thematic material, are really reaching. Or to say that the action and story revolve around the theme, is just plain crazy, IMO.
I say it all the time and I'll say it again here. For some reason, people (either critics, or of a critical mind/nature) tend to over analyze literally everything and all of a sudden that's what that movie stands for or is.
If you're honestly saying that Jaws, Alien, and Die Hard are these deep philosophical movies, I guess you're also saying that all the clones of them are as well? C'mon now...seriously.
I don't want to knock shorts in any way, but for me personally, I'm not very interested. I am aware of many of the success stories you brought up.
To be fair, Jaws did have deeper issues than what was on the surface... like, a shark.
Seriously though, as a filmmaker, I see an undeniable importance in shorts. As a screenwriter, not so much. If you've resigned not to be involved in the filmmaking process at all, you might as well write a feature. You can argue that it's easier to write one than the other but frankly, I think it's nonsense. The difference in effort between writing a short and writing a feature is barely a fraction of the difference between producing a short and producing a feature.
Personally, I've always found features easier to write than shorts.
So what exactly do you call hammering on the same point in post after post?
Quoted from Dreamscale
I do have to say that you or anyone else who is going to contest that movies like Jaws, Alien, and Die Hard involve deep thematic material, are really reaching. Or to say that the action and story revolve around the theme, is just plain crazy, IMO.
Think about those characters, Jeff.
Brody, Ripley, McClane -- bad-ass characters, sure -- but also consider their journeys, and the obstacles they must overcome to eventually succeed.
You do not see themes there? Really? You need to dig a little deeper sometimes, Jeff, or you undermine your cred.
I never said any of them were deep philosophical movies, I said they were built around themes.
Your problem is the exact opposite of what you accuse others of...you literally see nothing beneath the action.
For instance Die Hard. Bruce Willis' wife has gone to work for a major corporation, threatening their marriage. Her boss, a kindly Asian gentleman represents a different world to the one Bruce is comfortable with. Hans Gruber comes along and expressly mentions that he wears the same suits as the boss, except his are the more expensive variety. Gruber represents Mcclanes biggest fears taken to the absolute extreme.
The point about the clones of them all doesn't stand because the clones do what you're saying...they miss the extra layers of thematic content and just copy the style and form, so they just feel like weaker, lighter copies and have no voice of their own.
Jaws has got all sorts of themes in it. The main character who is scared of the sea (ie dying)...and his group of misfit friends who all fear their own mortality who go out alone to protect the community. It's also a political allegory...the massive shark terrorizing the peaceful seaside resort that brings out the worst in the towns citizens...the Mayor who won't close the beach to protect profits, the rednecks who go out killing numerous sharks for no reason.
You just seem to miss whole swathes of what makes these films all time classics. Without the depth that the writers and directors bring to these films...Jaws would just be any one of the clones you mention that are on the cheap movie channels every night.
With the tension Spielberg creates and even the quality of the score, it may have been an enjoyable film without all these myriad elements...but the fact that they were there meant the film changed cinema history and continues to be held in high regards all these years later.
The font is annoying as hell, but there's a pretty concise breakdown of some of the obvious thematic elements in Alien here.
If Die Hard wasn't built around a theme, wouldn't it make more sense for the female lead to be a hot young babe than to be McClane's estranged wife? After all, if we were only after entertainment, it would have been better to just throw some gratuitous sex scenes in rather than watching our protagonist argue with his wife, wouldn't it?
The font is annoying as hell, but there's a pretty concise breakdown of some of the obvious thematic elements in Alien here.
If Die Hard wasn't built around a theme, wouldn't it make more sense for the female lead to be a hot young babe than to be McClane's estranged wife? After all, if we were only after entertainment, it would have been better to just throw some gratuitous sex scenes in rather than watching our protagonist argue with his wife, wouldn't it?
Good post. I was going to mention the fear of male pregnancy in regards to Alien, but I thought Jeff's head might explode with that one!
Bert, you're funny. I really don't want to continuously argue.
Maybe the points I'm trying to make aren't getting through clearly, and if that's the case, I apologize.
First of all, let's look at Jaws. Jaws was obviously written as a best selling novel by Peter Benchley written in 1972. Before it was even published, the film rights were purchased, and production began.
OK, who cares, right? Everyone knows that. But, the point is that both the novel and the film are about a monster terrorizing mankind, much like many of its predecessors and followers. It's filled with great characters, but at its heart, it's about a shark terrorizing a beach community. Period.
You can read in anything you want here. You can throw out any political, thematic, moral issues, whatever, but all of that is not what the novel and movie is about, nor does it have anything to do with the success of the novel and film(s).
Rick, you are correct in what you're saying about me being the opposite of what I argue against, or accuse others of. I do this to try and make a point that continues to not get through.
There are themes and the like present in every form of entertainment, and they don't even have to be consciously put in there. They're part of life itself and will always be present in a well constructed story/script. You don't even have to search for them or try to make it a big deal about what they are and why they matter...cause they don't matter.
Sharks are scary monsters...and they're real monsters. Being eaten by a shark has got to be one of the very worst ways to die. Benchley capitalized on this and the world was hooked, so to speak. It didn't hurt that Spielberg put together a wonderful movie, with wonderful characters, A-List talent that all provided top notch performances, and as you also noted, a soundtrack that will never be forgotten.
Do you guys seriously not understand what I'm saying?
To be fair, Jaws did have deeper issues than what was on the surface... like, a shark.
Seriously though, as a filmmaker, I see an undeniable importance in shorts. As a screenwriter, not so much. If you've resigned not to be involved in the filmmaking process at all, you might as well write a feature. You can argue that it's easier to write one than the other but frankly, I think it's nonsense. The difference in effort between writing a short and writing a feature is barely a fraction of the difference between producing a short and producing a feature.
Personally, I've always found features easier to write than shorts.
There's no right or wrong way.
The way I see it though, if you have a feature script on its own...it seems very hard to get traction on it in any way. It just kind of sits there. You can send it to competitions maybe, to some agents who won't look at it unless you've got a name. It just seems a very difficult way to get in and one that relies a lot on luck.
On the other hand. Write a short 6-10 promo of that feature, get some people together to make it, get it in festivals, meet people pitch the feature, stick it online, market the hell out of it and get people talking...you've got a bit of buzz behind it and the start of an audience...you've got proof of concept and you've already laid the groundwork for the distributor...just seems a more potent way of doing things and gives you some kind of active control over your destiny.
Bert, you're funny. I really don't want to continuously argue.
Maybe the points I'm trying to make aren't getting through clearly, and if that's the case, I apologize.
First of all, let's look at Jaws. Jaws was obviously written as a best selling novel by Peter Benchley written in 1972. Before it was even published, the film rights were purchased, and production began.
OK, who cares, right? Everyone knows that. But, the point is that both the novel and the film are about a monster terrorizing mankind, much like many of its predecessors and followers. It's filled with great characters, but at its heart, it's about a shark terrorizing a beach community. Period.
You can read in anything you want here. You can throw out any political, thematic, moral issues, whatever, but all of that is not what the novel and movie is about, nor does it have anything to do with the success of the novel and film(s).
Rick, you are correct in what you're saying about me being the opposite of what I argue against, or accuse others of. I do this to try and make a point that continues to not get through.
There are themes and the like present in every form of entertainment, and they don't even have to be consciously put in there. They're part of life itself and will always be present in a well constructed story/script. You don't even have to search for them or try to make it a big deal about what they are and why they matter...cause they don't matter.
Sharks are scary monsters...and they're real monsters. Being eaten by a shark has got to be one of the very worst ways to die. Benchley capitalized on this and the world was hooked, so to speak. It didn't hurt that Spielberg put together a wonderful movie, with wonderful characters, A-List talent that all provided top notch performances, and as you also noted, a soundtrack that will never be forgotten.
Do you guys seriously not understand what I'm saying?
Themes are not part of life. You either put the scenes on the page and in the film, or you don't.
If Spielberg didn't have the town meeting where everyone protected their own self interests instead of doing the right thing, the Mayor didn't refuse to close the beach...they just wouldn't be in the film.
It's about a shark attacking a town...so is Jaws the Revenge...except it lacks all the thematic content and quality of the original.
OK, who cares, right? Everyone knows that. But, the point is that both the novel and the film are about a monster terrorizing mankind, much like many of its predecessors and followers. It's filled with great characters, but at its heart, it's about a shark terrorizing a beach community. Period.
There's a little more to it than that. There's also the conflicting characters who chase the shark. There's more going on between the three than there is with the shark. That's why people still talk about Jaws after all these years and similar movies went straight to the discount bins where they die.
There are themes and the like present in every form of entertainment, and they don't even have to be consciously put in there. They're part of life itself and will always be present in a well constructed story/script. You don't even have to search for them or try to make it a big deal about what they are and why they matter...cause they don't matter.
Jeff, I cannot argue that themes are "forced upon" some stories where they might occur by accident.
That does not mean that some stories are not crafted with theme at their heart.
Do not tell me an artisan as skilled and accomplished as Speilberg does not infuse his work with deeper meaning at every possible turn.
This is what makes Jaws resonate more so than any of its imitators.
To steal your words, it is "shocking" that you cannot see that.
And don't forget that the shark is Quint's "great white whale". And the story he recounts about dozens of people dying in a shark feeding frenzy actually happened - I forget the military vessel but I think he names the actual one it happened to in the film...
Your point is worthless as far as I'm concerned, Jeff. How much sweat is it off your back to incorporate subtext into your scripts? All it really involves is something you as a screenwriter should be doing anyways: thinking.
Of course, you're right (to a point, anyway). If you're trying to write another Jaws or Die Hard, most of your audience probably won't care if your story is multilayered or not and if it is, most of them probably won't realize it... but some of them will and they'll appreciate it. Better yet, they'll realize it on an unconscious level.
There's nothing wrong with straight entertainment. But why argue against a little more? Why even say it doesn't matter? Incorporating themes and subtext may or may not boost your story but neglecting to do so definitely won't. It does no harm but it does no good either. Again. Worthless.
Unless someone's arguing against straight entertainment, which no one is, what's to be gained from your argument?
The way I see it though, if you have a feature script on its own...it seems very hard to get traction on it in any way. It just kind of sits there. You can send it to competitions maybe, to some agents who won't look at it unless you've got a name. It just seems a very difficult way to get in and one that relies a lot on luck.
On the other hand. Write a short 6-10 promo of that feature, get some people together to make it, get it in festivals, meet people pitch the feature, stick it online, market the hell out of it and get people talking...you've got a bit of buzz behind it and the start of an audience...you've got proof of concept and you've already laid the groundwork for the distributor...just seems a more potent way of doing things and gives you some kind of active control over your destiny.
Promos and teasers are invaluable for the development of features and self-contained shorts are invaluable for filmmakers who want to work themselves up for that bigger project. I'm of a mind to work myself up to a feature directorial debut with a few shorts of my own. It's been a real challenge to come up with smaller ideas that can still define me as a filmmaker.
But as a non-filmmaker screenwriter, writing shorts feels like the easier though not necessarily more fruitful way out. There's plenty of produced shorts out there that become nothing and no one gives a second thought to. If a feature becomes nothing, it's a colossal failure on the part of the filmmakers. It requires more drive to produce a feature and the people behind it will push it infinitely harder than they'd push their short.
Of course, there're exceptions; I'm AC'ing one right now.
But I digress. As a screenwriter, I feel like I can either write some mediocre shorts and give them away for free or write a great feature and get paid for it. In the event that neither get produced or get produced and become nothing, the feature will at least have brought me a few bucks and the experience of writing it. The shorts... meh. Maybe the DVD'll be cool to show some friends but that's about it.
I feel an inherent need to write my features and don't feel I've lost anything if nothing comes from it. Writing shorts for other people to produce is a split between business thinking and passing the time between features. It's not something I think much about.
Well, I'm obviously not getting my point across very effectively, and again, I do apologize for that.
I am not against adding depth to a script, as long as it doesn't detract from what the script is, but again, much of what you guys keep bringing up is inherent in most stories/scripts that are well conceived.
Steven Spielberg is indeed a genius film maker, but let's be honest here. Before Jaws, he hadn't done all that much (and there's no need to throw up a list, because I know exactly what he did and when he did it). You can say all you want about how his genius made Jaws what it is, but as far as I'm concerned, the credit needs to go to Mr. Benchley, as it's his novel, his idea, his story, his concept.
So I'm out at this point. I will continue to enjoy movies for exactly what they are...a couple hours of escapism and entertainment. I'll also continue to write the same way I appreciate film. You guys can continue to read all you possibly can into every movie that hits, and if you don't see certain themes or whatever you want to call them, rest assured, someone else will bring them up and you can jump on board.
As a screenwriter, I feel like I can either write some mediocre shorts and give them away for free or write a great feature and get paid for it. In the event that neither get produced or get produced and become nothing, the feature will at least have brought me a few bucks and the experience of writing it. The shorts... meh. Maybe the DVD'll be cool to show some friends but that's about it.
More than friends have seen my shorts... That didn't come out right.
If you crank out short scripts, you might get the attention of the beginner filmmaker. If you write an exceptional short, you'll be able to pick and choose who produces it and end up with a very good film to show more than friends.
It'll be easier to get anyone interested in your feature if you can grab their attention with a high quality short. One of the fellowships that I'm entering wants a writing resume. Mine lists my short that have been produced and the others that are in some stage of production. These definitely helped me get my feature scripts optioned.
No one in Hollywood cares if you wrote one script or a hundred; they want to know what you had produced (competitions also help). It shows that someone was willing to spend time and money to produce your work.
I understand the idea behind writing shorts but it's not the main avenue I'd like to pursue. Shorts are not my forte and I think the majority of the ones I've written range from mediocre to poor. I could develop my short skills further but it seems like a waste of time at this point. I've got two features in pre-production, one in post, one I'm writing on assignment now and two more with prospective productions in the near future. ...and one short that got produced by a film student; I'm actually quite happy with that one.
I've built my strengths and resume on features. I'm of a mind to shoot any shorts I write myself so they're really not integral in any professional screenwriting prospects I have at this point.
Of course, that's strictly personal. But I still feel there's more fruit to be bore from features. Most of the shorts I read, I'll forget within a day. Earlier this year, I crewed a short. Where is it now? Oblivion. There's plenty of filmmakers out there that don't care about the shorts they make or writers who wrote them. Features are too big a risk for filmmakers to throw them away in the end.
Pages: 
Author
Short Scripts on SS: A Discussion
Logged
Locked Board