Is Sky Captain considered and Indie film ?

F

film670223

I was wondering if Sky Captain and the world of tomorrow to be considered indie ?

I think that is a great film! The special feature showing how they made the film explains that was his first film. Is that great or what! Good story, I love the look and to fall into a great finincial deal like that Whew! life is good! :)
 
Well... indie? That would be a hard sell.

It started out that way, though, with the creator working by himself on his ancient Apple II or similar.

Then he had a series of lucky breaks, where he he showed his very basic work-in-progress to a friend, who knew someone who knew someone who knew someone...

...and before you know it (well, over 15 years later), a big studio had picked it up for Hollywood production.

It sure took a heck of a long time though... I think he started working on it back in the mid 80's.

There was a really great writeup in the NY Times a few years ago about the evolution of it.
 
film670223 said:
I was wondering if Sky Captain and the world of tomorrow to be considered indie ?
Click to expand...


No.

In my eyes, anything with a budget of over a couple of million starts falling out of the "indie" categorie. There ain't nothing "indie" about millions of dollars.

That said, I don't think "Sideways" should have been eligible for the Independent Spirit Awards. $17.5 million is NOT indie. (Not that is wasn't a great film...it just wasn't indie.)

$175,000...that's indie....a hundred times that...not hardly.
 
YouAreAloneMOVIE said:
No.

In my eyes, anything with a budget of over a couple of million starts falling out of the "indie" categorie. There ain't nothing "indie" about millions of dollars.

That said, I don't think "Sideways" should have been eligible for the Independent Spirit Awards. $17.5 million is NOT indie. (Not that is wasn't a great film...it just wasn't indie.)

$175,000...that's indie....a hundred times that...not hardly.
Click to expand...

Indies can and do cost millions. Dead Man cost around 9 million (for example).
 
And the new Star Wars trilogy is indie as well. I think, and indietalk, you'd probably know better than I, that "independent film" is a term for films "independent" from Hollywood.

Personally, I don't think money has anything to do with "independent" status. Granted, Revenge of the Sith won't be up for any Spirit Awards next year.
 
Now, I suppose you could make a case for a genre of "indie" film, for which a low-budget is one of the qualifiers, but technically, I think if a film is made outside of Hollywood's influence, it's an independent film (excluding, of course Bollywood and other large, foreign production houses).
 
Here we disagree. If you're spending millions you have to worry about making back millions. When you've got that sort of cash on the line, the ego of stars, etc., and so on...that's not indie.

Independent of Hollywood perhaps...but so what? Now you're indebted to some foreign venture capitalists, or a foreign production company, a bank...whatever...

Someone is going to want to make their money back? Whether is be by casting a star, because of box office value. Or some control of the script.

Are there exceptions...sure...but they're few and far between. You don't find many people willing to write a $10 million check without also wanting some control.

And if someone other that the director is ultimately controlling the final cut of the film...I'm sorry...there's NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING "indie" about that.

I've played all the sides: big hollywood/fake indie/real indie...I know.
 
This is exactly why I asked the queston. It's really difficult to define what Indie is. I tend to agree with the notion that movies made outside the studio system are Indie. But I also want to agree with the money side although all movies co$t money and most are made with other peoples money ( am I correct in this ? ) so therefore aren't all movies based on some profit motive and trying to please someone? I'm not sure I buy profit motive as a disqualifyer for being Indie.

I tend to side with who has creative control over the production and content. If the director/writer has compleet control or as close one can get, they are operating in ansd Independant fashion. ( right ?) No matter where the money comes from the ones providing them money expect somthing in reture for that money weather it be Ideology, style, content, subject, skin, gore, profit, Etc. Otherwise they wouldn't provide the money.

Just my way of thinking.

Mike :D
 
Yeah, I think this is one of those things where everyone has a different definition. Personally, I think technically an independent film is anything not financed by a large studio -- or any studio at all. In spirit, I think the idea that the director/writer/producer has a vision they want to put on screen and will scrap and call to do so is pretty good "definition." I found this article on a google search which addresses this very question.

http://www.vailsymposium.org/PressFilm04Indie.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top