A 71 page short?  Really?

Good luck...

Quoted from Dreamscale A 71 page short?  Really?

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?

Quoted from Grandma Bear 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".

Quoted from Grandma Bear 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.

Just my $0.02. Not trying to stir up anything.  

Quoted from Grandma Bear It's a little unfair to the writer...

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.  

Don

Quoted from Don 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.

Quoted from Heretic 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.

Quoted from Guest What about oldies?

I don't think that is really germaine to this particular discussion, which is more of a housekeeping issue than anything.

The question (mostly) is this:  What should be considered a Feature-Length here, at SS, in terms of pages?

If you were a Mod, where would you make the cut?

Bert,

I honestly don't know.

You have 75 pages as a short.  So all you have to do is add another 5 (80) and its a feature?

Don goes by 60, but even that seems too long.  An hour film doesn't feel short.

But I guess it's the most reasonable answer.

Thinking about it.... maybe a short should be no longer than 30 pages? (a readable one anyway)

But what happens to that other 50?

Say if we made it 30 and less..... what happens when someone submits a 50 page script?  Does that become a short or a feature?

I guess I'll go with Don on this one -- 60 pages.

However, it really all depends on the writing transferring to the screen and how the time will play out.  But as for page count, I'll say 60.

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.

You're doing a fine job, Bert!

Most contest (like PAGE) use this criteria-

Full-Length Features: 80-120 pages
Short Film Scripts: under 40 pages
TV Drama Pilots: 50-70 pages
TV Comedy Pilots: 25-45 pages

Shawn.....><

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.