Don’t make the feature version of your short
I had coffee today with a writer-director whose acclaimed short film got him many awards and meetings all over town. And deservedly: it’s terrific, a labor of love that took several years to make.
He said he was finishing up the screenplay for the feature version. I told him to focus on something else instead. You shouldn’t make the feature version of your short.
This seems like terrible advice. After all, it’s easy to think of several acclaimed filmmakers who expanded upon their short films, including Neill Blomkamp and George Lucas.
But having worked with many emerging filmmakers through the Sundance Institute and other programs, I’ve encountered a lot of silent evidence that suggests it’s a pretty bad idea.1
Great shorts are great and short. The perfect haiku isn’t improved by rewriting it as a sonnet.
You will burn out on the idea. Having already made the short, do you want to spend several more years making it again?
Show what else you can do. A career isn’t one movie, or one idea. Even if you make the movie and it turns out great, you’ve still only told one story so far in your career.
Safety is paralysis. It’s less intimidating to expand on something familiar. But you need to push against your boundaries.
Your first feature project should ideally be in the same class or genre as your acclaimed short, but not a retread. If you made a charming short about blind leprechauns, write a feature about kleptomaniac crows. Let the connection between projects be your ambition and sensibility, not a single storyline.
Go was originally written to be a short film — but we never shot it. Had the short version been made, I can’t imagine going back to write the full thing. I would have been too hamstrung by my original choices, and the scenes that had already been shot.
Worse, I wouldn’t have felt the same things the second time through. You don’t get your first kiss twice.
- Silent evidence: You’re only seeing the movies that got made and released, not the ones that didn’t. ↩
Articles
April 28th, 2010 at 8:17 am
Do you carve out an exception for when the initial plan is to make a feature and the short is a marketing/test-bed type of thing, or do you think even in those cases you should move on?
April 28th, 2010 at 8:23 am
Interesting. Coming from the “regular” writing side of things, I find myself trying to compare your advice to what I see in the publishing industry. Lots of literary short stories serve as the seeds of novels. And lots of literary writers COUNT on that. They go to MFA programs and enter short stories in prestigious contests because they want someone to notice their short work and sign them up for a novel.
But, to your point, what about all the short stories that never make it to novel form? How much “silent evidence” is there that it doesn’t work as well as we writers think it does?
I don’t have an answer, and I imagine that it’s a bit different turning short stories into novels than short films into features, but it’s good food for thought. Thanks, as usual. :)
(Granted, even the question doesn’t apply to me as much anymore… From what I’ve seen, short story-to-novel tends to happen for Serious Literature and for sci-fi, neither of which I currently write.)
April 28th, 2010 at 8:43 am
“Make something new instead” is some of the best advice you can give to ANYONE looking to redo something that’s already done.
April 28th, 2010 at 9:02 am
@Nima:
Sure — if you shot something as a test with the intention of making a larger feature, go on and make the feature. But a lot of my earlier warnings still apply: you’ll end up with less to show for the months or years you put into it, and risk serious burnout.
If you need to make a “test film,” I’d try to write something related to but not part of the bigger feature. Think Animatrix to The Matrix. It’s the same reason I write audition scenes for actors that aren’t part of the actual script.
April 28th, 2010 at 9:09 am
What do you think about remaking the same short again? I made a short in school that totally blows for a variety of film school related reasons. But I’m still in love with (and still own the rights to) the script and want to go back and make the film as originally envisioned.
April 28th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Unless, I think, the writer, who also wants to direct, already has the feature written and decides to create a short to get interest in the feature and showcase his talent as a visual storyteller.
April 28th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Really good and smart advice (as always.)
April 28th, 2010 at 10:05 am
I definitely agree with point #2. There are a couple of shorts I produced a few years ago and had been toying with the idea of expanding them into features, but for me, once I’m finished with one project, I’m ready to go on to the next one. It’s hard for me to revisit the material.
http://twitter.com/ParcHDVideo
April 28th, 2010 at 10:45 am
Wasn’t Frozen River a short and then expanded to a feature?
There are exceptions to every rule and given the difficulty in getting a first feature made, it’s not the worst thing in the world to prove that you can tell the story.
April 28th, 2010 at 11:26 am
@Angela:
Ask yourself if it’s the best use of your time and resources. Maybe it is. But I suspect there’s something new that would serve you better.
@Joe Gillis:
I suspect we can find a lot of examples like Frozen River. The counter-examples are harder to list, because most of them never got made or released.
But of those that did, consider The Mudge Boy, a Sundance feature by Michael Burke. It’s great, and expands on his earlier short called Fishbelly White. Were the two films, together, the best use of filmmaking time and talent for the five years it took? I don’t know. But it’s easy for me to imagine him doing more if he hadn’t focused on just that one project.
April 28th, 2010 at 11:35 am
I didn’t know Frozen River was a short film first. I thought it was an amazing film. I wish there were more independent films like it, and not all those quirky stories about quirky characters full of quirky situations. Of course, that’s just my own preference. I thought it was a great film and a great story.
April 28th, 2010 at 11:43 am
This is an interesting yet counter-intuitive piece of advice that I agree with.
For me, it calls to mind the 2004(?) short “Cashback” and the subsequent 2006 feature (of the same name) based on the short.
The short was great, the feature just “meh.”
Obviously, I can’t fault the filmmaker for wanting to go back and shoot more naked boobies, but the premise felt very s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d when compared with the short.
April 28th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Good points. But it’s very case to case. I think the more common and fatal mistake by young filmmakers is to turn their shorts into features WHILE THEY ARE STILL MAKING THE SHORT. A short film should not be a mini-feature. It has its won structure and rules. The best ones build up one idea and end on a twist. Generic formula, I know. But the ones that try to be little features end up running thirty minutes and everybody gets bored, or they don’t even get into festivals because they are now competing with 3-5 truly short short films for a spot in the program.
April 28th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
I recently made a short which, being my first narrative project, shows its flaws despite having some things going for it including an interesting concept. Several attendees at its screening commented that they felt there was a lot of backstory to the characters and that they could easily see this as a feature. Quietly, I dispelled the thought. Three months later, I now have a very detailed outline with characters arcs, interesting subplots and a structure that, in my opinion, holds water. I’m going to write the script for several reasons. Firstly, I still love the characters. Secondly, this will be my fifth feature script and writing this will only help showcase my growth as a writer and will contrast with other genres I’ve written. Finally, roughly seventy-five percent of the script takes place at one location (a la Rachel Getting Married) which means that of all my scripts, this one would most stand the chance of my directing and or producing it as indie project. In my case, I see very little downside and I’m psyched to write it.
April 28th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
I agree with your points, John… but I don’t know that the sum of those points should equate to a RULE. I know what you’re cautioning against, and agree heartily, but some of your readers may just quote “the rule” without understanding that there can be very valid exceptions.
For example, If the short is part of the plan from the beginning, then it’s not “revisiting” the idea when you move on to the feature stage of the plan. That’s like saying you shouldn’t revisit a script with a 2nd (or 5th or 8th) draft. Since multiple drafts are part of your plan, your script should get BETTER with each visit, not worse. Shouldn’t the same be true if the short is part of the process as well? It seems that one could learn some valuable things from the short… things that could possibly prevent bigger mistakes on the feature. The trick is not to make a “short version of the feature” or, what you’re cautioning against, a “long version of the short”. Very different elements make shorts and features compelling… and each must stand alone without the other. The characters and premise, however, can be the same… so maybe the rule should be: Don’t force a feature-length version upon a short, but if one chooses to make a short AND a feature, be sure to know why you’re doing each and to know how each character & premise needs to differ for both films to succeed.
Okay, I guess that’s kind of a wordy rule. Did I just try to make the feature length version of your short rule? And in the process, prove you completely right? :)
April 28th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
“Sling Blade”, I believe, was also a short before a feature, and won an Oscar…but to be fair, Billy Bob wasn’t exactly an unknown entity in the biz at that point, but it certainly helped him leap to the next level
April 28th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
John, I’m in a bit of flux about this because I’m at a point where I’m shooting a short for just that reason. I believe the “labour of love” short (a period political thriller) will attract industry attention. I’m currently in the funding stage and I believe there’s several sources willing to do so.
I do have other ideas within the same genre to present as well. So I get that you’re saying it conceivably makes sense to sell the feature idea, if the idea has “legs”, and continue developing of my feature project(s) within the same genre. However, can you provide conditions for when one should develop the long form script?
April 28th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
John;
I agree with your sentiment but I suspect in some cases the film maker might not have a choice. If someone sees a short and is willing to finance a feature made from it, they might not be all that keen on letting that director shoot something different but similar. They might want a feature version of the short and nothing else.
Certainly you would agree if your only option as an upcoming film maker is to shoot something you’ve made as a short that’s better than doing nothing, right?
For an up-and-comer I think any opportunity to direct or write a feature is probably worth doing. Sure you should have lots of other material ready to go and pitch the hell out of it but money talks and you shouldn’t pass up any opportunities if that’s the only opportunity you have.
April 29th, 2010 at 6:34 am
I agree with Ashley. If I make a short and Peter Jackson says he’ll fund the feature, I wouldn’t turn round and say I want to make something else.
I think the key is not to be lazy when writing the screenplay for the feature. Don’t just stretch the short and be done with it. Use the short as a “moodboard” to base the feature on. You’d include the same concepts, but totally restructure it to make the story work. That’s why District 9 worked.
April 29th, 2010 at 8:19 am
Hi What about District 9 – wasn’t that a short that was expanded? Best Charlie
April 29th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
I used to teach film, and a lot of my former students wanted to remake their shorts a lot, or re-edit them. We encouraged them to move on.
Another issue was trying to take a feature idea and turn it into a short. That never worked out well–it’s tough to boil it down to a comprehensive 10 minute movie from 90-120 minutes.
Or a trailer to try and get funding–that only works on occasion.
One thing I’m trying to do is wrap up an FX-heavy short and use that to get financing for a different film. The short shows my cast, crew and I can do it, but the feature is a whole different film.
Heck, I would love to take my next film and shoot one of the big sequences to try and get funding. Will it work? Or will it end up like trying to make a short or a trailer to get the financing? I guess I’ll find out in about a year.
Heath
April 29th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
You shouldn’t adapt books to screenplays either. They’re a completely different medium.
Oh, but hang on…
It works!
The movie Taika’s Boy is an expansion of the short Two Cars. It is the biggest NZ comedy ever and still #1 at box office. Not bad for an expanded short. (via @danslevin)
Bottom line: if your writing is up to scratch, it really doesn’t matter.
April 29th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Actually “Boy” is not an expansion of “Two Cars, One Night”. They’re both about Maori children in New Zealand, but the characters and settings are different. It’s actually a good example of what John is saying – don’t remake the short, but stick with your strengths.
April 29th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Thanks for this, John. Very timely, as my creative partner and I are in post on a half-hour horror short and were debating the best investment for a potential feature that might spring from our hard work. Having told a very compact story, we’d just started to discuss the wisdom of revisiting and extrapolating, simply to pad an extended retelling of the same tale.
Your site is terrific. As someone who’s been lurking a while without expressing gratitude for the effort you put out here for the writing community, please consider this an appreciative “virtual” warm cup of cocoa.
April 30th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Well, I’ll jump on the ‘what about this example’ bandwagon… ‘Blood Red Earth’ became ‘The Burrowers’ (IMHO an underrated film that did well to focus on some beautiful shooting and great character acting over the critturs, but that’s another story…).
There seem to be plenty of examples where it works. But I think if I had the oppty to make a feature of a short (I liked), I’d do it… but agree with the ‘use it as a moodboard’ sentiment and give it some difference… as The Burrowers did, adding the whole Cavalry element.
April 30th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Hey John, you make some interesting points, but like some others have said, what if a short is purposely designed to tie into the feature?
For instance, I’m currently working on making a zombie short film. While its primary purpose is to show off my abilities as a writer and director, it also serves a secondary role, as a prequel to the actual movie.
I’m going to introduce a concept in the short, which the characters discover, and this will then trigger the events in the feature screenplay. The feature will show new characters, but the surviving ones from the short will play minor but important roles (doing it this way so they can hire new people, because I’m fairly certain they’ll want to use name actors/actresses).
I realize I could probably just make the events of the short into Act 1 of the feature, but I really want to direct this, and without any prior training or much practical experience, I know they won’t let me unless I have something to show them that proves I have potential to direct (and write). And rather than just do the same movie twice, I’d like to set up the main movie and hopefully garner interest for it with a well done short.
May 2nd, 2010 at 2:01 am
Hey John,
I finished my first short film a few months ago, and have just finished my first feature script which my short was derived from.
I began writing my feature a year ago, but decided to take a section of it and make that into my first short in order to gain experience as a director, which is what I’ve always wanted to be. My goal was never to make a short, but to make the feature, and I looked at this in a marketing point of view. If I’m wanting to sell my feature in order to direct it, the best assurance a producer or production company could receive would be my demonstration of skills, the unique story that leaves them wanting more, and the realization that this story or concept could do extremely well as a feature.
I do agree that it could be repetitive for one to write a feature based off of a short, either because the short did well, or because they’ve become so close and knowledgeable of the subject matter that they THINK making a feature would be the best choice, especially with that good ol’ saying, “write what you know”. But if one makes the short purposefully to get their feature script produced, and to gain experience on the way (so they don’t bomb their big first feature film), then I’m pretty sure that’s okay!
Just thought I would show my example since I’m literally in the process of trying to get my feature recognized.
Sorry for the lack of brevity!
May 2nd, 2010 at 11:53 am
A short may be a good way to show your skills as a director and get your foot into the door. But to get funding for a feature? I don’t know. That’s what scripts are for.
May 2nd, 2010 at 8:54 pm
There are exceptions to this, of course. “Boogie Nights” being a great one. But the short, “the Dirk Diggler Story”, was 30 minutes, so there’s more to draw on in adapting to the feature.
David Michod, who won Sundance this year with “Animal Kingdom”, wrote the short “Crossbow” to attract interest in “Animal Kingdom” as nobody understood how he could do a ‘poetic crime movie’. Not the same story, but the same tone.
Personally, I think the key is to take either the world and/or the tone of the short and make it into a feature. They seem the best translations. “District 9″ was both – and drew on a few shorts.
May 3rd, 2010 at 3:17 am
John,
Really enjoyed this post about the trepidation of making your short into a feature. I know well of this subject. I made a short a while back, “THE MANDALA MAKER,” that has presently won six awards on the festival circuit and has the potential to close out with another win or two. We were one of only 71 films to qualify for the Academy Awards and made the first round of cuts. We did miss the nomination, but hey, only five films get that – ;)
All in all, it was an amazing experience. I’ve even got several art houses, museums and some multiplexes, willing to give play-dates with unique distribution and we are going to put the short out on DVD. And although I was approached by more than one person about expanding this film to a feature, I chose to do something else – mostly for the very reaons you prescribed above.
As a result, I’ve just wrapped principal photography on my film, “NIGHT CLUB,” starring Academy-Award Winner Ernest Borgnine, Zachary Abel of “MAKE IT OR BREAK IT” and “THE SECRET LIFE OF TEENAGERS,” Natasha Lyonne (SLUMS OF BEVERLY HILLS, AMERICAN PIE), Paul Sorvino, Daniel Roebuck (LOST, MATLOCK), Rance Howard, Clint Howard and an appearence by the legendary Mickey Rooney, among others. It has been an incredibly positive experience, and like yourself, I couldn’t have imagined going back to the very same film, stretching it out for another two years of my life in an attempt to better an already fine and successful product.
Just wanted to drop you this note – lengthy as it may be – to tell you your comments really hit home for me. With a little luck, perhaps we will see each other at a festival down the road. You have a wonderful web-site and here’s wishing you much continued success in the business, and life, as well.
Sincerely,
Sam Borowski Writer-Director/Producer/All-Around Myth Smith
May 3rd, 2010 at 12:18 pm
@ Eve: They’re always exceptions. I recently attended a screening for a short that was shot only because the filmmakers got Sofia Coppola interested in their feature script, but she wanted to see a short based on the feature so as to see what their creative vision was. Apparently, it worked. At the time of the screening, was actually in India doing location scouting for the feature.
May 4th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Hi John,
What are your thoughts on a feature version of a short SCRIPT? I have one that was to be shot as my thesis film, but I couldn’t afford it. I want to expand it into a feature because there’s a little too much story for a short film.
May 7th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Excellent advice.
I made a long- short that everybody in town insisted become a feature. It ended up being an incredibly frustrating and painful setback. There are a million reasons why trying to write the feature version can be so difficult:
1) You have scenes in your short that worked perfectly. You spend too much time trying to write around them, as opposed to throwing them out and starting fresh. Little things that don’t necessarily matter to anybody else become your anchor- points, as opposed to story events.
2) Your main character cannot necessarily sustain a feature film. This was a hard lesson for me, but it also taught me why I enjoy writing short films so much. A bit- character in a feature can be the protagonist in a short, but the protagonist in a short cannot necessarily sustain that role in a feature. The feature version of my main character was a variation on the same idea over and over again. It worked well in the short, but was disastrously predictable in the feature.
3) Psychologically, you end up playing the sequel- chasing executive everybody loves to bash. You will tell yourself over and over again, “it worked great the first time, why isn’t it working now?”
4) You’re setting yourself up for disappointment. A successful 25 minute film that plays at major festivals, wins numerous awards, or is referred to by more than one non- relative as “the best short they’ve ever seen” is likely to be a more “perfect” experience that you could ever hope for with a first feature, despite the much smaller stage. It can be paralyzing trying to re-bottle that magic.
5) As somebody else mentioned, you don’t want to end up looking like a one- trick pony. If the feature adaptation sucks, then you’re arguably worse off than having no feature script at all.
6) You probably don’t have enough story – some stories are perfectly told in 25 minutes. That’s long for a short, which is probably why everybody (myself included) thought that a feature adaptation was the next logical step. It turned out that the 105 page version of this story was just a watered down, excruciatingly paced version of the short. I had 25 interesting minutes with this story, which is why the short was exactly that long in the first place. Building beyond that was impossible without ruining the initial premise, and in this case, the initial premise was everything.
Obviously there are exceptions to this. If I were asked to make up a general rule (based on my study of many short -> feature adaptations) I would say that the higher your concept, the better success you’ll have. If your short is a “character study”, then you might have difficulties.
May 8th, 2010 at 7:43 am
I don’t agree with prescriptive ‘rules’. Follow your instincts.
May 28th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Of course there are counter examples, the one that sprang to my mind is one of my favourite movies, Boogie Nights.
But I want to be in the business to tell stories, so if a short gets my foot in the door then great, but I’d definitely focus on getting a new project and story out next and leave the short as a short.
I love writing and I hate writing, but rewriting the same story but in longer form seems kind of a chore to me. I’d prefer to work on something fresh.