George Lucas, indie filmaker?
- Thread starter ZERO_#
- Start date
He's the biggest Hollywood filmmaker there is. 
There is nothing 'indie' about him. The term 'independent' has nothing to do with the amount of responsibility the director has.
Wiki says:
An independent film, or indie film, is a film that is produced outside of any major film studio. Originally, this term denoted independence from Paramount Pictures, MGM, Twentieth Century Fox, Warner Bros., RKO, Universal Pictures, United Artists, and Columbia Pictures, the 8 major studio entities which controlled the production, distribution, and exhibition of films in the US from the late 1920s through 1950s. Though its oligopolistic practices were officially ended by the Paramount Decision in 1948, all eight Golden Age Majors continue to exist in one form or another as major Hollywood studio entities through 2009. (Although some have been combined, absorbed, or partnered with others through the decades.) Independent films today are generally defined as American films financed and distributed by sources outside today's Big Six and its subsidiaries.
However there is much debate about what an indie film is...it's pretty subjective. Some people call 28 Days Later an indie film...some people call Slumdog Millionare an indie...personally I disagree. The term has less to do with being financially independent from the big film studios, and more to do with resources, feeling, and a state of mind. I personally can't (and won't) call a million dollar picture 'independent.' To me, true 'indie' films come from sweat equity and attitudes of their own.
But hey...that's just me.
There is nothing 'indie' about him. The term 'independent' has nothing to do with the amount of responsibility the director has.Wiki says:
An independent film, or indie film, is a film that is produced outside of any major film studio. Originally, this term denoted independence from Paramount Pictures, MGM, Twentieth Century Fox, Warner Bros., RKO, Universal Pictures, United Artists, and Columbia Pictures, the 8 major studio entities which controlled the production, distribution, and exhibition of films in the US from the late 1920s through 1950s. Though its oligopolistic practices were officially ended by the Paramount Decision in 1948, all eight Golden Age Majors continue to exist in one form or another as major Hollywood studio entities through 2009. (Although some have been combined, absorbed, or partnered with others through the decades.) Independent films today are generally defined as American films financed and distributed by sources outside today's Big Six and its subsidiaries.
However there is much debate about what an indie film is...it's pretty subjective. Some people call 28 Days Later an indie film...some people call Slumdog Millionare an indie...personally I disagree. The term has less to do with being financially independent from the big film studios, and more to do with resources, feeling, and a state of mind. I personally can't (and won't) call a million dollar picture 'independent.' To me, true 'indie' films come from sweat equity and attitudes of their own.
But hey...that's just me.
Last edited:
There is nothing Indie about George Lucas.
You might want to recheck your Lucas' credits. To be sure he has worn a lot of hats, but he rarely is W/P/D for his films. Most commonly he is a producer.
For example: he didn't Direct "Return of the Jedi," but that he was part of the writing team. Also, he neither wrote NOR directed Empire Strikes Back (which is hands down the best made of the original Star Wars movies).
You could ALMOST make the indie case for THX1138 (?) or American Graffiti, except that you'd be missing an entire era of 1970's STUDIO based Hollywood film making that was actually pretty good, risky, and had what could later be called an independent spirit. It was though, a brief flicker of a movement supported by the studio system that gave a great deal of creative leway and resources to folks like Lucas, Spielberg, Coppola, Scorese (sp?), and probably others of the same generation.
For example: he didn't Direct "Return of the Jedi," but that he was part of the writing team. Also, he neither wrote NOR directed Empire Strikes Back (which is hands down the best made of the original Star Wars movies).
You could ALMOST make the indie case for THX1138 (?) or American Graffiti, except that you'd be missing an entire era of 1970's STUDIO based Hollywood film making that was actually pretty good, risky, and had what could later be called an independent spirit. It was though, a brief flicker of a movement supported by the studio system that gave a great deal of creative leway and resources to folks like Lucas, Spielberg, Coppola, Scorese (sp?), and probably others of the same generation.
A. George Lucas hates Hollywood so much, he's always been based in the San Francisco area since he left college.
B. George Lucas perfectly fits the definition of the Wiki entry - he produces outside of the film studios. Lucasfilm is a separate entity outside of the Hollywood system that exists solely to produce product from George Lucas. Unfortunately, he also has no choice but to have used the traditional studios for exhibition, as there is a monopoly on distribution to movie theaters.
Just because he mostly creates movies that are popular doesn't mean he isn't independent.
I think "indie" and "independent" probably mean two different things to us in this instance. I'm reminded of the scene in "American Movie" when Mark Borchardt is watching the Oscars the year "The English Patient" won Best Picture, and the look of disgust on his face when Billy Crystal says "This really is the year of the Indie film" or something to that effect. I would say most of us are closer to Borchardt than Lucas, regardless of the dictionary definition of independent, which is making for an excellent discussion of what it means to be an independent filmmaker!
I've met Mark. Nice guy and I'm a huge fan of AMERICAN MOVIE. That should be required viewing for anyone contemplating getting into film.
This brings up an entire discussion that is germane to the topic at hand. PULP FICTION is considered and "indie film", and it had a budget of $7 million. Can you really classify that the same as a $600 DV horror feature that also calls itself an "indie film"?
The name became a marketing hook that's still around for mini-majors. It's not applicable today and it certainly doesn't describe the incredible inundation of DV and HD low-to-no budget features being made every day now. The term "microcinema" was taking off for a while, but the filmmakers didn't like the moniker because it wasn't as respectable as being compared to Quentin Tarantino, Kevin Smith, and Robert Rodriguez.
This brings up an entire discussion that is germane to the topic at hand. PULP FICTION is considered and "indie film", and it had a budget of $7 million. Can you really classify that the same as a $600 DV horror feature that also calls itself an "indie film"?
The name became a marketing hook that's still around for mini-majors. It's not applicable today and it certainly doesn't describe the incredible inundation of DV and HD low-to-no budget features being made every day now. The term "microcinema" was taking off for a while, but the filmmakers didn't like the moniker because it wasn't as respectable as being compared to Quentin Tarantino, Kevin Smith, and Robert Rodriguez.
Don't be silly...he's created LucasFilms, which is in a sense, just as powerful, if not more, than some of the other major studios. LucasArts/LucasFilms is a massive, mega-plex of a production company.
I didn't say the Wiki definition is the absolute truth...in fact, my second statement said the opposite.
Lucas isn't 'independent.' He's only 'independent' in the strictest definition of the term...which I happen to disagree with to begin with.
No, it's because he creates films that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and gross even more--*that* is why I won't consider him 'independent.'
Last edited:
Hi guys i didnt mean to open a can of worms here but i guess I really dont understand the difference between "Indie" and "Independent".
Does that mean you measure a filmakers "indie-ness" by the success of their films? if thats the case...
Example: Lets say I won a 100 Million dollars and I decide to finally do the film that I have been writing for years. I hire my friends/family to help, and film it in my hometown. i have a great experience creating it, im happy and it actually becomes a huge success. Does that still make me what people call indie? I think the term "Indie" gets used too much without a clear definition.
Does that mean you measure a filmakers "indie-ness" by the success of their films? if thats the case...
Example: Lets say I won a 100 Million dollars and I decide to finally do the film that I have been writing for years. I hire my friends/family to help, and film it in my hometown. i have a great experience creating it, im happy and it actually becomes a huge success. Does that still make me what people call indie? I think the term "Indie" gets used too much without a clear definition.
It depends...how much did your McDonald's Happy Meal contract net you? What about the deal with the Chinese manufacturer of lunch boxes in the shape of the space vehicle from your movie? How much did you get for licensing the theme song to a cell phone company? And the amusement park rides...how much was that contract worth?
I didn't say 'success'...you did.
But a films budget (and their previous work) does play into whether they are 'independent' filmmakers. Directors and companies that shoot mulit-million dollar pictures, without ever really worrying about budget are not independent filmmakers in my eyes.
Festivals like Sundance used to cater to true indie films...but the big dogs caught wind, and it turned into a major motion picture expose`. Or whatever...the films they showcase at Sundance now'adays are much higher budget than they used to be. Yes some low budget films get in...but who you're competing with can be mega-million dollar pictures...the term 'independent' has lost its true feeling, just as the term 'alternative' did with music in the '90s.
In your example of 'winning 100 million' and making a film...in your hometown with your friends and family helping...yes, you are absolutely independent. You don't have a bunch of producers or investors nudging your film this way or that...you don't have a preset national distribution deal already set...the very idea that you're keeping it local, and hiring friends and family makes you absolutely indie.
Of course if you take that 100 million, get a deal with Paramount, hire Tom Cruise and make everything union...then no...no you're not indie any longer.
It's a fine line. And it's not cut and paste...it's not black and white...but I can tell you without much research whether *I* would label a film 'independent.' You can be as difficult as you want...and you can use the definition term all you want...but we all know the term 'independent' has changed in the last decade and is used as a selling point to art-house movies, or films that don't want to be thought of as Hollywood films...
Maybe we need a separate phrasing now'adays...maybe Sweat Equity films?
Maybe Micro-budget?
Last edited:
i dont think i've ever considered lucas to be an independent filmmaker