can we all agree the problem with indie films is lack ofstory andwriting?
- Thread starter davidevans10
- Start date
That's just this Summer. I assure you, I've watched many a great film. And in my eyes, many a great film are still being made.
Well I haven't heard of them which might imply a lack of greatness since greatness goes global. I will try to find them on some obscure website
Ok, so you're a troll. Great. I guess this conversation is done.
Is that like a made up word ofr ppl who annoy ppl with truth? Hard to even take those titles names seriously. First mistake.
Whiplash
Birdman (a little on the odd side)
Black Snake Moan
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Casino Royale (2007)
The Tale of Princess Kaguya
Ernest & Celestine
If I knew what you considered a "great film" from film's past, I might be able to actually give you a comparable example.
It's true that fine filmmaking is hard to come by as regularly as it might have been back in the day, as it does seem like there are far more classically well-executed films in the 20th century than there are now. But I think that has more to do with not only certain films from the past becoming solidified in our collective conscioueness as "great classic cinema"--whereas more recent films have yet to prove themselves for a long enough time-- but also to do with the fact that the "B-movie," as it was classically known, has advanced to the position of the "A-movie" slot, with crazy plot lines, dialogue laden with jokes and catch-phrases, and production design that's rather artistic or cartoonish in many ways.
And so now the films you often get in the B-slot, with smaller budgets, smaller casts, less visual effects, and so on, are the better quality films, because they aren't as focused on the spectacle and more on the story that drives the reasoning behind whatever spectacle there still is: helps to give the spectacle more oomph and meaning. A spectacle without a good honest reason leaves one feeling hollow inside. I mean, what's the point of an exploding building if it doesn't advance the story by either falling on an enemy, potentially harming a protagonist, or harming or killing someone the protagonist knew. Just having stuff blow up means nothing. And it's no longer "cool" because we've seen it so much by now.
Anybody else feel like that's the case?
Last edited:
Edge of Tomorrow
Huh? What? You had me at explosion.
The medium is here to educate, entertain, make feel, make you think and whatnot. I feel the primary purpose these days is to entertain.
Most of the time, the audience prefers to shut off their brain and be given a spectacle. I know I do. Take Birdman and Casino Royale for examples. They were both good entertaining films.
Both of those were also smarter and better executed than most in their genres.
I was actually shocked at how good Casino Royale was when I rewatched for the first time in 6 years about a month ago, considering most films in that genre that came before it were pretty weak by the early 2000s. But I think the first Bourne movie is what allowed Casino Royale to turn out the way that it did.
In that case the first Star Wars trilogy must be the best films ever.
That was a global phenomenon...
Out of curiousity: what do you think is the greatest film ever?
Bourne Identity is a wonderful movie, one of my all-time favorites. But I hardly think that Casino Royale owes its existence to it, no more than Bourne owes its existence to Patriot Games.
I don't recall another movie, especially the preceding few Bond pictures, being as dark, gritty, or focused on hard-hitting martial arts and close-quarters fighting as Casino Royale before the first Bourne film came out.
Most movies in the early 2000s that I'm aware of were pretty watered down and kind of lame by comparison to the late 1990s and films that came after 20006 and 7.
But I'm sure there must be other influences, Bourne just seems like the most likely candidate for what convinced the owners of Bond to say "Now is the time to revive the franchise."
thats not independent .We cant stretch definitions to justify lame arguments or weakness . A disease these days. you do it alot sweetie.
An independent film with millions of dollars. we all know we are talking INDIE films. And money isnt making films any better these days
In that case the first Star Wars trilogy must be the best films ever.
That was a global phenomenon...
Out of curiousity: what do you think is the greatest film ever?
well yes they were haha.
I don't think you know what indie means, or the implications of working with a studio.
You guys are a bit off tangent. back to the original question. There is a rush to production without peer review. Send your script to 50 people and get it reviewed. Then shoot it.
"Hollywood" takes a look at the cast and compares it to an expected revenue model that each country has for each actor. If it looks like it will recoup it's investment based on international revenue then it's a go. The script is secondary....only the actor's/agent have to like it.
back to the earlier points made: Script is secondary to the marketing budget. People see who is in it and if they are informed about it. If you can't inform people about it then it won't go anywhere.
Indie films can be awesome or shit. A piece of shit script shot well isn't necessarily a bad film.
Trueindie's film is super creative.
"Hollywood" takes a look at the cast and compares it to an expected revenue model that each country has for each actor. If it looks like it will recoup it's investment based on international revenue then it's a go. The script is secondary....only the actor's/agent have to like it.
back to the earlier points made: Script is secondary to the marketing budget. People see who is in it and if they are informed about it. If you can't inform people about it then it won't go anywhere.
Indie films can be awesome or shit. A piece of shit script shot well isn't necessarily a bad film.
Trueindie's film is super creative.