Fifteen minutes is pretty much the maximum in most cases, five minutes is better, two minutes is better still.

Yes, i think the shorter the better. The best films are often the shortest. This is because the director doens't need to show everything, leaves enough up to your imagination, but shows enough for you not to be confused.

john2006mad

Visit my first amateur movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U8q5PucXc0

What genre do you think suits a short film best? Little off topic I know but nevertheless, important for writers.

___________________________________
You can't keep 'em out, they're already in!

Comedy... it's cheap and you can tell a good joke well in a five-minute short (often even in a one-minute short). On the other hand, everyone is doing it so it's harder to stand out that way.

One big problem I have with longer shorts is that so many I see could have the first five minutes cut out and be better movies as a result; they spend a lot of time setting stuff up which they just don't need and is often pretty boring anyway.

Since we're talking shorts...

I'd like to add something that really irritates me. Credits that are too long right at the beginning. Company name on screen for 20 seconds. "A film By" on screen for 30 seconds, each cast member on screen for 15 seconds, the three or four people who crewed on the movie each getting a separate credit at 15 seconds a piece for each job they did. You see Clive O'Tool credited as props, assistant editor, boom operator, grip, dolly grip and assistant director.

We are 3 minutes into the short and still reading the credits. Names of people we have never heard of. Just yesterday I found a short I made on You Tube (I didn't post it) and there was another movie with a similar title. I stopped watching at 2 minutes 50 seconds because the titles were still going on. I figured if 3 or so minutes were titles they other 6 minutes might be just as self indulgent.

In my opinion, show the title of the movie and that's it. You want 3 to 5 minutes of titles to credit the people who worked hard on your movie? Do it at the end.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

Yeah, we almost never have credits at the start because it just wastes people's time and pisses them off.

One suggestion which does seem a good one is to put the name of the movie and the director credit right at the beginning of the end credits, so that if people thought it was a good short then they'll immediately see what the movie was and who directed it. I for one often have no idea because I assume most shorts are going to be badly made by people I'll never hear from again, so if it has been a good one then I'd like to know what it was and who made it.

Along the lines of credits at the start of the film, I hate it when people have the same person listed numerous times. Example:
"Directed by John Smith"
"Written by John Smith"
"Edited by John Smith"
"Cinematography by John Smith"

seriously just put, "A film by John Smith"

Very true but some people just like to write their name. I think it makes them feel more important.

john2006mad

Visit my first amateur movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U8q5PucXc0

I actually think a comedy short about a self indulgent filmmaker could be quite entertaining. . .

Personally, I enjoy experimental short films.

CI what was the film you watched called? It sounds direly familiar. Although, most people said I got away with the beginning because the music was nice and the video was still watchable.

___________________________________
You can't keep 'em out, they're already in!

Svelter - I don't remember the title. Do you really have a title sequence that lasts 3 minutes? How long is the short?

But if it works for your short, then it works. I don't mean it put down all short films with a long credit sequence - maybe sometimes it works - but as a viewer I'm much more interested in watching the movie than reading names of the cast and crew.

Well, the fact that it was for a feature film also helped me get away with it. People don't mind long title sequences if the film's a decent length in itself. It's a bit like I wouldn't mind queueing for a big rollercoaster but I wouldn't queue an hour for a go on the swings.

___________________________________
You can't keep 'em out, they're already in!

Once Upon a Time in the West has that ridiculous 10 minutes of opening credits, but it somehow works with the movie.

So, if you don't mind my jumping on this topic header with a related question of my own:

I'm currently in pre-production on a film that was originally supposed to be a short.

With the story the way it's written, I'm projecting it to be about a 40 - 45 minute film. Which is not short, I realize.

I could tighten it up, but not enough to make it a short and still tell the story. So now I face the problem of what to do with it. I could pad it out to 60 minutes but not much more without it looking padded.

So it's too long for a short and too short for a feature. Is there a category in between?