There's just as many uncreative indie films as hollywood films you just don't hear about 'em. If a hollywood movie bombs or is the same ol same ol of course you hear about it but if a guy gets a few grand and makes a piece of crap that ends up in the back of the corner store rental section you'll probably never hear of it. Most of the indie films you hear about are the good ones that made it to the surface. There's just as much crap(if not more) in indie as there is in hollywood.

Exactly, and one could make the same argument towards foreign films.

The late 80s early 90s had a good run like that. Grunge Neo-Realism style of shit..... till it got bastardised by unoriginal hacks. I think the next couple of years will have some greakbreaking stuff. Each decade kinda finds its voice towards its end and culturally reinvents itself to lash out at the old and established conventions.

At least the aesthetic of a indie or forgein film is instanltly more interesting than the usual star driven Hollywood cockbuster.
There a bit more unpredictable and 9/10 times more original, inventive and many of them have a lot more heart.

I don't see why it's a crime if everything isn't a big groundbreaking,genre defining classic. You're not going to get The Godfather or Reservoir Dogs everytime you go to the theatre.

The money involved in these Hollywood films is so vast, that fatcat producers dare not make a single mistake in the crafting or marketing of their latest baby to their target audience.

This means big Hollywood films are mechanical, formulaic and glossy but with empty hearts (some might say, mirroring the target audiences themselves...).

As an example of how cash registers mean creative censorship, consider how test audiences can dictate the outcomes of filmed stories - it is wonderful but rare when a director will win the fight to keep his original darker vision intact in the face of idealistic souls who want the leave the cinema unchallenged (the producer will always side where the money is, unless he takes a gamble with successes like Seven).

This argument is based upon a typical big budget/A-list production.

given that hollywood is now owned mainly be multinational corporations and makes most of its boxoffice money from overseas - i would say we no longer have a 'hollywood' or anything like an 'american' cinema at all.

Does anyone remember the old expression, "To sing for one's supper?"

I think these big celebs should have to do the film, with whatever props they've got, and depending on whether it's actually good or not bases what and how much they get paid. If their performance sucks we get to run them out of town.


But don't mind me. I'm just a cynical nihilistic little puke today.

Not necessarily. Indy movies can be predictable as hell, too.

Them being mechanical, formulaic, glossy, and heartless is a generalization, not all of them are like that, but I assume that you didn't mean ALL of them, blah blah blah, so I'll move on.

Not all darker endings to movies are good. This isn't a big budget A-list production, but the best example I can think of is Clerks. There is no way the movie would've been as good if they'd have left on the ending where Dante dies. Point being, there are times, not always, but they do exist, where the darker isn't ALWAYS better. Also, a good amount of the time, the darkness is just for sake of darkness, not because that's the better direction to go, and that's just as bad as idealism for idealism's sake.

True, but even now, darker and/or ironic endings are becoming vogue.

Now, do I really want to say that silly endings, ex. Blazing Saddles, would be the new juice, especially in horror films. I must admit that it would be interesting to see...but I think you could only do it a couple of times before it became hackneyed.

It's not that I hate Hollywood completely, it's just that they're making WAY too many remakes now. Take a god damn break for once and come up with something new. There are thousands of fresh scripts out there just waiting to be made into a movie. Now, I do love Hollywood for one reason: The Devil's Rejects! Talk about a straight-up homage to teh horror movies of the '70's. But, that's a whole other story.

I understand much of the displeasure with remakes. However, there are some films that could stand to be remade:

The Thing...Imagine how they could do that now. Modern movie makers could actually amplify the scare factor.

Rosemary's Baby....I fuckin' hated Mia Farrow.

Sorry, Sam.

We should get back to the topic.

Hollywood is lovely, full of lovely people. Great teeth!

To put a finer point on things, when a Hollywood production "sucks" it has failed its mega budget, mega stars and mega hype.

When an independent film "sucks" it has failed to get the best out of its limited resources, its part-time actors and its genuine artistic intentions.

To see a low-budget story derivative, badly told and badly executed pisses us off - we could probably do better, we think to ourselves (before pausing to remember the time and effort involved).

But to sit through a Hollywood blockbuster with similar failings pisses us off even more. Something about that old chestnut... money. And the thought of the cocaine-snorting fat guys in suits responsible for it all, rather than the over-enthusiastic film-school geeks.

A failure is a failure, does it really matter if it cost 5 million or 5 grand? Point is it sucked, if a movie with the guy down the street is bad and a movie with Tom Cruise is bad, then they're both bad,doesn't matter why.

Where do you think indie filmmakers are trying to get to? Hollywood, walk up to any indie guy/girl and offer 'em a hundred million dollars,twenty million dollar lead of their choice ect. ect. and odds are they're going to take it.

I don't hate hollywood completely. I just hate the majority of the crap it churns out. It seems most of the films are made to generate profit from it's merchandise rather than the content by over-hyping everything before it's even released. Especially when producing films of already popular stuff (X-men etc). They stick to the same formulas over and over and rarely come up with anything original. As soon as one type of film comes out (i.e. the Matrix) and does well they milk the formula for all it's worth, producing dozens of variations on the same theme/style. I'm so fed up of seeing bullet time in films. They do it with dialogue as well. I can't remeber how many times I've heard the phrase "the clock is ticking" since Harvey Keitel said it in pulp fiction. Why do all the good guy characters these days have to be wise cracking badasses?

At least when a quality film comes out you really apreciate it, as these days, it's an exception.

But you get to rip the really bad films apart afterwards!!! That's almost as good as seeing a good film.

I think the expectations of a film that is made for huge amounts of money is pretty high and then when it tanks.....


"The Postman" with Costner had a budget close to 100 million, almost laughable, and barely made 18 million.

Seems trying to capture the magic of "Dances with Wolves or Bull Durham" can be a little difficult no matter who stars in the film.

I would expect a little more quality of a film though for that kind of money.

Remaking "The Thing" ?????

Blasphemy!!!!

I totally agree.

There is no way you could mke that fim any better.

Back off...

Way off.

nevermind

Yeah, there's also alot of indie companies out there just trying to make a quick buck by jumping on the bandwagon of some other already succesful ones.

i.e straight to video stuff.

Like you said, if it's a crap film it's a crap film - whatever the budget.

An average of 5 a year is not a lot. It's just that the remakes are noticed more.

Of course it matters, for the reasons already offered.

Bad is bad. I wouldn't want to watch a bad Hollywood movie any more than a bad indie movie, and vice versa.

So you're saying every indie film would be good if it had sufficent resources? I think you're giving them a bit too much credit.

I think you're injecting negativity.

Not that I don't but.....

I dunno I got a soft spot for the fringe underdog artists without the big money backing.

Yo Return:

THE IDIOTS:
http://www.timeout.com/film/img/post...cover.w145.jpg
vs
http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/...resized200.jpg

Peace out and merry Xmas brothas

No, Austin - I don't know where you're getting that from.

When an independent movie is rubbish, the makers have failed to use their limited resources wisely and effectively. Back to the drawing board, and try to be more creative next time and you may get a more appreciative audience with maybe even a cult following.

When a Hollywood blockbuster is rubbish, the makers have spent maybe fifty thousand times the budget to make rubbish. Their rubbish may still sell however, due to familiarity, expensive stars and hype.

This is the argument for a negative view of Hollywood, as they are greedy wasters who play it safe to lure the masses with the same old empty gloss time and time again.

It surprises me some are still unable to distinguish between these two artistic failings, but there you go.

Again, the blame in that situation can be placed directly on the heads of the masses. If people didn't go to see the same old crap every time, then they'd stop putting it out. I don't think doing something to make money is a bad thing. If they weren't also putting out some good movies, like The Ice Harvest (which, btw, is doing crap at the box office), I would completely agree, as it would be a fantastic argument. But they're putting out good movies in addition to cookie cutter movies made almost exclusively to make money (although SOME of the 'cookie cutter' type movies are pretty good).


BTW, Elvis, The Celebration > The Idiots

I blame the parents :D
CK