Most of the shorts I read seem to involve a setup and a payoff, rather than being an actual narrative. When I write a short, I try to cram the hero's journey into 8-15 pages.

Is that wrong, unique, or equally-viable?

To me shorts are different, yet parallels can be made.

Shorts need a twist, or they 'can' lack. If you have only 5/8 pages you don't have much time to set up, hence why the reversal is key.

You can have an a tonal thing, arty type - does that work for most, I'm not sure.

But I do believe in there being a balance, a flow.  So whilst it doesn't always need a start, a middle and an end, if does need change.

The best tip I can give is the stand back approach. It's simple really...

Do you thinks its good?

Do you think it works?

Does it surprise you?

Does it make you think about it after reading?

If none of the above, think again.

I think the point of a short should be about - a simple story, well told. Some of the best ones I have read usually have an emotive quality.

Shorts are just that... short stories formatted in screenplay form.  I've seen feature scripts that should've been written as shorts.

You can only pad a script so much.


Phil

I personally think the point of all screenplays are to tell a story.  And a short is the exact same thing, just done in less pages.

I think shorts need to be interesting to get a reader's attention, since they lack the page-count of say a feature.  Therefore, you need to reel in an audience sooner and keep their attention.  So the story must be entertaining or interesting,

But overall to me the point of a short is to tell a story, like all screenplays, it just has to be done much more effectively. :)

-- Curt

Okay, I think I'm still on the right track. I'm trying to write a quick little tale, like something from 1001 Arabian Nights, set in modern day. Those stories are super short, so I figure it's good short film fodder.