And I'm making fun of you for using your words bad:
but at that length it's a short film.
I'm assuming you just forgot to type "not". I don't care about your argument, silly; I'm pointing out your funny typo!
Unless you're using the word "film" to seperate "features" from "shorts", which is just using those terms wrong. Both "features" and "shorts" are "films", at any length of time. Time is just not a factor in determining whether or not something is a "film"; a 30 second piece and a two month long piece are both "films" (though probably neither one is very good). "Shorts" and "feature" are how you divide films by time, but you've already linked to the Wiki article on feature films, so I don't think anybody needs me to explain why this came about.
So, your statement as written is incorrect to express the opinion you meant to. It would be more correct to say "Fixing a Hole" is either not a "short film" or that it is a "short feature film". (I think the first is better, because using "short" as an adjective meaning "not long" could cause confusion with "short" as an adjective meaning "not a feature"; which is basically the problem with your sentence as written.)
So basically you said "this short (as in 'not long') film is not a short (as in 'not feature') film". Which of course is funny to me.
However, as "Fixing a Hole" is already in the Recommended List as a Short Work, then it would seem the ALAA has already deemed it a Short Work, so I don't know why penalizing it for being longer than the others is fair. As we both point out it's literally right on the (rather arbitrary) dividing line between "short" and "feature", and if you take out credits and content warnings (which traditionally do count for run time, but let's be real, nobody actually watches unless they want to see their own name pop up), it shaves another couple minutes off.
And I'm making fun of you for using your words bad:
I'm assuming you just forgot to type "not". I don't care about your argument, silly; I'm pointing out your funny typo!
Unless you're using the word "film" to seperate "features" from "shorts", which is just using those terms wrong. Both "features" and "shorts" are "films", at any length of time. Time is just not a factor in determining whether or not something is a "film"; a 30 second piece and a two month long piece are both "films" (though probably neither one is very good). "Shorts" and "feature" are how you divide films by time, but you've already linked to the Wiki article on feature films, so I don't think anybody needs me to explain why this came about.
So, your statement as written is incorrect to express the opinion you meant to. It would be more correct to say "Fixing a Hole" is either not a "short film" or that it is a "short feature film". (I think the first is better, because using "short" as an adjective meaning "not long" could cause confusion with "short" as an adjective meaning "not a feature"; which is basically the problem with your sentence as written.)
So basically you said "this short (as in 'not long') film is not a short (as in 'not feature') film". Which of course is funny to me.
However, as "Fixing a Hole" is already in the Recommended List as a Short Work, then it would seem the ALAA has already deemed it a Short Work, so I don't know why penalizing it for being longer than the others is fair. As we both point out it's literally right on the (rather arbitrary) dividing line between "short" and "feature", and if you take out credits and content warnings (which traditionally do count for run time, but let's be real, nobody actually watches unless they want to see their own name pop up), it shaves another couple minutes off.