I agree. The term "indie" has different meaning to different people.Haven't there been major studios that have started their own Independent film studio to do Indie films? If that is the case then which type of Indie film are we talking about here? To me if a major studio has a branch that is dedicated to Indie films then really they're not that independent?
That's exactly how I view them. If a studio finances and distributes what they dub an "indie" then it's not one. I am also of the belief that if a famous actor, director or otherwise finances a film on their own and gets it distributed, without going to a studio, I would consider that project an "indie", the person being famous only means the job of financing might have been easier. This especially applies to my view of famous people using crowdfunding sites.I agree. The term "indie" has different meaning to different people.
To some it simply means low budget. Some people will not call a big
budget film "indie" even if it was made completely independently of
All the studios have created low budget units. To me that isn't independent
- to me independent means without the studios. If Paramount is financing
and distributing a lower budget movie through Insurge, it's still a studio
movie in my opinion.
Some studios that are now called "mini-majors" started as completely
"indie" prodCo's; New Line, Lionsgate, The Weinstein Company and are
still independent of the stidios so I'm comfortable calling them "indie".
My issue with this article lies here - he talks about 'the industry' like it's a single contained thing. That works for the major studios, because there's a relatively small number and it's not too difficult to define the boundaries of what constitutes a major studio.John Sloss warned back in 2007 that the industry’s problem was not a shortage of films, but a shortage of eyeballs (Mark Gill issued a related warning in 2008). But the industry’s response to this warning has been to make more films.
The answer really is on the way...I am talking a month or two at most, rather then years or decades.My issue with this article lies here - he talks about 'the industry' like it's a single contained thing. That works for the major studios, because there's a relatively small number and it's not too difficult to define the boundaries of what constitutes a major studio.
With indies that's not really the case - I mean, it's clearly difficult enough to define what constitutes an independent film vs. an 'indie' film. It gets even harder when you try to treat it like a single industry - does it include every single filmmaker who makes a feature film outside of a major studio? Every festival? Every distribution site? Or do you have to draw a line somewhere between 'real' filmmakers and... I don't know, people who you don't count as part of an industry? That seems pretty arbitrary, and whatever line you draw means your discussion doesn't really represent the full scope of independent film.
So if we don't pick that arbitrary line, how can we discuss 'the industry's response'? 'The Industry' didn't decide to make more films - people did. People who wanted to make films before but didn't have the resources. People who tried to make it in the mainstream industry but couldn't. People who got tired of working within the constraints of the mainstream industry. People who want to make art, not commerce. People who want to make a bunch of money. People who want to be famous. People who are trying to figure out what they want to do with their lives. People who've always wanted to make films, and people who just picked up a camera yesterday.
All of his proposed solutions assume an industry that could choose to work together in it's own interest to improve the economic situation - but that doesn't exist. In fact I'd say the very impulse that drives so many people to try to make an independent film essentially prevents that from existing. Any attempt by industry members to limit the number of independent films, to try to focus them into fewer but better films, is bound to be thwarted by the fact that those outside of whatever structure forms will continue to just make their films, independently, because that's what they do - so there's still going to be too many films.
Here came everybody, and ain't nobody going home soon. Any 'solution' that involves somehow turning back the clock is nothing but wishful thinking. I honestly don't know what the solution is - I'm not even sure there really is one, at least not in the sense everyone seems to be looking for - but I do expect something will emerge gradually over the next decade or two as the old industry continues to wither away and new industries emerge which aren't dependent upon scarcity to exist.
You've developed a virus that bricks low-cost digital cameras?The answer really is on the way...I am talking a month or two at most, rather then years or decades.
In 2013, I saw at least 15 people who came to the site talking about the new big idea! Trust me, most of those websites are either closed or will be gone in the next couple months or year. Nobody puts any effort into coming up with an original idea for getting the work of filmmakers seen or marketing & promotion.As long as it isn't yet another web site for distributing independent films I'm looking forward to seeing what your solution is!
While that's certainly the only rational way to approach it, that's a big part of the problem he's addresses in the article:Keep your budgets low, so your films are profitable, enabling you to keep making films. That's all any of us can try to do.
Just making films for less isn't a solution, even if it makes them 'profitable'. Unless that profit covers reasonable wages for your cast and crew, as well as yourself, it isn't sustainable - and sustainability is the key.the people who work on indie films are almost always underpaid, if they are even paid at all. But diminishing pay is only one component of a much larger overall problem [...] producers will stretch every dollar they can, which means crews will be asked to do a lot for very little — creating a norm where people are paid about $100 a day for 12+ hours of work. After a few weeks of work, these newly unemployed crewmembers (if they cannot find new work) can end up in a cycle of going on and off unemployment.