Hollywood bigwigs can try and process as many stars from their factories as they’d like. True talent and charisma has a way of rising out from the muck.
I think people are looking at the state of independent cinema from the wrong perspective. I think the real problem is from within, not because of studios being weary of risk or “specialty films”. It’s because most of these so called intelligent, independent films aren’t as good as they purport them to be and offer absolutely nothing over the standard Hollywood produced movie. Despite being a slight movie, Juno was well made, and look what happened there.
But who can really say how transitional this period in american cinema really is? The proliferation of independent distribution thru the internet is simply a result of the over abundance of content made available by the amazing technological advancements which has allowed a lot of creative(and uncreative) types to make good looking home movies on the cheap. Because of these advancements, most reasonably budgeted movies contain some degree of aesthetic beauty, so now, more than ever, content is king.
[quote=“AndrewFields88”]
Hollywood bigwigs can try and process as many stars from their factories as they’d like. True talent and charisma has a way of rising out from the muck.
I think people are looking at the state of independent cinema from the wrong perspective. I think the real problem is from within, not because of studios being weary of risk or “specialty films”. It’s because most of these so called intelligent, independent films aren’t as good as they purport them to be and offer absolutely nothing over the standard Hollywood produced movie. Despite being a slight movie, Juno was well made, and look what happened there.
But who can really say how transitional this period in american cinema really is? The proliferation of independent distribution thru the internet is simply a result of the over abundance of content made available by the amazing technological advancements which has allowed a lot of creative(and uncreative) types to make good looking home movies on the cheap. Because of these advancements, most reasonably budgeted movies contain some degree of aesthetic beauty, so now, more than ever, content is king.
[/quote]
I hate watching movies through a computer screen, there is nothing better than watching it in a dark room with surround sound and the giant silver screen flickering images at 24 frames per second. Inidie films aren’t exactly great either. Most of the stuff you see at Sundance are so-called filmmakers trying to convey some kind of political idea into movies, and there are the rare who make great films like Juno or Little Miss Sunshine and Sideways. I mean just look at the Indie channel all you get are drug addicts who love hookers, etc.
Most studio films are being made for the sole purpose of entertainment, that’s the whole point really. But every now and then there comes a script where a great film can be made - and those scripts are just so rare. If all screenwriters could write like Paddy Chievsky or The Epstein brothers, we’d never run out of good movies to see. But great scripts are just rare. That’s why studio properties are so important, they buy the Transformers copyrights and make a big fucking movie out of them. Indie films don’t stand a chance, and I don’t want them to stand a chance. We hear of the best Indie films each year anyways.
The best “indie films” today are made by the big studios, or subsidiaries of them.
you mean distributed by big studios
no, produced. there is no such thing anymore as a “typical studio movie”, the big studios have adapted successful indie stuff and trends to gain profit for themselves. I think Kevin Smith talked obout this once. Pulp Fiction was a major boost for that. Today we have Fox Searchlight, Wes Anderson movies, Juno, Sideways, all movies that are very “indie” and produced by non-indie companies.
No, I think they were distributed. That’s what happened to Romero he made Diary Of The Dead with a Canadian indie company and it got picked up by The Weisntein Company for 2 million dollars.
Fox Search Light produced films like The Wrestler. bUt Juno and the rest were picked up for distribution deals.
See it was produced by Dancing Elk Productions for 6 million dollars. Then it got picked up by Fox Search Light for distribution.
With Dancing Elk Productions (Sorted by Popularity Ascending) - IMDb
Dancing Elk Productions
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Mandate Pictures
Mr. Mudd
are all listed as production companies for Juno…but anyway i think i made my point. the majors took what’s best from the indie market.
Yeah, how else are they going to be shown. Romero said: “It’s very easy to shoot a movie. But very hard to find a distributor”.
[quote=“Lt. BioBasterd”]
I refuse to complain anymore. I mean all mediums have their downers and their winners. In books, videogames, Broadway plays, etc. And looking back to the 30s, 40, 50s - The Golden year days - most films were not that great. We’ve began to think that way because we just tend to look back and see the plethora of greatness, and not see the many faliures that were.
[/quote]
i don’t complain either. still. films were better in the 30s, 40s and 50s. one example. 1954: barefoot contessa, Rear window, Apache, Vera Cruz, Johnny Guitar, On the waterfront, Sabrina, Beat the devil, A star is born, the naked jungle, seven brides for seven brothers, Crime wave, the city is dark. it was a very good year… among many others 8)
Oh my, you see. In this day and age we couldn’t dream about having a year like that.
By the way Mankiewicz made Contessa, he said the film became somewhat of a disappointment to him because of censorship rules.
BTW, have you seen A Star Is Born? I really loved it.
believe it or not, i’ve never seen it. but there is a big hommage to Warner Bros in a cinema here. they’ll show it among many, many, maaaany others. so i’ll see it in a few weeks. 8)
Awesome, on the big screen. I’m jealous. Judy was nominated for an Oscar in this picture, it’s really my favorite Judy Garland film next to Oz and The Harvey Girls. There’s one scene in particular where Vicki Lester is crying over someone’s death and as she comes out of the funeral home a fan asks her for an autograph, she just turns and walks away - as she does the fan rushes up to her and snags her veil right off! That really happened to Joan Crawford after her last husband died, George Cukor was a close friend of hers and used that in the movie.
great story, i love Joan Crawford. Have you seen Today we live, with Gary Cooper? it was made in 1933, she is gorgeous. i keep wondering why she changed like she did. oh, well.
speaking of her, i just saw Strait-Jacket, a Psycho rip-off she did with William Castle in 64. It’s a fun, but sad film to watch, because it’s obviously low low budget, she’s not dealing with a great material and Castle is not a great director (he’s fun, but he’s no Curtiz).