What genre works best in indie?

DangerDigital

DangerDigital

What genre do you think works best in indie film?

I ask this because for me, I cant sit through a low budget movie unless its funny. Doesn't matter if its documentary, sci fi, horror; For me, it has to be primarily comedy.

I guess when the acting is bad, and its obviously low budget, I cant take it seriously unless it pokes fun at itself. I know a lot of people make films to convey a message, or an idea or something, but I prefer when it is delivered with comedy.

Maybe this is just me though.

Your thoughts?
 
I'm currently working on a self-directed homework project and the overwhelming majority of indie films with even a modicum of distribution are DRAMAs.

Most of them are have a whole lotta conflicted, dysfunction-as-entertainment material major/minor studios don't really wanna fool with trying to distribute them to theater chains that don't really want to show them to audiences that don't really wanna pony up the Jacksons for them.

As to what works "best"... ?
As in a decent return on investment?
Or critical acclaim?

A lotta these are shown in fewer than 50 or 60 theaters across the U.S. despite frequently getting >70% Rotten Tomatoe approval ratings, and most only lose money even with actors and/or directors we've all heard of and budgets bouncing all around between $2M, $4M, $7M, $12M, all the way up to $42M for MICMACS.

Of the thousands of rejected feature-length films submitted to various film festivals I strongly suspect all of them have nearly zero chance of making even an offsetting return on their investment.

Good directors + good actors + good budget + good production standards + decent stories = almost no guarantee of anything good.

You/I/We made a film.
Yay.
Money down the toilet.
Don't spend any more than you would on a family vacation.
That money is gone-ola!
Have fun and enjoy the process.
That's the only value.
Seriously.

(Was this "a little harsh"? Yeah, it was, wasn't it? Sorry. I'll post my completed project results in a few weeks, if anyone's interested. Make of it what you will).
 
Last edited:
I dont really mean in terms of dollars. Or in film making in general. But rather if you were going to sit down and watch an indie film, what would keep you from turning it off and finding something better to watch.


And yeah, drama. To be honest, most dramas I dont enjoy reguardless of budget and quality. I just think drama is a great way to suck the fun out of entertainment.

Of course, tragedy did well in theater long before I was alive, the greeks seemed to like watching mopey actors ruin their already crappy lives for the sake of entertainment. So maybe I'm the odd one out and just plain dont like drama.
 
Nah, I don't really care for dysfuctional drama either.
It's often too much like just plain old sucky reality. I think we all have enough of our own bullsh!t to address so I don't have a really big need to see a fictional someone else's even-worse fictional bullsh!t to feel better than my own real bullsh!t.

I'd go with quirky comedy rather than farce or stupid teen/young adult.
Throw in some sci/fi fantasy or horror just for laughs.
 
yeah, exactly. I had a ton of people (even to this day) tell me I would love Donnie Darko. I will never know because the first 15 minutes bored the living crap out of me, then netflix glitched out and I said "Thank god, now I'm going to watch something good."

Do I want to see some mopey teenager struggle with his sense of reality and struggle with depression and other psychological issues? No, because as far as I'm concerned, thats what highschool was. lol. I live in the real world now and deal with things way bigger than myself. And they way I do that is by laughing at life.

Anyway, getting off track here. But I think that us humans communicate with emotions even more than we communicate with words. The way you deliver the words has a huge impact on how they are interpreted. I personally think that comedy is probably the most efficient way to communicate. We remember things more efficiently when they inspire a strong emotional response, and I personally think humor is the best response for memory association when it comes to movies.

I might be getting out there at this point. I'm miles away from my original post.

But to illustrate my point. Take the movie "Liar Liar". Then imagine it as a serious drama. Which one would you rather watch?
 
DangerDigital said:
What genre do you think works best in indie film?

I ask this because for me, I cant sit through a low budget movie unless its funny. Doesn't matter if its documentary, sci fi, horror; For me, it has to be primarily comedy.

I guess when the acting is bad, and its obviously low budget, I cant take it seriously unless it pokes fun at itself. I know a lot of people make films to convey a message, or an idea or something, but I prefer when it is delivered with comedy.

Maybe this is just me though.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Depends on your budget, and capabilities. For most of us, the harsh reality is that no matter how hard we try to make a "serious" film, the audience isn't going to take it seriously, because our production values, acting, etc., can't live up to the Hollywood standard. Because of that, I think it's wise for most of us to keep it light and maybe even silly. So, yeah, comedy is great for that. A lot of people also like to do horror, cuz horror is kind of inherently silly, anyway.

Some people are able to make "serious" films, though, even on tiny budgets. So, if you're up to the challenge, I think ANY genre is right for indie.
 
Horror, Drama, and Comedy

Horror becuase it's cheap and standards are the lowest in film

Drama because it's cheap and can bring you critical acclaim and serves an audience that doesn't require SFX

Comedy last becuase it's cheap, but requires a special genius to get right. Comedy films are about 95% failures.
 
What genre do you think works best in indie film?

I can only speak from my experiences.

I tried horror, science-fiction, docudrama and mystery. I think my actors have been very good (although I might be a wee bit biased) -- some actors were downright awesome -- everything was DONE (sets, props, FX) in low budget or no budget.

Now working on a comedy/documentary with the goal of zero production dollars, $0.00 (for I have paid off my antique video equipment and editing system -- cannot afford HD (BluRay) -- so will continue with DVcam (DVD).

Having tried several different genres, DangerDigital, depends on the goal of the filmmaker(s). Depends on the script. The casting. Infinite invariable(s) that can and will happen as the camera(s) roll. With or without a budget -- not one genre is more guaranteed for financial success than any other.

Works best? I write cause I enjoy the writing, shoot (or act, edit, etc) the movies, hungry to see... for the pleasure of taking that script (or idea) to the screen. It is a challenge with NO money, not made a profit on any production to date! But not lost much capital either (tend to break close to even). Do not have rich friends, rich relatives -- none of my feet are in any 'big money' doorway. Can't waste time marketing myself, will just take my cameras and shoot whatever my brain has given a lot of thought to and put down on paper.

I just keep throwing stuff at a wall -- eventually something will stick.

In the end, some will say my original scripts might suck OR my low-budget movies suck, acting may be an embarrassment too. But I learned while having a blast creating something from nothing. Always have something to share (done so with some fellow Indietalk members).

In the end it is not the genre? IT IS the 'FRESH IDEA' while making it fun for cast, crew and the (eventual goal) VIEWERS...

My two cents, I am not rich, famous (or ego heavy) -- just like making stuff up -- sharing.
 
don patterson said:
Can't waste time marketing myself, will just take my cameras and shoot whatever my brain has given a lot of thought to and put down on paper.

I just keep throwing stuff at a wall -- eventually something will stick.
Click to expand...

If this venture is purely from a Writer perspective. Then this is just understandable. Just.

If you're talking as a filmmaker, even though I fully understand that you're a family man, then this isn't the career for you.
 
Papertwinproductions, you are probably correct.

Many think I am slightly crazy, cause I keep writing while keep making 'movies'.

But I am NOT in debt. I own my own equipment.

What? I should let all my equipment (paid off), actors (wanting to make more movies) and the ideas in my brain collect dust?

LOL

Sometimes life is more interesting by not JUST working for a dollar...
 
don patterson said:
Papertwinproductions, you are probably correct.

Many think I am slightly crazy, cause I keep writing while keep making 'movies'.

But I am NOT in debt. I own my own equipment.

What? I should let all my equipment (paid off), actors (wanting to make more movies) and the ideas in my brain collect dust?

LOL

Sometimes life is more interesting by not JUST working for a dollar...
Click to expand...

Oh no. It wasn't any such recognition of an income. It was your cavalier look at the "marketing". Which IS the industry.

We market ourselves to get work. For people to SEE our work. For new adventures.

Nothing was said whatsoever about letting your material, equipment or actors collect dust. Not in the slightest. Infact, what I was saying was the exact opposite.

Market. Have it seen. Give it more eyes. Whether that be in the search of an income, recognition or seeing if your material can leave the nest and fly.

This is an industry. It's 100% or nothing if you want to have a crack at it.

I know that you're prolific in your writing. So you'll no doubt be aware of marketing yourself as a Writer. To the right people. In the right places.

But hoping that your work will survive in the evergrowing mass of films there are without marketing, is pointless.

It depends entirely on what it is you want, and what you aspire to.

But marketing is the industry. It is, and it always will be.
 
Alcove Audio said:
Then in what other way do you measure success?
Click to expand...


I'm only talking about content and enjoyability. The perspective of the viewer. Do you only watch a movie if it makes a lot of money?


But there are other ways to measure success. I think fanbase would be one. If you made a film that didn't make much money, but everyone who saw it thought it was amazing, wouldn't that be success?


I think another way it could be success is if it opened doors for you. Like if a studio saw your film, liked it and decided to give you a budget. Personally, I would let those kinds of people worry about the money aspect of it. Perfect example would be Robert Rodriguez. He made El Mariachi for $6000. I dont know a single person who has seen that movie, and I've only seen the first half, but it caught the eye of Quentin Tarantino who said "cool movie, here's 6 million, do something with it" I'm pretty sure thats exactly what he said, but I wasn't there.... but I would consider that a pretty big success that you couldn't put into dollars.
 
DangerDigital said:
If you made a film that didn't make much money, but everyone who saw it thought it was amazing, wouldn't that be success?
Click to expand...

Not if you lost money on the venture. If everyone who saw it thought it was amazing, but you couldn't afford to make another film, why would it matter?
 
I view fimmaking just like any "hobby", that comes with expenses, that also has the potential of going to different levels of being professional.

YMCA soccer.
High school soccer.
College soccer.
Pro soccer.

Plinkin' with a .22.
Boy Sprouts or ROTC competition shooting.
Trap & Skeet for the halibut.
Semi-pro competitive shooting.
Pro shooting.
Secret agent government special contractor.
Blackwater gun for hire.
Arms dealer.

Doodling on wide ruled paper with a pencil.
"Advanced" doodling with colored pencils on cold pressed paper.
Oil paints (too messy), water colors (too time consuming), latex (mmm. plastic. nice), Krylon! H3ll yeah! I love aerobic running from the cops!
Why buy canvases when there's a whole city of "dead" surfaces out there?
Rent/buy a studio, some screen printing, lithography or intaglio press equipment and make some crazy sh!t that people marvel at but don't know what to make of it and don't buy much of.

Then there's the whole beauty pageant route. LOLOLOLOL!

A lotta people pay big money just to WATCH sports and entertainment without any intent of actually participating in it.

If you wanna buy stuff and organize peeps together to make a... a... a... thing, a bit, a short, a catastrophe in motion then that's great. That's what freedom is all about.
Rock on!

Ol' Zack Snyder wrangled $80M outta some suckers just to make goofy sh!t. Cool! Great! More power to him. I hope he pocketed a nice chunk-O-dat! Hope to do the same some day myself.

GL & have fun w/o pokin' yerr eye out (or burning your fingers on a halogen bulb shop light! Ha!)
 
DangerDigital said:
I'm only talking about content and enjoyability. The perspective of the viewer. Do you only watch a movie if it makes a lot of money?
Click to expand...

Of course not, but you're putting the effect before the cause. It works this way; a lot of people liked the content and enjoyed the film. The fact that a lot of people saw the movie means it made money.

DangerDigital said:
But there are other ways to measure success. I think fanbase would be one. If you made a film that didn't make much money, but everyone who saw it thought it was amazing, wouldn't that be success?
Click to expand...

Fan base = butts in theatre seats or DVD sales, rentals, etc. = money paid to see the film. Therefor, the more money the film makes the more successful it has been.

Another way to look at it is ROI - Return On Investment. I can understand your idea that a good film is a calling card. However, there are thousands of good films out there; I know, I've worked on a few of them. The odds of one of those films being a real $ucce$$ is miniscule. Did a limited audience enjoy them? Yes. But that doesn't mean that there was a measurable ROI - it didn't make money and/or it didn't get the director that big "Hollywood" deal, therefor it wasn't a $ucce$$.

Now, there are small budget indie films that have decent ROI; if $100,000 was invested and it made $200,000 is sales then you have a 100% ROI. That is a $ucce$$ful project.

Can a project be personally gratifying? Of course. You may have "succeeded" in furthering your techniques and skills, but that is personal success, not a commercial $ucce$$, and the only way to measure a films commercial $ucce$$ is box office and subsequent sales.
 
DangerDigital said:
What genre do you think works best in indie film?

I ask this because for me, I cant sit through a low budget movie unless its funny. Doesn't matter if its documentary, sci fi, horror; For me, it has to be primarily comedy.

I guess when the acting is bad, and its obviously low budget, I cant take it seriously unless it pokes fun at itself. I know a lot of people make films to convey a message, or an idea or something, but I prefer when it is delivered with comedy.

Maybe this is just me though.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I agree. If I dish out any money to go to a theater, it's for a comedy.

If someone I know tells me "You've gotta see ___________ it's one of the funniest movies ever!" That'll excite me and I'll probably go see it. If someone tells me "You've gotta see _________ it really made me think about the drama a family in Rhode Island goes through, I'm not gonna get that excited about it. If a movie is funny, I don't need stars or production value to enjoy it. That's just me though. And there are exceptions, I'll watch anything by Nolan or Scorsese but then we're moving into higher budgets and A-list stars.
 
drc said:
I agree. If I dish out any money to go to a theater, it's for a comedy.

If someone I know tells me "You've gotta see ___________ it's one of the funniest movies ever!" That'll excite me and I'll probably go see it. If someone tells me "You've gotta see _________ it really made me think about the drama a family in Rhode Island goes through, I'm not gonna get that excited about it. If a movie is funny, I don't need stars or production value to enjoy it. That's just me though. And there are exceptions, I'll watch anything by Nolan or Scorsese but then we're moving into higher budgets and A-list stars.
Click to expand...

yeah, the funniest thing I hear all the time is "You should see this movie, it made me cry so hard." to which I laugh and say "Why the hell would I want to pay $14 to cry? If thats what you like to do for kicks, pull up a chair and I'll tell you a little about MY life! You'll have a blast!"
 
DangerDigital said:
But to illustrate my point. Take the movie "Liar Liar". Then imagine it as a serious drama. Which one would you rather watch?
Click to expand...

I used to think the same way when I was 10 years old. But now I rather watch a good movie; genre is irrelevant. I think your argument is bad movies vs good movies, and not genre vs genre. I understand people have preferences, but it only clouds judgment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top