I agree with Shawn on this one.

I consider a feature to be around 80 pages and above.

A short to me, would be under 40 pages, 45 is maybe even pushing it.  But I would settle on 40 pages the cut off for a short.  

If someone submits a "feature" and it's less than 80 but more than 40 (that in between area of doom) then I'd suggest just posting it in the features section, and let us the users of SS, comment and let the author know that it's too short to be a feature, that he either need to cut stuff to get it below 40 to be considered a SHORT, or he could work on it so that it's 80+ to be  FEATURE.

That's my two cents anyways.

-- Curt

Yup - to me 75 is cusp of a proper feature but miles off a proper, or usual, short.

I would vote short is 45 and under

Having said all that, if someone really posted a 65 page script it is most likely they don't know too much about what they are doing, unless its a pilot, tv etc, as it so obviously doesn't fit the usual demands.

^ That's why I think it's our job to direct the people who post those length scripts in the right direction.  We should be helpful and inform them that what they're doing is wrong, and explain to them how to make their script meet standard demands.

MAYBE there should be an in between area!

Okay.  So WE come to an agreement on what a short should be under (40-45 pages, or whatever it might be, etc...) and what the cut off for a feature should be (75-80 pages or whatever it might be, etc...).

And then, for example, somebody posts a SCRIPT that is in between the standard.  So, say someone posts a script and selects "feature" but it's like 50/60 pages.  Or someone submits something as a "short" but it's 60/65 pages.  Then, it should be move to a SECTION on the board for the in-between, if you get my drift, does that make sense?

So there's a section for FEATURES, SHORTS and then maybe a new section for the IN-BETWEEN scripts that are too long to be shorts and too short to be features.  And in this section, WE the users can inform the user that their script isn't meeting standard length/etc. and we can help them out?  Lol.

-- Curt

Okay. I'm with you fellas.

To me a short is under 80 pages. Unless it's a tv programme, documentary etc.

As I've said a few times on here I'm not a huge fan of the short, but for young filmmakers and writers who are just starting out they are good to learn the craft.
80 minutes is a low run time for a feature-length as it is, mainly low-budget films end up with such a short run-time (although not always).

I've always subscribed to the school of thought that a page equates to a minute. However, I was once told by a master of this craft, that the best way he knew to work out the length of the script was to count the dialogue (although he wrote for TV which doesn't rely as much on action as films do - well, in most cases).

71 pages will not score anybody any good favor. Can't they add 10 more pages of fluff? If the story's sound, it will still swim.

160 pages means shit needs to be cut back. 71 means they're on the doorstep of a feature and are missing something. Maybe just a subplot.

I agree with Shawn's Page contest criteria. Shorts should be 40 pages or less.

James

Quoted from jwent6688 71 pages will not score anybody any good favor. Can't they add 10 more pages of fluff? If the story's sound, it will still swim.

I can't see many distributors wanting to go on anything less than 80 minutes - and it's easy to pull the length of a film out once you have credits and opening sequences.

I don't get the argument about 'where a short ends ... a feature must begin'. They're a pole apart.

For me, if you're writing 30mins, then it's for TV; if you're writing 60mins then it's TV, but 'drama' length. If it's over 60 minutes, then it gets re-written for film and should hit at least 80mins + if it's for kids/comedy etc, more for other genres.

So anything less than 30mins (you're therefore not writing for TV, bar cartoon etc) is a short. What/who else are you writing a short for - mainly the festival market so that you can show your talent and get funded for a feature.

In short, a short should be short, and to the point.

When I first began learning about screenwriting, 120 pages was described as the standard feature.

Then 110 was considered the norm for a spec, less than 100 being too light, a turn off for those looking for specs.

And then the ideal seemed to shift again where 100 was the ideal, so that 90 or even 85 pages was fine and good.

I don't think this is due to films getting shorter, but rather due to what readers are looking for in specs. The spec script is the foundation for a film, so it's more than possible to establish the story for a feature film in 80 to 100 pages.

Or maybe even in 71.

Just saying maybe that things have shifted a bit in terms of expectations and with evolving writing styles.

Have a great Saturday!

Damn, I see all sides on this one.
I understand Bert's tactical reasoning re: moving such scripts to the short section.

My gut reaction - personally - is this:

Less than 40 pages is a short
40-70 feels like a TV Pilot (whether or not it's meant to be)
70 and over - feature length

And yet, creating extra categories is just silly and make-work for the poor admins.

I dunno...I guess, let the writer decide the classification and have the script sink or swim on its own merits from there? (Unless, for instance, a 120 script gets put in with shorts!)  

There's always the 'Other Unproduced Screenplays' section - it's been hanging around doing nothing for a couple of years or so ...?

I agree with Bert's criteria for 75 pages for features. Film festivals use the criteria of 75 minutes so it all seems copacetic. At the same time, I think Don should continue to play things by ear. We don't get >75 page features in bulk. The majority of scripts submitted seem to fall into snugly into one category or another. Creating new bureaucracy for those once-in-a-blue-moon situations seems excessive and generally pointless.