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.
I feel like we have had this conversation before, Jeff.
The unofficial cut-off for a viable feature around here is 75 pages. If I find a feature less than that, it gets moved to Shorts. The author may request otherwise, if they are around.
There is no "official" cut-point (to my knowledge), but 75 seems a good enough benchmark, and the line must be drawn somewhere.
Actually, I've seen quite a few films on NetFlix that are only about 70 minutes long. Especially foreign films. Maybe it should be lowered to 70 pages for features?
Actually, I've seen quite a few films on NetFlix that are only about 70 minutes long. Especially foreign films. Maybe it should be lowered to 70 pages for features?
Sad but true...
The problem, whether it's right or wrong, is that literally no one is going to read a 71 page "short".
Actually, I've seen quite a few films on NetFlix that are only about 70 minutes long. Especially foreign films. Maybe it should be lowered to 70 pages for features?
Fine...go ahead and stir the pot, Dark...
Like I said, 75 pages may not be "perfect", but it's where I have landed for now. And it really only comes up every once in a while.
If anybody is genuinely interested, maybe a thread "How many pages for a feature?" can be used to settle the debate -- at least around here.
I'm with Jeff here, I think. It's a little unfair to the writer to put the script in the shorts section, because no one looking for a short to produce is going to open up a 71 pager. People who look for features however, might.
I will always move it back if the writer asks me to. That part of the discussion is sometimes overlooked. Just trying to keep things tidy and consistent.
Generally, this situation occurs with an author we never hear from anyway, so I do not feel all that guilty.
So -- of course -- this author is sure to turn up today asking, "WTF??"
with regard to the 71 page script in question, the author didn't submit as a short. I accidentally put it in the short category.
For me, 60 pages more or less is the cut off. Bert prefers 75 (tho I got the impression it was 70). In total honesty, it really depends on my mood. And, a 70 page script with lots of white space could very likely be listed as a short while a 60 page script with little white space could very likely be listed as a feature.
So, there is a bit of a grey area on this in my opinion. We could divide this up into Micro Shorts, Super Shorts, Shorts, Shorts-Long-Form and Features. But I think that it will be more trouble than it is worth. In the meantime, 70-75 is the cutoff that Bert and I use to categorize shorts. If the writer objects we'll generally move it unless the request is crazy ridiculous.
with regard to the 71 page script in question, the author didn't submit as a short. I accidentally put it in the short category.
To clarify, the error was not yours, Don.
You placed it in Horror and I moved it to Shorts -- as I will sometimes do, based on the discussion above.
If we are having a discussion, I will toss my criteria out there:
I use a strict 75-page cut-off for an author I do not recognize.
I will assume an author I do recognize knows what they are doing, and will leave anything at 60 or so pages alone -- though this almost never occurs with a known author.
I will always move it back if the author requests it -- though this almost never occurs with an unknown author.
The reason I do this -- quite honestly -- is because Shorts tend to get buried faster.
I find that -- speaking generally now -- features with an "inadequate" page count are poorly formatted, contain numerous errors, and are composed by authors who take no interest in having a presence on the boards.
So I kick them into Shorts, where they are quietly laid to rest, and are not competing with actual feature-length scripts that (to me) ought to be held to a somewhat higher standard of quality.
My thoughts -- though, as always -- I am curious what the rest of the community thinks.
Bert, the above reasoning makes sense to me. Personally, I would lower the page count for shorts. To me, anything over an hour/60 pages is definitely a feature.
From Wikipedia: "According to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, American Film Institute, and British Film Institute, a feature film runs for 40 minutes or longer, while the Screen Actors Guild states that it is 80 minutes or longer."
Personally I've always skipped stuff in the Shorts section that's over 40/45 pages because if I'm there to read a short, I'm in the mood for something that length or less.
From Wikipedia: "According to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, American Film Institute, and British Film Institute, a feature film runs for 40 minutes or longer, while the Screen Actors Guild states that it is 80 minutes or longer."
What about oldies? The black and white films with actors like James Cagney? Some films back then were 65-70 minutes long... are they classified as "short films" instead of features? According to SAG, they are. I, myself, would disagree on that one.
Bert, I think your reasoning is sound. Personally, I would put the page count around 60. Festivals generally tend to consider a feature film to be at least 50 minutes while some have the cutoff around 60. That's just based on my own admittedly limited experience, though.
At 75 pages, it would definitely be easier to expand than reduce. Something to consider, maybe. But you're probably right about quality. I imagine most scripts at 75 pages are going to be thin on story and short on skill. Honestly, there are so many factors, I could see why you would want a hard number. Like I said, I would probably go with 50 or 60, but that's me. And I don't have to deal with it.