8c93/1236190501-rabbitsdoinghump.jpg

We’re having an intramural dispute here at Stranger HQ: should HUMP entries this year be limited to 5 minutes in length? Or do we stick with eight minutes? The problem, of course, is that while some films feel long at two minutes, others—Douche: Dry and Sandy—feel short at eight. But we want to show the entirety of more peoples’ submissions to HUMP, we don’t like to having to carve films up to make ’em fit, and we feel that most films we’ve seen would benefit from a little tightening up in the editing process.

If you want to have an impact on our decision—HUMP filmmakers, HUMP audiences—now’s the time to weight in.

Announcement of HUMP dates, deadlines, and this year’s extra credit props & locations coming soon.

37 replies on “HUMP 5 Is Coming”

  4. Someone has to make a gay porno version of the Altell cell phone ads. I would, but don’t know any red headed gay guys.

  6. I vote for 8 minutes. Less than that and you could loose a lot of great longer entries. Also, with shorter films and more choices, I would get more confused in the voting. keep it simple. Longer is better.

  7. I want to see more films. I’d prefer the total HUMP run time to be longer but, if that’s problematic, 5 minute pieces are a good solution.

  13. Weight in?

    5 minutes should be plenty of time. Maybe people could submit in 5 minute portions, so something great could be part one and two. Something sleep inducing could be edited down to five.

    Please support local independent business districts with your extra credit props.

  15. I agree with #2, time is a useful creative constraint.
    Deciding on whether or not to go to a 5-min limit based on good 8-min films of yore is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Set a 5-min limit for this year and you’ll get different films than you would have last year, but you’ll still get films.
    Plus, 5-min films seem like they’d be easier to program. With a 1-min spacer that’s 10 an hour.

  16. Enough with the pasty-damp-white-flesh-over-exposed model photos. The kitsch of it was old 2 years ago. Now it’s just gross.

  18. You know what? Nothing wrong with doing 5 minutes this year and 8 the next.

    So I’m going to go with 5 minutes. Many of the longer films last year were great but so were many of the shorter ones.

    What I’m more curious about…why is the planning for this being done so soon. Last Hump was only half a year ago or so.

  21. Have a committee choose some “best picks” to be shown at greater length, and reduce other ones to 3 minutes or remixed montages.

  24. FIVE MINUTES! I can’t recall which one Douche: Dry and Sandy is…. but I have attended HUMP each year and think 5 minutes is plenty!

    Especially for B.H. who should have a time limit of 5 seconds max.

  25. Amen to no more Booker Hoss. Please. He ruins Hump every year. If he wants to submit something, keep him off the fucking screen.

    Let’s try a year with the five minute rule. If it forces people to edit their work, it’ll be a godsend. And yeah, anything that has zero plot, like those “erotic montage” films – cap those at three minutes. They’re mostly boring. Although I’d prefer it if there were no montage films at all and everything had to have some sort of plot or premise.

  29. I think you’re getting enough entries now that you can be selective and keep the 8 minute time limit. If some seem too long or need editing, don’t include them or ask them to edit it…but only because it would make the film better and not to try and squeeze more in. Pick only the best. That means you could also bump up the entry deadline to allow editing time for the movie makers should they need it.

    If that doesn’t jive then, like Greg and I said in the last string ( http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme… ), set a specific number of slots that are allowed to be 8 minutes (or ten minutes to make it easier to schedule with the five minutes) and have the rest be 5. Give folk the option to submit two edits, one long & the other short, to see if they are good enough to make it into the long category. You don’t have to have separate prizes for the longer categories since it is definitely possible to make shorter films that are just as good or better than longer films.

  31. I like the dual category idea. People could submit a film either as a short porn (5 minutes or less), or a full-length (8 or 10 minutes), and you show a mix of both. The filmmakers, if they’re smart, will know that if their film has no plot, and isn’t exceptional, they have a better chance having their film selected if it’s shorter. On the other hand, if they make a sequel to Douche: Dry and Sandy, they could probably push the 10 minute limit.

  32. Like I said in the previous post’s comments, you should have 16 slots for 5-minute films and 5 slots for 8-minute films. Allow entrants to submit in either the 5-minute or 8-minute category. (DON’T have people resubmit a shorter cut if the 8-minute film is okay but needs work. The filmmakers who’ve responded so far all seem to hate that.)

    By doing this mix, you’ll be able to show lots of films (21 in two hours) and also allow for some variation in the lineup. Plus, everybody knows ahead of time what the constraints are and can get things like credits worked out without having to go back and re-cut them at the very end. Less stress for filmmakers, less work for The Stranger staff, more happy/horny feelings all around.

  35. 8 minutes. If somebody makes an 8 minute foreplay bore that should have been 5 (or 1 if it literally is foreplay) then they will lose points. Hooray for an 8 minute masterpiece. And just because it’s an 8 minute limit doesn’t mean less than 8 loses points.

  36. Questions: (haven’t been to Hump yet)
    Is every video submitted shown?
    If you submit (and your vid makes it to the premiere assuming that my last question’s answer is “no”) do you automatically get tickets to the premiere?

Comments are closed.