Same here. One thing I've noticed, is that when it comes to indie thrillers and horrors, a lot of them at the local festival anyway, have less horror and action, then Hollywood movies. They concentrate on story, but maybe more horror and action is what they need. I'm just trying to compare to typical box office. So maybe if they were to just put more in, distributors may like them more (shrug).
If The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo, were an indie, would it do well?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
This is where "independent" film diverges in it's definition.
What you are identifying is more acurately defined as "low budget" filmmaking, often pursued by writers/directors/producers for various reasons are unable or don't want studio financing.
This is different from those filmmakers who produce a product the studio system isn't interested in producing, largely due to simple economics because of the story's structure or its market, or lack thereof.
Back on topic: I agree 100% with your observation and conclusion.
Indie and low budget films often have too much blabbity-blab "drama" in them in what often looks like time filler.
More meat, less cellulose, please.
There's no way for me/us to definitively identify if the reason for all the dramatic blabbing in any given film is from budgetary constraints, poor writing/directing, or the filmmaker's genuine belief that this is good sh!t.
I spend much of my film watching time dissecting framing, movement, and editing sequencing to cultivate a better feel for the mechanics of "why" some films "look" like cr@p while others "look" cinematic.
I have no idea if actors have any idea if what they're doing is going to look like rubbish because the director is... um... less than good. I often feel sorry for them.
Heh. Except my movie was rejected by all but one of the festivals it entered as well. The producer's rep said it was, ironically, "too mainstream" for festivals.
And really, to get back to your original example, how much horror and action did Dragon Tattoo have? The rape scenes and the ending spring to mind. Other than that, it was pretty much what's called a "procedural", i.e. people investigating - interviewing witnesses, doing internet research, searching through libraries, etc. Not exactly eye candy.
Oh I wasn't referring to Dragon Tatoo. I meant DT had a lot of drama and mystery, like a lot of indies, but wondering if it would do well as an indie, since a lot of indies are rejected for having too much drama, and not enough action and thrills, as far as what the market wants.
Yep. But DT had source material that was an international bestseller. Add in James Bond and the director of Seven and Fight Club, and you've got the recipe for a hot investment.
I think you're right. Lacking those 3 elements, the project likely would never have seen the light of a studio. And if you took that exact script and made it with unknowns for $25K, good luck.
I think you're right. Lacking those 3 elements, the project likely would never have seen the light of a studio. And if you took that exact script and made it with unknowns for $25K, good luck.
It sucks. Cause it's a good script and more intelligent than a lot of thrillers that get picked up. On the other hand though, it is the type of movie, that the festivals would love. But I guess if you take a script like that and put a lot more horror and thrills in that would increase the chances, with unknowns, or at least it seems that way, market wise.
Last edited:
Well let's see. The story- regardless if we're talking about the Swedish or American adaptation- is, well, the basic Scooby Doo formula. There's no real "Wow, that's new" factor. On top of that there's subplots involving rape, murder, torture and extended cheerless sexuality.
The Swedish film got attention because the book had previously been cherished as it was written so well, in a style that prevented putting it down. The film itself is nothing special. Fincher's version got attention because it was under his name and starred Daniel Craig.
So if it were an indie, had no novel background, no Craig, no Fincher, then unfortunately no, it would have not done good.
The Swedish film got attention because the book had previously been cherished as it was written so well, in a style that prevented putting it down. The film itself is nothing special. Fincher's version got attention because it was under his name and starred Daniel Craig.
So if it were an indie, had no novel background, no Craig, no Fincher, then unfortunately no, it would have not done good.
I'm surprised it wouldn't. I thought the plot was quite good, than other successful indies such as say, Paranormal Activity, and El Mariachi for example, which were good too, but didn't have as much story by comparison.
Harmonica, if my career has been worth anything, it's been to serve as a warning to others:
DON'T MAKE MY MISTAKE!!! I love intricately plotted movies - as many do - so that's what I've always made. I seem incapable of learning the lesson: Most People Don't Want To Think -- They Want To Be Masturbated. The distributors know this. If you want to make money, get out the K-Y. If you want to make art, prepare to lose money.
Sorry, did that sound cynical?
Okay thanks... but... instead of plot, what do we substitute?
Last edited:
sex and violence
)Well it's a good thing the thriller scripts I am writing have a fair amount of violence in then.