Encyclopedia of Opinion
Question
Are short films worth watching?
Position‹2 of 2
No, short films are not worth watching
Argument‹2 of 3›

Short films don't allow for character development

There is less time to understand and relate to a protagonist.

The argument

In the short span of time that short films allow, there isn't nearly enough time to fully develop the main characters. Sometimes short films succeed, but it's still not the same as a feature length film. On average, short films are approximately fifty minutes or less. A feature runs for approximately 90-100 minutes. That's TWO TIMES the amount of time to understand and fully develop protagonists. Audiences want characters that they can feel attached to, connected with. It's incredibly difficult to do that within a short film. Although some of them may succeed, a lot will not. It's not worth scanning through a million short films just to find one that does it right.

Premises

[P1]At roughly 50 minutes or less—about half a feature's 90–100 minutes—short films simply don't allow enough time to fully develop their main characters. [P2] Audiences want characters they can feel attached to, which is hard to achieve in a short film, and since most won't succeed it isn't worth scanning through countless shorts to find the rare one that does. [C] Therefore, because short films don't allow for character development, short films are not worth watching.

Counter-arguments

Often times, we get to understand and know characters even better than we would in a feature. We get a specific snippet of life versus a general oversweep.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The definition is wrong and the inference does not hold. Under the usual industry definitions a short film runs to about 40 minutes at most and is commonly under 20 — but length is not the point, since it sets how much can be shown rather than whether a character can be understood. Novels and short stories differ in the same way without the shorter form failing to produce characters. [Rejecting P2] "Attachment" is treated as something that accumulates with screen time, when it is more often produced by a decisive moment — which is what the shorter form is built around, as the counter observes. The second half of the premise then changes the argument entirely: "most won't succeed, so it isn't worth searching" is a claim about hit rates, and by that standard most features would fail too. [Rejecting C] The conclusion generalises from a constraint of the form to a verdict on all of it. At most the premises support the claim that short films are less likely to develop characters at length, which describes a different kind of work rather than giving a reason not to watch it.