What's the difference between full length films and short films?

I have decided to confront the difference between full length Hollywood films and short films in order to help me make my own short film a success. Understanding the main differences between aspects of full length films and short films may help me to avoid potential mistakes when writing and filming my project.

I have come to the conclusion that there are three main differences...

1. Budget
2. Famous people (directors/actors)
3. Audience

Hollywood films have budgets of millions of dollars to play around with, this often pays for well known directors, actors etc.. to star in and make the films. This helps rope in a bigger audience as well as the amount of money spent on advertising, which helps bring in large amounts of money back to the film industry.

Short films more often that not have a more modest budget not only due to the fact that the screen time is a lot shorter but also because of the smaller audience it caters for and the type of companies that fund it. This means short films are less likely to use widely known directors such as James Cameron and Peter Jackson who know make films with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars sector but instead are often made by up and coming directors such as Christopher Nolan's 'Doodlebug' which came before his blockbusters like 'Batman' and 'Inception.' Because of the smaller budget it means not a lot will be spent on advertising. This alongside the lack of iconic people included in the making of these films means these films will draw in a much smaller audience than those of full length Hollywood films

This is a simplified diagram to show how things are done with large budget films.