You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Should I enter a short film or make a 2 hour blockbuster?

What film should I work on?

A short film to enter the film contest71%[ 17 ]
A big blockbuster to hit cinemas and DVD21%[ 5 ]
both8%[ 2 ]

Total Votes : 24

Posted: Mon, 2nd Apr 2007, 8:06am

Post 1 of 25

PLANB

Force: 1312 | Joined: 20th Dec 2006 | Posts: 218

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

This year a short film contest is soon opening and I want to see if I should get started in the holidays or save up for a big blockbuster film. I don't know the prizes but the contest is due near August and their is no due date if i do a feature film. What fo you prefer? unsure

Last edited Wed, 4th Apr 2007, 7:52am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 2nd Apr 2007, 8:52am

Post 2 of 25

coldside

Force: 414 | Joined: 6th Jan 2005 | Posts: 306

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Its not a question of what you should do, but what you are capeable of doing. Is this your first try at filmmaking? Then do a short. Have you done a feature film sucessfully before? Then feature is an option. What sort of equipment, cast, crew, locations do you have access to? This will all affect your ultimate decision.

I would check the rules of entry before commiting to either short or feature film, but personally I would go short film as they are generally more accepted at a film festival.

Daniel
Posted: Mon, 2nd Apr 2007, 10:44am

Post 3 of 25

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

You can make a blockbuster if you want, but consider the likelihood that it won't bust a single block.
If you're deciding which to do, then you've probably not researched into making and selling a feature film, and it's not going to happen.
If you want to get money for a feature then you'll need to approach selling agents, for a start. Then there are various things they'll need once it's made. And the script needs to be bang on for you to even have a chance of making it.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Apr 2007, 3:38pm

Post 4 of 25

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

For Blockbuster read Bankbuster. You can't afford it, simply put!

If the idea will work as a short, make it as a short, and if it happens to be the best story ever and well made, you may be able to use it as a lever to get some cash to reshoot it as a feature in the future. If not, it may be fun to do and be some good showreel.

Make it as a short film, and make it under 8 mins if you can - the shorter the short the better the chance of getting someone to watch it and the more competitions it can go into (and the less time and cash you burn on superfluous action and editing...)
Posted: Mon, 2nd Apr 2007, 7:58pm

Post 5 of 25

DavidLittlefield

Force: 1905 | Joined: 10th Oct 2006 | Posts: 469

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Im with everyone else. I think it would be very difficult to make a good, enjoyable, feature length film. Especially when half of the ones you PAY to see arent even that good. I would totally go with a short film.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Apr 2007, 9:48pm

Post 6 of 25

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I say you're too young to make a blockbuster. So choose that one! It will be funny for the rest of us to watch you fail. wink
Posted: Mon, 2nd Apr 2007, 9:53pm

Post 7 of 25

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

the contest is due near August
answers your question already... make a blockbuster for cinema and DVD? Until august? Hehehe, good luck mate. smile

Seriously though: Make a shortfilm. So you can focus on quality instead of quantity, which a feature wouldn't allow you to.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Apr 2007, 11:11pm

Post 8 of 25

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

the contest is due near August
answers your question already... make a blockbuster for cinema and DVD? Until august? Hehehe, good luck mate. smile

Seriously though: Make a shortfilm. So you can focus on quality instead of quantity, which a feature wouldn't allow you to.
It's the short that has a deadline, not the feature. Even so, you're still right smile
Posted: Mon, 2nd Apr 2007, 11:20pm

Post 9 of 25

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

You're 13 man.. haha, make a short film.
Posted: Tue, 3rd Apr 2007, 7:01am

Post 10 of 25

PLANB

Force: 1312 | Joined: 20th Dec 2006 | Posts: 218

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

I say you're too young to make a blockbuster. So choose that one! It will be funny for the rest of us to watch you fail. wink
Let's see you do better smile
Posted: Tue, 3rd Apr 2007, 11:58am

Post 11 of 25

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

PLANB wrote:

Aculag wrote:

I say you're too young to make a blockbuster. So choose that one! It will be funny for the rest of us to watch you fail. wink
Let's see you do better smile
In theory there's no reason why age ought to stop you from making a $40M blockbuster, but in reality nobody will give you blockbuster money aged 13. Or if they do, by golly print their address up here and we'll all go along for a handout before they're locked up!

If you have made a few shorts already, you could try a feature, but from experience, features take longer than you've got, seriously, even if the deadline is October instead of August! Make the short, and make it well. Shorter is better mosttimes. Be ruthless in the edit. Would you rather have a silver teaspoon or a thousand plastic coffee-stirrers? Go for quality over quantity every time, and you'll be ready to do the feature for another day. If you turn a 6-minute idea into a 120-minute film, you're wasting everybody's time, not least your own smile
Posted: Tue, 3rd Apr 2007, 1:38pm

Post 12 of 25

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

PLANB wrote:

Aculag wrote:

I say you're too young to make a blockbuster. So choose that one! It will be funny for the rest of us to watch you fail. wink
Let's see you do better smile
I've got ten more years behind me than you do. I'd say I have a better shot at it. Then again, I have no interest in making a 2 hour blockbuster. wink
Posted: Tue, 3rd Apr 2007, 1:46pm

Post 13 of 25

FCRabbath

Force: 305 | Joined: 11th Oct 2004 | Posts: 583

Member

Just because you would fail doesn't mean he will. You never know. All i can tell ya is try to make the perfect short film. Only then can u consider making a bigger one. What im saying is, use the shorts as practice.
Posted: Tue, 3rd Apr 2007, 7:09pm

Post 14 of 25

jgtrox2

Force: 438 | Joined: 24th May 2006 | Posts: 351

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I have learned with Weeks of experience that if you dont have good equipment it could affect your film quality. Not that you wouldent still be able to make a good film. But what is the reason to make such a long movie for? Unles you are willing to save up or ur parents will give u 1million dollars it would look like a home made film. When i think about a home made film i see this is my head. A couple of kids running around in there back yard having a light saber fight with bad camera work. Now not that i can do better. But its always like cameras that are not hd or cost alot have a sertan look to it that makes me want to throw up. But when you grade it it can make it get better. If u use a fxhome product or some other product to grade with, rendering will take half of your time because you have to grade every shot the same(unless your grading for a night shot or making a light effect) go with the short.
Posted: Tue, 3rd Apr 2007, 7:31pm

Post 15 of 25

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

jgtrox2 wrote:

But its always like cameras that are not hd or cost alot have a sertan look to it that makes me want to throw up. But when you grade it it can make it get better.
You're saying that a Canon GL2 or XL2 has quality that makes you want to throw up? HD quality is superb, but it doesn't mean everything under it is terrible.

As for your 2 hour blockbuster idea, I have to say that it's not going to work out. To accomplish a 2 hour blockbuster, in 4 months is nearly impossible. Being a 13 year old, I assume you don't have tons of actors and dedicated workers, nor the experience to accomplish such a feat.
Posted: Tue, 3rd Apr 2007, 7:41pm

Post 16 of 25

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

...not to mention, writing it is going to take you a while.
Posted: Tue, 3rd Apr 2007, 8:44pm

Post 17 of 25

jgtrox2

Force: 438 | Joined: 24th May 2006 | Posts: 351

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Kyal wrote:

jgtrox2 wrote:

But its always like cameras that are not hd or cost alot have a sertan look to it that makes me want to throw up. But when you grade it it can make it get better.
You're saying that a Canon GL2 or XL2 has quality that makes you want to throw up? HD quality is superb, but it doesn't mean everything under it is terrible.

As for your 2 hour blockbuster idea, I have to say that it's not going to work out. To accomplish a 2 hour blockbuster, in 4 months is nearly impossible. Being a 13 year old, I assume you don't have tons of actors and dedicated workers, nor the experience to accomplish such a feat.
no i said exzatly the oppsite. this is from my previous post read the bold. But its always like cameras that are not hd or cost have a sertan look to it that makes me want to throw up. But when you grade it it can make it get better
Posted: Tue, 3rd Apr 2007, 10:02pm

Post 18 of 25

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

People who whine about not having a good enough video camera should really look into the Redrock M2. It will do wonders for your footage, and it can be used with just about every camera.

Obviously a better camera is going to get you better footage, but people really need to learn to work within their means. You can still tell a story and get practical experience with a cheap, or non-professional video camera, no matter how it looks.
Posted: Tue, 3rd Apr 2007, 10:55pm

Post 19 of 25

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

jgtrox2 wrote:

Kyal wrote:

jgtrox2 wrote:

But its always like cameras that are not hd or cost alot have a sertan look to it that makes me want to throw up. But when you grade it it can make it get better.
You're saying that a Canon GL2 or XL2 has quality that makes you want to throw up? HD quality is superb, but it doesn't mean everything under it is terrible.

As for your 2 hour blockbuster idea, I have to say that it's not going to work out. To accomplish a 2 hour blockbuster, in 4 months is nearly impossible. Being a 13 year old, I assume you don't have tons of actors and dedicated workers, nor the experience to accomplish such a feat.
no i said exzatly the oppsite. this is from my previous post read the bold. But its always like cameras that are not hd or cost have a sertan look to it that makes me want to throw up. But when you grade it it can make it get better
Honestly, the way you write and the grammar you use makes it absolutely impossible to decipher EXACTLY what you're saying, Bud. Still, what you said (after your semi-clarification) makes sense.
Posted: Wed, 4th Apr 2007, 2:36am

Post 20 of 25

cinemafreak

Force: 1312 | Joined: 14th Dec 2004 | Posts: 322

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

jgtrox2 wrote:

Kyal wrote:

jgtrox2 wrote:

But its always like cameras that are not hd or cost alot have a sertan look to it that makes me want to throw up. But when you grade it it can make it get better.
You're saying that a Canon GL2 or XL2 has quality that makes you want to throw up? HD quality is superb, but it doesn't mean everything under it is terrible.

As for your 2 hour blockbuster idea, I have to say that it's not going to work out. To accomplish a 2 hour blockbuster, in 4 months is nearly impossible. Being a 13 year old, I assume you don't have tons of actors and dedicated workers, nor the experience to accomplish such a feat.
no i said exzatly the oppsite. this is from my previous post read the bold. But its always like cameras that are not hd or cost have a sertan look to it that makes me want to throw up. But when you grade it it can make it get better
Often times its not so much the actual camera as it is the way the camera is set up. It is true that a $1000 dollar camera will have better image quality than a $300 camera and a $5000 dollar camera is sure to have even better image quality. That said, most "home" or amatuer videos are of poor quality because the videographer justs points and shoots without thinking of shot composition or adjusting white balance and/or shutterspeed or contrast. Those two factors play a huge role in determining the quality of the footage you take, no matter how expensive of a camera you may have.
Posted: Wed, 4th Apr 2007, 4:26am

Post 21 of 25

SilverDragon7

Force: 2265 | Joined: 29th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1990

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I voted both, because: You could easily do one short film in under a month, and still have time for a 2 hour film. But this is IMO.
Posted: Wed, 4th Apr 2007, 4:30am

Post 22 of 25

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

cinemafreak wrote:

or contrast.
I already agree with anything you say thus far, and you probably don't even know why.
Posted: Wed, 4th Apr 2007, 3:10pm

Post 23 of 25

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Because you're a sucker for contrast. Here's my impression of Atom:

"IF WE SHOOT IT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AS LONG AS IT'S GOT HAAAARSH CONTRAAAST BROOO"

smile
Posted: Wed, 4th Apr 2007, 11:44pm

Post 24 of 25

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

It never really matters what the shooting looks like in the first place, because it always looks amazing on a GL2....................bro. wink
Posted: Thu, 5th Apr 2007, 1:31am

Post 25 of 25

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I enjoy Higher contrast as well....But The GL2 looking "Amazing"? I can't say I've ever been "Amazed" an a film shot on a GL2, purely based on visual quality. Go watch something filmed on a Hvx200 and then we'll talk.


As far as this topic goes, It's considerably shortsighted to say he "Can't" make a "Blockbuster", as, everything is relative to skill. He could be insanely talented and we just don't know it yet.


I'd more consider the actual time it would take against the speed at which you find yourself getting burned out.