I was watching CNN several years ago and they did a special on how short films could dominate cinemas in the future. It seems like they've been wrong, but short films are starting to make their way to the Internet. What's your opinion about them? I personally wouldn't waste money $12 on a 30-minute picture because I want to escape from the treacherous miseries of life. Thoughts?
Well, I too couldn't shell out that kind of money, but maybe if they reduce the price then it would be an option. Short films are great because it doesn't take up too much of your time. There are a lot of people that fall asleep in the movie theater because some movies are too long. I watched Avatar and I fell asleep multiple times the story would just drag on and on. The shorter films would be a great way to pass time, and they could do something like two short films for the price of one motion picture. I'm sure people will be okay with that because not everyone can sit in a movie theater for 2 hours without getting bored.
Short films are like indie games - they're great if that's what you're into, however mainstream popular media is that way for a reason. I enjoy short films, but I also like longer films so long as I'm at home so I can rest or fast foward through the lame bits.
I'm a huge movie lover so to me a short-film just doesn't cut it. In fact, the longer it is the better. I love watching 3 hour movies. When Lord of the Rings Extended Edition came out I just had to get it. Now that the Blu-Ray version is out, I'm in love.
I think a great marketing technique, as well as new way of entertainment for audiences, is to make an entire movie like a serial - but have them stop at 3 or 4... each movie could be 30 minutes and be a part of an entire story. It would be nice if each short film was like $4 ($4 X 3 films is $12). The films would be short, they'd be affordable, and you'd have something to look forward to maybe a week later. Just a thought. Mhmm... *nods*
I love a nice long film that I can settle into and enjoy. A particular favourite is the 4 hour Kenneth Branagh version of Hamlet, so a short film wouldn't be any good to me. If I want to watch for 30 minutes, I'll find something on the television that I can watch for nothing, rather than spend money on a short film.
To me, short films seem to be a thing of the past. Remember when movies used to have intermissions? I don't mean the "to be continued..." words strapped at the end of the film, but actually waiting for the second part to start while taking a small 5 - 10 minute break? I may not have been in existence during those times, but I would want that to return.
Well, for the internet they are a hit and I understand it. Cause you cannot watch a 2 hours movie on the internet at work. I mean you can, but it's not exactly recommended. But who setups a movie night in which he watches 10 short movies instead of one? That would be annoying. And some stories need time to be spoken
Maybe young people just have shorter attention spans because they have 300 TV channels, millions of websites and iPods with thousands of songs. They have 30 second commercials and music video with tons of jump cuts. Maybe younger folks don't have the attention span to sit through a 2 hour movie. Maybe the movie Demolition Man will come true and all the songs on the radio will be 30 second jingles. It would be sad if people got dumber in the future.
Watching short films on the internet is, to me, preferable to watching longer ones. If the script is tight, there is really no need for long-drawn-out scenes that add little value to the movie. I've watched quite a few well-crafted short movies, not longer than 45 mins, that have left a deeper impact on me than the regular longer films.
In our country where piracy is common and people are mostly watching hollywood movies, its the indie films that are likely becoming hits and appreciated by other countries. In fact, there are more indie film produced each year than those in mainstreams. Itfunny since these indie films won awards in Europe and not in our own country.
I cannot see how the movie industry would make 30-min. movies popular. It wouldn't go over well with the public because most people don't want to waste money on a 30-min. movie. It's poor value. Plus, I can't see the movie industry making that drastic of a change.
That doesn't sound like a movie to me? It just sounds like a show. If that's the case, then cool, I would watch them. I wouldn't want to watch movies regularly at that length, though.
I guess it depends on the story. Some stories like Batman starring Christian Bale really needs to be long because making it too short would cause many unanswered questions. Some though, just drags on too long because the story line isn't that great. Although it would be great if short movies become an option. 3 short movies for the price on one motion picture maybe?
I love watching all kinds of movies from either the 80s, 90s, 00s and most recent ones daily, and most of them last between 1:15hs and 2:20hs. Except for Schindler's List or The Green Mile for instance, which last 3 hours (which can be kind of tiring...). I have a theory about movies in general. If they last no longer than 1:15hs, they're generally not worth watching. 1:30hs is okay but it's just an average movie. 2-2:20hs is pretty good, most movies I've watched that last that long are always worth watching. I like short films too but I don't see them taking over the movies industry. Most of them are too short to even develop a good plot or leave way too many loose ends by the end of it. I like movies with open endings (ie. Inception) but if I've only watched 20 minutes of a film, it's not worth it.
I certainly wouldn't bother taking a trip to the theater to see a 30 minute movie. I don't know if I would bother paying for them individually either. I would be open to watching them if they were on something like Netflix.
I don't think it will become popular if they're gonna make it as a movie and charge people to be able to watch it. It's like watching a short 30 minute series or cartoon on tv, so why waste your money on a movie that's just as short right? People want to spend their money on a long movie length time, so that means around 90 minutes or longer.
I don't see how loving movies would hold you from loving short movies. Quite on the contrary, actually, when people are REAL movie lovers, they can appreciate a well-done movie regardless of the format it was presented in. Two of the best and most atmospheric movies I've ever seen were 30 minutes or under, and yet they were absolutely engrossing and perfect both visually and in atmosphere.
You are right. No one is going to pay $12 to see a shorter movie. I think they would make their money if they played 3 short films. It could feel like the old days when they would double bill movies so people got more entertainment for their money. I don't think short films have much of a life in theatres if they just play one. They are better suited for the web though.
I love to watch a good movie but I don't think I would pay 12.00 to go see a 30 mins movie, it's not even worth it.
