can we all agree the problem with indie films is lack ofstory andwriting?
- Thread starter davidevans10
- Start date
50 people!!
What's wrong with having 50 people read it and give you feedback? It's better than just showing it to 25, or 15.
And I can say from experience that 20 people looking at your script will give you a lot to work with, but 50 people, of varying ages, professions, and other attributes will vastly improve upon the amount and type of feedback comments and suggestions that you will get.
It's just shocking to me. I mean yeah more eyes is good.. but 50 people to give you their time and meaningful feedback wow. I think i've done 4
Last edited:
Luckily I didn't have to read very far into this thread to comment.
Sweetie nailed it.
and unwatchable.
Getting feedback from multiple sources is good. The issue is when a writer isn't quite sure what's wrong, following too many red herrings can do the opposite to what you want to achieve. You'll still need discipline and writing talent to recognize what won't improve your script to get through the rewrites.
The second issue is vetting those giving you feedback. Not all feedback is created equal. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. Take the advice from those who are strong in that area and take the advice with a grain of salt for those areas where they are weak.
Absolutely.
Which, if you are a discerning writer, should make it all the more important to get more than just a few people to look at what you've written. Often even 10 people won't be quite enough, especially if they aren't always available, and you need people to look at further updated versions of the script.
good one. you must've been punked
i appreciate the honesty or you not changing the subject just to argue. sorry for the hashness or dramatics . i get a little over excited
can you send some names of some very creative indie films. and where i can rent them? plz
I actually know what you mean by this on both levels...
#1) Careful, definitions are a big deal 'round these parts, even antiquated ones. It sucks but you might have to qualify every question or statement by using things like "independent films made on a shoe string budget" or "independent films not made with 100M from a previously successful Hollywood film" and such. Sorry.
#2) The fact that Birdman wins a Spirit Award is really motivating isn't it? I'm sure the majority of users here can relate to that definition of an "indie film"... it really hits home. I mean a 20M production with easily one of the hottest Hollywood ensemble casts of the year just screams "indie" doesn't it. Ugh.
Maybe there needs to be a new term, a new section of the forum, or a new forum where it goes without saying what the level those participating are operating at, dealing with in their day to day and trying to achieve. And by level I mean funds, equipment and experience/talent/skill. I do not mean work ethic. That is another matter all together. I strongly believe an independent filmmaker needs to have a work ethic far superior to a financed and connected one. To get your foot in the door, you must exhibit a lot more effort than you do once established.
Last edited:
I thought that's why we had the quirky difference between the usage of "Independent" film, and "Indie" film. Where apparently "Indie" actually might stand for the $15-50 million dollar films, whereas "Independent" stands for the movies made for $250,000 or less.
Even this old internet animated character, called Strongbad, spells out the stereotypical differences between the two terms, along with other tropes of the small-change filmmaking business, even if some might not agree with how he comically boils it down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjwlrvcKcfI
Well I love this.
Budget has nothing to do with whether a film is independent or not. Studio film = a film made/financed within the studio system. Independent = all others outside the studio system. This does not include distribution. Many independent films get distributed by studios. Take for instance The Expendables. Big budget independent.
I also hope you're not suggesting that Empire Strikes back had a budget of 100M. It was 18mil.
Why try redefine old terms when the correct usage of the old terms work just fine? People just need to learn what they're saying. Low budget, micro budget, no budget and so on. That's how you talk about budget. If you want to clarify, just state the budget levels. What's wrong with using the terms that have already been created?
How am I to know when and for what reason a term was coined? New terms come and old terms go. I'm not saying the terms are right, but I've used the term definitions of Independent VS Indie for at least 6 years. So you're argument that I should be using "established" verses "newly coined" terms doesn't entirely make sense at this moment.
If these terms had come out into some form of usage within the last year or so, then I could understand your current frustration with my and other individual's usage of them.
But even so, you're right about what you're saying. Trying to argue over the exact usage of these two confusing versions of the same terms makes less sense than to just use Independent to mean everything not Studio funded (although what do you consider a film funded by Focus Features, or Working Title, or multiple other smaller studios that all pool resources?). So we ought to use more specific phrases like low-budget and micro-budget, because that explains the exact bracket wherein a particular film sits.
None-the-less budget is unequivocally and specifically what the majority of active/inquisitive users here are referring to when they say "independent" - In fact it's the basis of the entire forum. I'd argue not-a-one active forum user here signed up to talk about multi-million dollar productions made via non Hollywood studios (ironically who almost always have strong Hollywood ties) with famous actors. But I know that fact will never solidify or fly with some here, hence my suggestions of how to qualify each and every sentence if not word. Sorta sad, but whatevs. I only bring it up because I see an increasing number of posts running into the same roadblock. To be honest I don't see what the ROI is in constantly policing the issue instead of just engaging in what the posters obviously mean and the type of insight/help they want.
Of course not, I can use wiki/imdb as well as the next. Simply a superlative generalization (that implicitly applies to hundreds of so called indies) to get my message across.
FWIW I also wasn't singling your commentary out, not by a long shot actually.
It gets even more surreal when you are correct about a definition. It's a bit of a quirky lose lose within these walls. Some here will fight to the death about terms meaning one thing when I know for a fact they were solely created for another thing or in other instances when certain supposedly incorrect terms are used unblinkingly in real world practice everyday. The direct correlation between resume waving and childish name calling is rather unnerving as well, but hopefully those seeking real world low budget insight will take note of that phenomenon. Anyway, I get the sense that in some peoples worlds a film terminology glossary from days of old is being referenced with total disregard for what they have come to mean, or what they mean if you actually come out from your home based one trick pony service bubble and go into the field to work with actual people right now. At first it was disconcerting, but now it's becoming entertaining actually.
Again I hate to qualify this but absolutely not referring to Sweetie with my previous paragraph.
Last edited:
All good. To me, it came across that way.
It doesn't really matter how. Don't take this the wrong way, but it's very much like saying, "How am I supposed to know what an Aeroplane is?" If you use words you don't understand, you run the risk of misusing them. It happens all the time and that's fine. If you want to be understood, there's very little point in getting upset when people don't understand the meaning of your words if you call a "dog" a "running". It's very much like coming to a forum and saying, "We should call all 4k cameras hopbipps now."
The above still stands true. It's a function of ignorance rather than being able to get involved with the conversation.
Take for instance:
The problem is likely to crop up when you have a studio film in that budget range and you want to call it an indie film because of the hogwash you learned from a forum. Not only will you be wrong, you'll look like you're lacking a clue. I'd say it's far from an idea position you want to place yourself with a potential future employer?
You have independent films with budgets of 80 and 100mil and studio films with much smaller budgets. Isn't this going to be an issue?
If we want to have discussions on the forum, why should we encourage others to use confusing, mid-defined terms that do nothing but cause confusion? Instead of talking about the topic at hand, you spend most of your time explaining (and in this case, fighting about) what you mean.
As for budget ranges. I think you'll find that SAG already defines the budget ranges into particular names. The definitions are already out there.
As for Independent and Indie, AFAIK, it's the same thing. One is just an abbreviation of the other. For all I know, I could be mistaken. Anyone know any better?
Argh. I want out of Grumpy Cat mode. Time for some R&R.
I see two very well written replies here. And OP, you have completely ignored them.
Story and writing are important. However, they are not nearly as important as C.R.E.A.M. (Cash Rules Everything Around Me). Money can buy the best writers, story, actors, crew, special effects, and distributors.
The reason why most Indie films fail is because the filmmaker don't have money to buy the best people to make their films. And, that is the bottom line.
The reason why most Indie films fail is because the filmmaker don't have money to buy the best people to make their films. And, that is the bottom line.
C.R.E.A.M. is also the name of an episode of James Cameron's Dark Angel series where C.R.E.A.M. stands for the same thing: Cash Rules Everything Around Me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJfK3A8nraw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJfK3A8nraw
When i was trying to say the problem is lack of story i didnt just mean not good enough. I meant actually not enough. You cant make something out of nothing. The problem with todays do it yourself era
independent is truly meant for the visionary who ideas are too good for the studio. Not the other way around
indie and capatalism has saturated the market. Indie film is the only potential way into the light. Its also the problem