argument top image

< Back to question Are short films worth watching? Show more Show less

People are deluged by content - via social media, TV channels, OTT platform, box sets, websites, brands etc - but have less and less time to watch them. Short films offer narratives, story arcs etc but delivered in a condensed form.

No, short films are not worth watching Show more Show less

They are a waste of time when features could be explored further.
< (2 of 2)

Short films cannot be placed in theaters and are not profitable

Short films are made with little to no funding. If they are in theatres, they are usually playing at odd hours or with a series of other short films, making them harder to find. Multiplexes run at a loss when screening short films in isolation.
< (3 of 3)

Vote

Not sure yet? Read more before voting ↓

Proponents


The Argument

Short films refer to those movies that are thirty minutes or less. While going to the cinema is one of the most popular recreational activities indulged by people across the globe, short films--a medium through which many of the great artists of the field have received a start--have been largely ignored. One of the main reasons for this is the inability to screen a short film in a theatre on its own. People often judge the quality of a movie based on its reception on the big screen. As a result, short films find themselves at a distinct disadvantage. They are usually low-budget films that do not have the financial capacity to be released in theaters. Corporate multiplexes earn their profit by screening big-budget films that can almost guarantee a sold-out show. The advertisements screened at the beginning of the show allow them to maintain their commercial status and get the necessary upgrades.[1] Short films have to be content with screenings at high-end film festivals that cater to the elite of society. This is counterproductive, as the intent of the films is to showcase reality to the common man. It limits the viewership of the films, eventually negating the purpose of its creation.

Counter arguments

Short films are the platform used to launch the careers of many aspiring and talented artists like Christopher Nolan, who try but fail to make the big screen debut early on.[2] These films have content that is often far superior to the big billion budget films due to their compact running time, which forces directors to be creative. They must quickly captivate and engage their audience in a story that begins and ends in thirty minutes or less. Many short films fail to do this, which may be why most of them never see the light of day in a theater. But not all short films fade into obscurity. Some are picked up by large, well-known studios and showcased in theaters or on TV. Tim Burton's 1984 "Frankenweenie", originally commissioned and then rejected by Disney, was brought to the light of the public by Paul Reubens, who had been told about the film by Stephen King. This short film not only launched Tim Burton's career, but became famous in its own right, and it even received a full-length remake in 2007 in celebration of the film's legacy.[3] To say that short films are not worth watching because they never enter theaters is not only inaccurate, but absurd. Plenty of short films make it into the limelight in one way or another, and plenty are masterpieces which become famous for good reason.

Premises

[P1] Short films are low budget films that cannot compete with big-budget blockbusters in theaters. [P2] Multiplexes do not find it profitable to screen short films in isolation.

Rejecting the premises


References

  1. https://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/nostalgia-for-showing-short-films-before-big-screenings-1.444677
  2. https://sofy.tv/blog/short-films-important/
  3. https://www.mic.com/articles/92951/16-short-films-that-launched-the-careers-of-famous-directors

This page was last edited on Sunday, 26 Jul 2020 at 14:00 UTC

Explore related arguments