"Waiting"

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: "Waiting"

    BestWriterEver says, "An independent film is one made outside of the studio system. ... You trying to impose your taste on what's a "real" independent and what isn't is ridiculous."

    -- "ridiculous"?

    When Focus Features, who has to answer to Universal Studios, puts up 14 million to make a movie, don't you think they're going to get involved with ideas on how to make the script/film "better"?

    To me this isn't independent filmmaking.

    To me independent filmmaking is not only having the film produced independent of the studio system, but also having the writer/director not to be pounced on by studio executives, changing the writer/director's vision.

    I'm not saying it's bad to listen to these executives' opinions. It's bad only if it messes with the writer/director's vision. This is not independent filmmaking.

    Yes, a top producer with clout and a track record, who wants more control and more of any profits, can go outside the studio system to get independent financing to make a 20 million dollar action movie and it would be considered independent filmmaking.

    Do I have a problem accepting that as a definitive definition of an independent film?

    Yes, I do.

    BestWriterEver says, "Trying to claim that independents have purer motives and are more/artistic/less commercial isn't supported by the facts."

    -- You post a few of the breakout winners from the indie world like "Napoleon Dynamite" and you proclaim this as proof positive that independents don't consider art first and commercial potentional second. The opposite of the studios' order of importance.

    -- This statement is wacky. It's a known fact that the independent world takes on projects that the studio deemed not commercial.

    How commercial is "Happiness"? How commercial is "The Brown Bunny"? You think independent filmmaker Vincent Gallo is going to play it safe for the sake of making his vision more commercial?

    I could go on with examples of the risks that the independent world takes, but I feel you have your opinion about all of this and I'll be just wasting my time and energy.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: "Waiting"

      Originally posted by BestWriterEver
      I think I'm getting it. Independent financiers want to break even or make money - but only if it's a little bit. Their primary goal in funding movies is to create art.

      So that explains a movie like Saw, yes? Independently made, because unlike a studio picture, they were more worried about making art than making money?
      Actually, it was more about who was making it and starring in it. They could have sold SAW to a studio (or a bigger prodco anyway) but not with Lee as the lead, nor would Chris direct. That's why they went independent. To retain creative control, which, from a studio's perspective is a commercial decision. Why would any big studio take a gamble on untried writers, an untried director, and an unknown lead?

      Guaranteed to lose money.
      sigpic

      Website
      Tweets
      Book

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: "Waiting"

        Originally posted by nic.h View Post
        Actually, it was more about who was making it and starring in it. They could have sold SAW to a studio (or a bigger prodco anyway) but not with Lee as the lead, nor would Chris direct. That's why they went independent. To retain creative control, which, from a studio's perspective is a commercial decision. Why would any big studio take a gamble on untried writers, an untried director, and an unknown lead?

        Guaranteed to lose money.
        Exactly.

        Good post.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: "Waiting"

          It's a known fact that the independent world takes on projects that the studio deemed not commercial.

          Oh, come on.


          I assume that "the independent world" refers to only the small, select grouping of houses (most of whom are actually studio subsidiaries) that churn out the Oscar bait flicks every year, and not to the actual independent producers who account for the other 90+% of non-studio-produced films, year in and year out.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: "Waiting"

            Distribution is key.


            nuff said.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: "Waiting"

              Hey, Unidos, what's with the "Oh, come on" remark?

              I read your post, but before I respond I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. As is, I don't have a good understanding on your point.

              Could you elaborate more on what you mean with the "Oh, come on" remark?

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: "Waiting"

                IMO "independent" refers to financing, and little else.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: "Waiting"

                  Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                  Hey, Unidos, what's with the "Oh, come on" remark?

                  I read your post, but before I respond I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. As is, I don't have a good understanding on your point.

                  Could you elaborate more on what you mean with the "Oh, come on" remark?
                  Sorry to respond so late...

                  My point was that to base a blanket statement about independent filmmaking on the half dozen Oscar-bait "indies" that come out each year is like looking at "Jaws" and then concluding that it's a "known fact" that Steven Spielberg only makes movies about sharks.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: "Waiting"

                    Unidos, I still can't make sense of your post: "blanket statement about independent filmmaking on the half dozen Oscar-bait 'indies'..."

                    -- Did you read all of my posts on this topic? Your assumption that I consider the "independent world" as being mainly the studios' independent divisions is wrong.

                    In fact, if the studio's independent division interferes with the writer/director's vision by demanding any changes in the script, casting, writer/director, etc. I don't consider that independent filmmaking.

                    Goon Squad does as long as the money wasn't -- directly -- from a major studio, but I don't. The power and the creative control are out of the hands of the actual creator. He's not independent.

                    My statement that you quoted was referring to the fact that the studios' priority is making commercial product. Art considerations come second, if at all. And the independent filmmakers put more wieght on the art side.

                    I don't have a problem with studios considering profit over art. The studios have to answer to shareholders who invested on the assumption that the main priority of the company is to strive for profit. Not to subsidize art.

                    They may have their independent division buy a hit at Sundance, or sign on as a distributor after its been made by the independent filmmaker, but if they're financing the film, they're going to make sure of profit first and art second.

                    Let me give a perfect example of what I'm talking about as far as a studio choosing commercial or art first.

                    Take "Million Dollar Baby." BestWriterEver would use this as an example of a studio doing a good job on balancing both art and commercial considerations. After all it won an Oscar for best picture and made 100 million dollars.

                    Good job? Not the case at all.

                    Clint Eastwood had a good relationship with Warner Bros., so he sent them the script and asked if they would finance it.

                    They said no. It was too dark. Not commercial. Too much of a risk.

                    Clint went back to them in person and pushed for it. Not because he felt it had the potential to make 100 million dollars. He used his power to champion art.

                    Warner Bros., didn't want to piss off a star with a tremendous commercial track record, so they said they'd put up some of the money, but he would have to find the rest elsewhere, which he did.

                    Anyway, Unidos, your point still confuses me. Probably you just misunderstood my statement.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: "Waiting"

                      I feel like your point is that independent filmmaking isn't related to whether a film was financed independently or by a studio, it has to do with the freedom afforded the director. Is that what you mean?

                      If it is, I strongly disagree. I am definitely in Good Squad's camp.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: "Waiting"

                        Unidos, if someone wants to say an independent film is defined as being independently finaced, they're not wrong.

                        For me, with studios setting up an independent division and such, it's not only having independent finacing, but also having the artist's origanl intent not vaporized. Not being forced to make it more commercial, lighten the theme or whatever, thereby losing the artist's original vision, etc.

                        Independent filmmaking emerged because the studios didn't want to bother with personal, character driven stories, non-commercial stories, high risk stories, etc.

                        This is how I viewed that world, so it's hard for me to say, yes, Fox Searchlight, who has to answer to a major studio, putting up money for a horror movie and having creative control is an independent movie.

                        It just doesn't sound independent to me, sorry.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: "Waiting"

                          This discussion always reminds me of when "college rock" became "alternative," and "alternative" became mainstream in the '90's.

                          You want to see the true spirit of independent film making, go hang out at AFM every year.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: "Waiting"

                            JoeNYC sounds like you may be describing an Art House film, which is almost always independently financed. The independent film really is about financing.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_film
                            Never mistake motion for action. ~Ernest Hemingway

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: "Waiting"

                              Originally posted by Bellabell View Post
                              JoeNYC sounds like you may be describing an Art House film, which is almost always independently financed. The independent film really is about financing.

                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_film

                              And art house films are no longer "almost always independently financed" anymore, either.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: "Waiting"

                                Originally posted by Joe Unidos View Post
                                And art house films are no longer "almost always independently financed" anymore, either.
                                I'm not surprised.
                                Never mistake motion for action. ~Ernest Hemingway

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X