Chances of indie director getting big nowadays?

D

driverrodeshotgun

Hi everyone, indie filmmaker here,

I'd like to throw out a topic and get some opinion from everyone here, from something I've been thinking about a lot this past year.

I'm no different, I write/direct/edit/produce/shoot my own films, I try to keep up with all the best technology available to us indie filmmakers to make our films look and sound the best they can I submit my films to festivals, I get rejected, accepted, I post trailers online, I pass out dvds, and so on, just like everyone else.

Now honestly, with the rise of competition nowadays, where everyone can make a movie on a dslr and have great results, and even with a great script, what are the chances of someone that creates a great work and has it shown at many festivals, actually have a chance at becoming a mainstream filmmaker?

It used to happen. Kevin Smith with Clerks, Darren Aronofsky with Pi, Wes Anderson with his short Bottle Rocket, Nolan with Following. Look where they went after. They had low budget movies, made by nobodies, starring nobodies. Some had connections, some didn't. They made their mark, had festival runs and positive reactions just like many films do nowadays, except they went somewhere. Was it just the right time? I know there were fewer quality films then, since you needed to have A LOT of money to shoot on film.

If you notice, there aren't any "sundance kids" anymore. There aren't young filmmakers that come out of nowhere that are suddenly top news in the filmmaking world. There's the Paranormal Activity guy, but besides him, before and after, hasn't been much.

I know indie filmmaking has changed, it's more hollywood, it's filled with more stars and nepetism and politics than ever.

BUT, is it pointless to expect anyone out there can make a "Clerks" or a "Following" and expect that with festival runs and recognition, the next project they do will be ten times as big with actual stars?

These people are all inspiring due to their success, and I know they make up a very very small percentage of filmmakers out there, and even at that time, I'm sure there were others that were shoved away. But I'm curious with people's opinion, if it it seems like us filmmakers are all victims of the times(and lucky, since we can make a movie for $2000), but in terms of hopes of getting more recognition that leads to more, is that just a thing of the past for the nobody filmmaker?
 
You forgot to mention the Duplass brothers.

And Neil Blomkamp.

I do not believe it is a thing of the past.

I'll let you know in about 6 months. ;)
 
I think that we are currently "out of phase" with the no name indie filmmakers making it big. There are always exceptions (see PARANORMAL ACTIVITY), but after Blar Witch in 1999, which is 11 years ago, the whole "get into Sundance, get a 3 picture deal" phase ended.... for now.

These things are cyclical. In a few years, the general public will get sick of the remakes and regurgitated swill that the big machine puts out with big name actors, then they will turn to indies to fill in the creative gap and the cycle will start over again.

It's not much different than the late 1960's into the 1970's with EASY RIDER leading us into the Spielberg/George Lucas/Francis Ford Coppola/Scorsese phase. Then George Lucas himself with Star Wars and Spielberg with Jaws lead us into 10-15 years of blockbuster big summer movies.

Which in turn lead to SHE'S GOTTA HAVE IT from Spike Lee and Soderberg's SEX LIES AND VIDEOTAPE, which brought us Robert Rodriquez/Tarantino/Linklater/Kevin Smith and the 1990's indie film movement.

Cycles that come and go.
 
That's a lot to digest.

Somebody who comes out of nowhere and rockets to success based on one film. It never really happened all that often. When it did, it was a combination of being in the right place, at the right time, with the right film, AND that film being really really good.

Much like music or any of the arts, it's mostly about being seen by the right people, and when you do get that chance to be seen by the right people, having a quality of work that makes them interested.

I'm a believer that more often it's a process. That $2K short garners enough success and recognition that you can parlay it into money for a no budget feature (and when I say "no budget" I mean $20K or $30K), that is commercially successful enough to parlay into a low budget (When I say "low budget" I mean $200K) feature. That is commercially successful enough to get real players in the business to pony up a couple million for an "indy" level feature.

Etc...
 
thanks for that analysis sonnyboo, that puts things into perspective. I hope you're right about the future, of us getting sick of remakes, reboots, etc and looking at the nobody indie stuff like we did in the past. I had forgotten to mention Rodriguez.

and I don't count the Duplass brothers as anything, or Joe Swanberg, or any of that boring mumblecore no story 20 somethings quarter life crisis I'm in a relationship quirky crap. I'm glad they aren't a household name and that more people hate them than like them. They just got LUCKY that those lead them into bigger things (acting in the League, Cyrus, etc).
 
Although Sonny has a good point, and there will be a few new "upstarts" appearing on the horizon, I also believe that the changes in technology over the last ten years or so is going to lead to a "revolution" similar to what happened in the music biz. I mean after all, 15 years ago the internet was still an untested resource, and computing power was still relatively expensive. In fact, a very large percentage of the people here on IndieTalk were still in grammar school 15 years ago and take for granted the technological innovations that have astounded us old fogies over the last 30 years.

You are going to see the rise of video "bands"; groups of talented people who make audio/visual product - shorts, webisodes and the like - that will develop followings, just like indie bands who self release their albums and songs. The biggest challenge will be how to make money at it. It is very rare for bands, even fairly popular bands, to make money on album/song releases, which are almost a sort of advertising. They make their money by touring/performing. What would be the film equivalent? Hmmmmmmmm, that requires some thought.........
 
driverrodeshotgun said:
thanks for that analysis sonnyboo, that puts things into perspective. I hope you're right about the future, of us getting sick of remakes, reboots, etc and looking at the nobody indie stuff like we did in the past. I had forgotten to mention Rodriguez.

and I don't count the Duplass brothers as anything, or Joe Swanberg, or any of that boring mumblecore no story 20 somethings quarter life crisis I'm in a relationship quirky crap. I'm glad they aren't a household name and that more people hate them than like them. They just got LUCKY that those lead them into bigger things (acting in the League, Cyrus, etc).
Click to expand...

No love for the Funk? Sheeeeiiiiit! ;)

I don't think Jay Duplass gives a shit if you like his movies. He's gettin paid!

I'm not really a fan of Kevin Smith's humor. But he's gettin' paid, and I aspire to that.

As has been mentioned, low-budget indie filmmaker-turned big-budget Hollywood filmmaker has never been a common thing. Yet, just in the last year, we've seen it happen with three directors (Duplass, Bloomkamp, Peli). Are you sure this trend is decreasing?
 
I think today more than ever, it's easier to get recognized for your work. You may not make it big all the sudden Robert Rodriguez style, but with new technology and websites like withoutabox, it's easier than ever to share your films and enter them in festivals. Enter in festivals leads to winning festivals, winning festivals leads to bigger festivals, bigger festivals lead to meeting people, meeting people leads to opportunity.

I think there's a large amount of indie makers of all ages now a days, that's why it seems like it's harder. If you make something truly great, you will hopefully get recognized.

(Also back to the Robert Rodriguez style film, he spent 7k on El Mariachi with no crew, and he sold it off to, i think, Columbia for 50 times what he made it for, and then landed a job directing the sequel with antonio banderas. It's all about who you meet, and who you know)
 
Alcove Audio said:
Although Sonny has a good point, and there will be a few new "upstarts" appearing on the horizon, I also believe that the changes in technology over the last ten years or so is going to lead to a "revolution" similar to what happened in the music biz. I mean after all, 15 years ago the internet was still an untested resource, and computing power was still relatively expensive. In fact, a very large percentage of the people here on IndieTalk were still in grammar school 15 years ago and take for granted the technological innovations that have astounded us old fogies over the last 30 years.

You are going to see the rise of video "bands"; groups of talented people who make audio/visual product - shorts, webisodes and the like - that will develop followings, just like indie bands who self release their albums and songs. The biggest challenge will be how to make money at it. It is very rare for bands, even fairly popular bands, to make money on album/song releases, which are almost a sort of advertising. They make their money by touring/performing. What would be the film equivalent? Hmmmmmmmm, that requires some thought.........
Click to expand...

Holly cow alcove, on another thread I just posted about an open source Indie album that was release for free and still sold $1.6 mill in 30 days!

Its the add ons.. the value added content, the hand signed copies, the collector editions etc.. with a episodic delivery method opportunities to capitalize on the fan base.. endorsements from clothiers, product placement etc..

crazy
 
driverrodeshotgun said:
Now honestly, with the rise of competition nowadays, where everyone can make a movie on a dslr and have great results
Click to expand...

Waves on a beach my friend. Waves on a beach. Just because everyone has the ability to make a movie doesn't make it a good movie.

Read. Write. Rinse. Repeat. Read. Write. Rinse. Repeat. When you're about to throw up from reading and writing too much. Do it all over again. Read. Write. Rinse. Repeat. Read. Write. Rinse. Repeat. A good, compelling story is hard to come up with. I'd start there.
 
There's never been a better time to be into film and its getting better and better. The only downside is that it's hard to rise about the crapflood, but this is offset by a million positives. Cheap equipment, free distro, massive interest in new ideas. Yes, it's cyclical... I feel we're on the verge of a massive film Rennaissance.

Just imagine what these 15 year olds with DSLRs and Macs are gonna be putting out in ten years.
 
The Sundance Kids were always few and far between. Even back then, there were plenty of filmmakers paying their dues and working their way up the ladder.

To Quote Kevin Smith from my book http://www.rebelwithoutadeal.com

KEVIN SMITH said:
In any given year you can count on one hand the number of break out
filmmakers that go from their first film to a more substantially budgeted second
film. Those stories breed a lot of these cats that feel like, "I don't need to work. I
don't need a job. I don't need a real world job, because everything is taken care of
once the world sees how brilliant my movie is."

You had a much more head straight perspective of, "Look I'm doing
this, I hope it works out, but I realize that I have a job and that is what affords me
to be able to do this stuff." You weren't counting your chickens before they were
hatched, so that's why it was easy then and still now to talk to you because you're
not one of these cats that are just like, "Give me money to make my movie so I
can be like you."

Where I think, dude, if it was that simple, I would sell that formula
and become a very very very rich man. Because everybody wants that in this
field! Even people that never before showed an interest in filmmaking. They see
Clerks and they think, "If that idiot can do it, I can do it and I can be rich and
famous too."

It's like, if I had planned for it, it never would have happened. It all
grew organically out of a happy series of accidents that just happened to pan out with somebody being there at the right place at the right time. It was more
serendipitous than anything else. But people don't want to hear serendipitous;
they just want to hear the overnight aspect of the story.
Click to expand...

KEVIN SMITH said:
Right now, seeing what's happened over the last 13-14 years, I would
say, "No, Clerks would never get into Sundance now," but if Clerks would have
never happened at Sundance in 1994, then maybe?
Click to expand...

I admire guys like
Todd Phillips. During the "Sundance Clerks 1994" period he made the doc "Hated," followed by a few other docs, till "Road Trip" and road that all the way to the "Hangover."

Or check out Todd Strauss-Schulson. You don't know who he is, but you will next year when "A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas" comes out. He built a career on indie shorts.

So like always, hard work will pay off.
 
Last edited:
Yep, it always has been, and always will be for 99.999999% of filmmakers about paying your dues.

The flood of absolute crap out there because it's now affordable to make absolute crap makes it a little harder for the quality to stick out, but it still sticks out. Make a brilliant film, especially that has commercial potential, and success will find you.
 
Of course, we only ever hear about the success stories... not the thousands of other indie producer/directors whose films never made it because they missed the market and the luck wagon.
 
You know what else we don’t hear about? The indie filmmaker who
sells their $30,000 movie for $100,000 then gets a job directing
TV and ends up with a healthy career as a director. Or those who
make several low budget films before breaking into the studios.

“getting big” means different things to different people even
though I understand that driver is writing about making it into
the mainstream, big budget studios.

The chances are the same for everyone. If there were 20 excellent
independent films that studios and distributors thought would make
a lot of money at Sundance in 2011 all 20 would be purchased and
distributed.

Anyone out there can make a “Clerks” or a "Following" and expect
that with festival runs and recognition the next project they do
will be ten times as big with actual stars. It’s happened before,
it will happen again.
 
Well said 'Rik.

Let's face it, there are a lot of talented people out there. But not all of them are super-star-mega-talented. Out of those many will not be able to get past a myriad of other problems - mental, emotional, egotistical or even just circumstantial to name a very few.

And success means different things to different people. Sure, an Oscar and public adulation are gratifying. But just being able to make a living doing something you love to do is success enough for many. At that level you get to work with other talented, focused, "successful" people and have access to some really nice toys.

Back in the early '80s I was in a fairly well known local/regional band. Even that little bit of celebrity was a real PITA. I couldn't go out shopping or to dinner with my wife without fans bothering me. Fun the first three times, really annoying the next 3,000.
 
Alcove Audio said:
And success means different things to different people.
Click to expand...

And I think that is well said too. "Making it big" can mean one thing to me and something else to everyone else. In this very thread, some would consider the Puffy Chair guys to be a huge success, whilst others consider them a failure. It's all subjective.
 
Thanks for all the comments, puts things into perspective quite well. I agree with it.

I also admire a filmmaker like Hal Hartley, because he's made some very unique and original non-hollywood indie films, does what he enjoys and retains his style and tries new things, still even makes a lot of short films, made his mark in the indie circuit and is a known name that's well deserved, yet has never achieved commercial success. Not a household name, but has quite a following and has worked with tons of talented people. I would be quite happy with that type of "success."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top