Is Superman: the movie the greatest independent film achievement in the last century?

[sonnyboo]

I think we need a new definition for "independent".

The word has so many definitions and opinions it cannot be accurate, nor is there any governing body for such a thing.

I think in the STAR WARS analogy, the first one was completely funded by 20th CENTURY FOX. All of the rest were funded by Lucasfilm, also under the aforementioned "negative pickup" deal. I am currently reading the 3rd coffee table book in the series on the making of the original trilogy.

Now both EMPIRE and JEDI were funded by a bank in Boston. Lucasfilm had all kinds of assets with the merchandising to leverage the loan. Now, most indies can never get that deal.

 

[sfoster]

Oh, so instead of getting their $55mil budget from a group of investors who very much wants to see a return on their investment, they actually got their $55mil budget from a different group of investors who very much want to see a return on their investment. That makes it totally different.

Semantics be damned, a $55mil movie is not independent!

I think we need a new definition for "independent". How's this one?

On an independent film, there's no such thing as an executive producer. The person who is putting their own personal money on the line is also intimately and actively involved in the process of making the film. Because if it doesn't succeed, they just might lose the roof over their head.

Bad definition, because executive producers come on board after a film has already been made.

 

[directorik]

Semantics be damned, a $55mil movie is not independent!

Fair enough.

I'm a curious person and I love know the lines people draw. So I'm
going to ask a question. Many times (recently with Will) I ask and
the question is ignored. I will say up front, I am not trying to win
an argument, I am not trying to prove a point and I am not trying
to be a jerk – I am interested in understanding where you're coming
from.

Is the threshold to be an independent film a budget number? Or is
the threshold to be called an independent film the risk of investors
losing everything? Can an independent film have investors or is an
independent film one persons money?

I put together a group of 50 people putting in $1.1 million each (their
own personal money) - but they are all solvent enough that they will
not lose their homes if the movie fails. Is not an independent production.
Because the budget is high and the investors will not lose the roof over
their heads?

I find a wealthy Silicone Valley guy who agrees to be the executive
producer and he finds 5 people who invest $110,000,000 but will lose
the roof over their heads if the movie fails; could that be an independent
film in your view? Or is the budget too high?

What is the budget cut off point for a movie to be considered an independent
film?

If all the money comes from private investors not associated with any studio
but the budget is above $50 million it is not an independent film. It's not a
studio film. What is it?

 

[directorik]

Bad definition, because executive producers come on board after a film has already been made.

Most EP's come on to find the financing for a movie.

An EP is often the the person who watches where the money goes and
keeps the project on track. Most often at the behest of a studio but
also as the "lead" investor in a non-studio project. Because often the
EP is the first person who invests.

The EP makes sure the film stays on budget and schedule. Both done
while the production is happening not after the movie has been made.

 

[sfoster]

Most EP's come on to find the financing for a movie.

An EP is often the the person who watches where the money goes and
keeps the project on track. Most often at the behest of a studio but
also as the "lead" investor in a non-studio project. Because often the
EP is the first person who invests.

The EP makes sure the film stays on budget and schedule. Both done
while the production is happening not after the movie has been made.

i only have limited experience but when morgan spur lock came on board my documentary as an EP, the film was already finished and simply trying to find distribution. he helped in that regard and got played on spike tv.. meanwhile a i never even met or spoke to the guy

 

[Cracker Funk]

Fair enough.

I'm a curious person and I love know the lines people draw. So I'm
going to ask a question. Many times (recently with Will) I ask and
the question is ignored. I will say up front, I am not trying to win
an argument, I am not trying to prove a point and I am not trying
to be a jerk – I am interested in understanding where you're coming
from.

Is the threshold to be an independent film a budget number? Or is
the threshold to be called an independent film the risk of investors
losing everything? Can an independent film have investors or is an
independent film one persons money?

I put together a group of 50 people putting in $1.1 million each (their
own personal money) - but they are all solvent enough that they will
not lose their homes if the movie fails. Is not an independent production.
Because the budget is high and the investors will not lose the roof over
their heads?

I find a wealthy Silicone Valley guy who agrees to be the executive
producer and he finds 5 people who invest $110,000,000 but will lose
the roof over their heads if the movie fails; could that be an independent
film in your view? Or is the budget too high?

What is the budget cut off point for a movie to be considered an independent
film?

If all the money comes from private investors not associated with any studio
but the budget is above $50 million it is not an independent film. It's not a
studio film. What is it?

These are all valid questions, and I also assure you that I'm not trying to win an argument. This is just conversation, nothing wrong with that.

I can't say that I would know where to draw the line between what I personally would consider "independent" vs. what isn't. I will say that I don't think the traditional definition works any more. There are so many smaller studios that are technically independent from the traditional studio system, but their process of making films is no different than that of the studios (so far as I can understand, from my limited knowledge based purely on internet readings).

I think Lionsgate is a perfect example. Technically, they are "independent", if we are using the traditional definition of that word. But c'mon. They work the same as a Hollywood studio, just on a smaller scale.

To try and answer your question, I guess for me it is largely a matter of how much money is involved. What's the cut-off point? I don't know, I guess for me there's a lot of grey area. But if we go back to Superman, there were a number of people who were ultimately calling the shots. The director didn't have final say, the working producer didn't have final say. The people with the money had final say.

If we go to the opposite end of the spectrum, and look at a film like El Mariachi, the person who has final say on all matters is also the person most intimately involved in production. The writer/director/producer is independent, he answers to no one.

Is the same true at Lionsgate? I doubt it (on a side-note, I love that studio).

 

[directorik]

These are all valid questions, and I also assure you that I'm not trying to win an argument. This is just conversation, nothing wrong with that.

Good to hear. I've had a couple of discussions here recently that
fell apart as soon as I asked for clarification. I get a little “gun-shy”
wondering if it's me...

My first feature was based on an award winning short film I made.
An executive producer agreed to a budget of $50,000. But he had
the final say in all things business. I wrote it, my long time partner
and producer of the short produced and I directed. We had creative
control but we both answered to the EP who held the money. I even
had to write a part for and hire his wife.

So that's not an independent film by your standards? It's not a studio
film, it's not what is currently called a “mini major” but it wasn't me
putting in my money and risking it all. The EP had no creative input
and he wasn't risking losing his house. What is that called?

I have had similar experiences my entire career as a director. I worked
for an EP who ran a small direct-to-video company. Budgets in the
$5,000 to $25,000 range. His money, his rules. I wrote and or directed
many films through him. He had a company (no “studio”), a distribution
outlet and money. Not independent in your view?

One more; Vanity project. A guy with more money than he knew what
to do with. He put up $850,000, hired me to write a script from his story,
was with me every step of the way (the stories I can tell...), he produced
and starred in it, I directed. Some name actors where hired. Again I had
no skin in the game. I got paid regardless. Independent or not?

 

[Cracker Funk]

I'll be honest -- my opinion of what makes a film "independent" or not has absolutely no basis in logic. It's more an emotional thing, and the strongest argument I can offer is "C'mon" (for movies like Superman or Cabin in the Woods).

I would say that the examples you cited are definitely independent by my standards, and the primary criteria for me is that they were all small-scale productions.

The traditional definition of "independent" is what it is, I just don't think it means much any more. But I also don't think there's really any way to nail down a hard definition of what it means to be "independent" these days. Whatever. Semantics, schemantics.

All I know is that if someone tries to tell me that a $55mil production is "independent", my only reaction is "C'mon!"

 

[directorik]

It's more an emotional thing, and the strongest argument I can offer is "C'mon" (for movies like Superman or Cabin in the Woods).

I understand. That's why I love a conversation like this. Learning
how you feel and why. I, too, believe the definition is all over the
place. I do not put a budget number – to me as long as the movie
isn't made by a studio it's independent. Large scale, name stars, an
executive producer, people getting paid, people not getting paid; as
long as no studio is involved it's an independent film.

When you say small scale that returns me to my question; what is
the number? $55mil to high? Is $10mil?