You chose to be Indie or just is because you didn't make it yet?

M

Mitter

Hey guys, i began to wonder this afternoon if most of you guys that post here chose to be indie or is still trying to be a famous director.I wouldn't say my goal is to be famous but i dream about the day that i work with great actors,or directing big budgets movies and being known by my talent.

What about you guys?
 
It would bring to question the persons definition of "Success". "Indie" and "Hollywood", are not divisions that will determine the film-maker. Most label Hollywood as the pinnacle of every film-makers aspirations, it's not the case, or atleast i don't believe so.

What does "Success" mean to you?
 
Indie has become a very convoluted and, dare I say it, meaningless term...

Originally it stood for independent. So if you are asking whether people here are independent filmmakers by choice, I would say probably not. There was a lengthy thread discussing whether someone ought to turn down studio distribution in favour of the more traditional 'indie' route and the result was pretty resoundingly that most people would love to have more resources and talent at their disposal, but have been limited by their circumstances.

But Indie is also a genre, a style, a mentality. Kevin Smith is often described as one of the pioneers of Indie cinema even though his films have received mass distribution, star names, studio involvement...etc. In that case he's no more 'independent' than Michael Bay (well, maybe a little). But indie, like in music, has come to represent the mentality that emerged as a result of the 'Love Movies? Go out and shoot one!' brigade that started bringing low-budget filmmaking to the masses.

I think I speak for everyone here when I say that I'd love to work with the best actors in the world, the top cinematographers, the best sound teams, VFX artists...etc. I'd be a fool if I had that sort of opportunity and turned it down. I think that there are very few people who still hold out the 'indie' dream- not because the establishment is fundamentally correct, but because people want to have their movies watched and appreciated and there's no better way to do that than to produce with studio involvement...

So, yer, 'indie' isn't a choice. There's no 'indie' gene ;)
 
I can't speak for anyone else, but I just make movies. The rest just falls where it may. From my own experience, even on an indie film, once you have a certain amount of money, it's no longer the autonomous filmmaking experience of the low-to-no budget realm of microcinema writer-director-producer-editors. On a big budgeted Hollywood film, it is even less control over the film.

The media perpetuates a myth that even directors like Spielberg, Nolan, and Scorsese have total control over their films and they get whatever they want which simply isn't true. They have studio heads and producers that have a lot of say OVER these directors and the challenge is to work within that system and not lose what control they do have.

It is a business, at least once significant amounts of money are invested in a film. There are no guarantees. At this point in time, the studios and the banks that finance them want to keep profits from slipping. That means they take LESS chances on unknown directors and movie ideas. This equates to less opportunities for up and comers to break through as "famous directors", unless they can prove their ideas can make money (IE millions of views on YouTube, film festival awards, etc.)

I make movies because I have no other choice. I have to tell the stories that appear in front of my camera that originate somewhere inside my subconscious.
 
I choose to live outside of Los Angeles and New York. I like the wide open spaces of the Southwest and refuse to move to the densely populated coasts. If that keeps me from being a Hollywood director, it is as simple as that. I simply love filmmaking. I've been making movies for 31 years and will continue to do so.
 
Indie is really a misnomer these days. The traditional meaning of Indie was being independent of the traditional Hollywood studio system. Traditionally, Hollywood owned the scripts, owned the sound stages and had under contract the actors, directors, crew and crafts. In the fifties and the sixties lots of younger filmmakers began making films outside of Hollywood and corporate control. A film like "Easy Rider" was one of the first truly mainstream indie films. It took on (for then) controversial subject matter, was shot entirely on location and was financed with "private" money.

These days Indie means anything from Kevin Smith to every pathetic wannabe with a camcorder. New terms really should be defined to separate the filmmakers from the posers.

As other posters have mentioned 99% of indie types would like to make films with better re$ource$ and dreams that their own "indie" projects will get them the notice to obtain those resources. And if you look at the film industry today every film is an independent film if compared to the corporate Hollywood structure of 50 years ago; the studios have become in essence investment houses that match up projects with directors and financing.
 
I just want to make movies or act in them. You got to start some where. I would love to be on a big budget Hollywood flick.
 
Last edited:
No. Indie filmmakers are indie because they like to make films, not because they want to direct some cheesy, overused, over the top, star studded big budget movie. Indie filmmakers are only limited by their budget. Studio filmmakers are subjected to all sorts of censorship, studio rejections, and they usually don't get to pick their crew. I'm probably just speaking for myself right now, because I'm really into preserving the art of film. I hate how studios exploit successful movies and milk them for every penny they can. A good example of an indie filmmaker gone bad is James Cameron. I'm sorry Cracker Funk, this isn't an attack on you. I know we disagree on Avatar. But he went from making "The Terminator", which was independent, then it became successful so he started making sequels, then he made "Avatar", and they're making a whole series out of that now, too. Maybe they'll make a "Titanic 2: Wait, it actually didn't sink"
 
I want to swim in money. I want to be fed grapes and fanned with palm fronds. When I get bored, I want to be able to spin the globe, randomly place my finger down on it, and say, "hmm, let's go there today". I want to be remembered throughout all history as the greatest storyteller of all time.

But I'll settle for a paycheck. :)
 
Cracker Funk said:
I want to swim in money. I want to be fed grapes and fanned with palm fronds.
Click to expand...

....and "goddesses!

wpid-algsheenabc.jpg
 
It was mentioned above that indie has become too broad a term, so I've expanded on that...

Here's my take which I've previously written about here a bit and turned into a basis for an article series I started on my site (originally from the "1000 dollar film" online magazine that went defunct, then got URL Sniped and redeveloped by someone else).

YAFI Underground's DIY Cinema Briefs said:
... I am a filmmaker. Over the past several years, I've been pursuing the craft and art of filmmaking. I've shot over a dozen shorts and 1 feature in that time. As most of my learning was done online for free, I believe that I should "Pay It Forward". In order to share what I've learned, We'll need to start with a couple of philosophical stances I will present:

1) Time = Money, Filmmaking is a really expensive endeavor. Even the cheapest of productions that hit any kind of tangible distribution can cost tens of thousands of dollars. I haven't had money to spend on productions, so I've pursued the process from that perspective. Realistically, People buy houses now for tens of thousands of dollars, whereas in the past, pioneers have spent time instead to fell trees, cut logs, and build houses without the benefit of a budget. Existing resources and time were spent on these homes. I've been applying this same concept to filmmaking and I believe that a little determination and dedication can provide opportunities to become a filmmaker even if you can't afford film school or equipment, or big stars, or a dozen cars to crash in flaming balls of twisted metal wreckage.

2)Filmmakers fall on a scale that I've created and will delineate here now (caution, I'm opinionated and it comes out in this list):

A) Hollywood
- Huge spectacle, amazing cinematography
- Huge budgets (specifically funded directly by the huge studios)
- Huge stars
- Huge amounts of legal red tape and all union shoots
- Film, period
- Huge distribution for just about every single film that comes through the channel

B) Independent
- Great cinematography
- More character studies and dramas, More depressing endings
- Much smaller budgets (although still in the hundreds of thousands of dollars raised outside the studio system)
- Huge stars who are attracted by the depth of the characters and willing to work for scale
- Huge amounts of legal red tape and all union shoots
- Mostly Film
- Wide distribution domestically and overseas through the same channels as Hollywood films if they get picked up by the studios

C) Indie
- Some moments of amazing cinematography, but very wide variety of skill levels
- Weaker scripts which are all shockingly similar - every once in a while though a stand out story makes these
- Budgets anywhere from $0 to tens of thousands
- No possibility of star power due to the budgetary constraints at this level
- Legal is much more lax as the distribution limitations make the possibility of legal action less likely.
- Mostly non-union shoots with some SAG Indie contract jobs
- Some Film, mostly Digital due to budget
- A few get picked up and go on to fairly large distribution, most get self- distributed online or straight to DVD

D) Student
- Some moments of good cinematography, wider variety of skill levels
- Same 5 weak scripts and experimental films
- Budgets in the tens of dollars
- Same classmates in every film made at this university in the same 4 years
- Legality is very lax due to the "Educational Use" laws.
- non-union
- Film vs. Digital depends on the school
- I have seen some amazing student films, but mostly I consider them a necessary evil
- These get show on campus and may someday end up on a compendium like "Reel Talent" if the directors get famous

E) Guerilla
- Generally bad cinematography but hey, they're learning
- generally chaotic storytelling
- student budgets (although they aren't really considered budgets at this level)
- Usually a group of friends who run around making cheesy little films together
- Complete disregard for legality totally anathema to the unions
- almost entirely digital now, this has changed from 20 years ago with the advent of the VHS cams and now the DV cams
- lots of these are just unwatchable, I still consider these a necessary evil as they are the witches cauldrons that produce filmmakers once they grow up and realize that there are legal ramifications to the work they want to distribute
- Online self-distribution if any, legal woes are just a success away... The lawyers won't hound these filmmakers about their lack of rights to music, locations or appearance unless they get wide distribution

...
Click to expand...
 
Cracker Funk said:
I want to swim in money. I want to be fed grapes and fanned with palm fronds. When I get bored, I want to be able to spin the globe, randomly place my finger down on it, and say, "hmm, let's go there today". I want to be remembered throughout all history as the greatest storyteller of all time.

But I'll settle for a paycheck. :)
Click to expand...

Very aptly put CF :)


Put me in the "I just like making movies" category. While I would love to have someone pay big bucks for my "mask" short films and other films-it's just the joy of creation for me. My bills get paid through other means, and I just like the act of creation.

So if that makes an "indie" filmmaker, so be it-though I think "non-professional" filmmmaker might be more appropriate (for me anyway) :)
 
Tinalera said:
Very aptly put CF :)


Put me in the "I just like making movies" category. While I would love to have someone pay big bucks for my "mask" short films and other films-it's just the joy of creation for me. My bills get paid through other means, and I just like the act of creation.

So if that makes an "indie" filmmaker, so be it-though I think "non-professional" filmmmaker might be more appropriate (for me anyway) :)
Click to expand...

Masks short movies?Masks give me the chills @_@
 
I think that differentiating between an Indie Filmmaker and other kinds of filmmakers is like differentiating between an Freelance Journalist and other kinds of journalists, or a Family-Owned Business and a chain of businesses. It's a petty distinction, necessary for legal purposes but otherwise completely pointless.

You can buy draft beer from huge international breweries, or you buy it from your best friend's dad, who makes it in his garage. In both cases, it can be complete shit or it can be awesome sauce. Same with movies. Relative to the quantity of movies released in the (respective) Hollywood and Indie industries, the ratio of shit to good entertainment is practically the same.

My point is: filmmaker can be a hobby or an occupation, just like brewing beer, taking photographs, making clothes, or just about anything else. "Indie" doesn't define the quality or process of certain filmmakers, and it never should. It only refers to how much money you have. A movie can have an "Indie vibe," because movies shot with less money have automatic restrictions put on them - they usually won't be about giant robots attacking a big city, because people who think inside-the-box automatically (and, I might add, MISTAKENLY) assume that you need to then SHOW giant robots attacking a big city, and they shy away from bigger-scale stories because they think it always, in every case, takes much more money to tell those stories.
 
knightly said:
It was mentioned above that indie has become too broad a term, so I've expanded on that...
Click to expand...

I don't know of student features and guerrilla is already an established term. Anyone making a feature is out to sell it. Sonnyboo grabbed a Bruce Campbell quote and maybe he can repost it. It roughly said: "Indie is any movie that when being made, doesn't have a line of distribution. End of story."

Like filmmaking, in marketing, "Guerrilla" goes like this:

The concept of guerrilla marketing was invented as an unconventional system of promotions that relies on time, energy and imagination rather than a big marketing budget. Typically, guerrilla marketing campaigns are unexpected and unconventional
Click to expand...


Films like EL MARIACHI and PI are considered guerrilla.
 
Mitter said:
Masks short movies?Masks give me the chills @_@
Click to expand...

Funny how many discussions I get into with those on these boards about it (funny thing is, my shorts are non-horror)

I started a thread on it a while ago, discussing the reasons for why masks creep some people out.

I don't mean to creep you out ;)
 
I have a good friend who's currently on a 'studio' picture costing absolute shedloads!

The word 'corporate' came up :no:- so I for one ain't in a particular rush to be involved in a mega movie - however the words 'very well paid' also came up shortly thereafter...;)

So maybe the answer is to do one for the machine and three for you - oh, to have the choice - lol!:cool:
 
you got film makers and film spectators, this website is 90% film spectators - FACT

If I'm wrong why is the forum showcasing work bare??? BOOOM!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top