Indie movies are soo much better!

[tonnerre]

Don't you think?? I really can't say I've seen a decent mainstream movie that came out this year.

Most everything is either an adaptation of a book, or worse, a REMADE movie. Yuck. Complete loss of originality.

So I make my own =)

But really. I mean all 5 of the Academy Award nominees for best picture were adapted from something (even Sideways).

Christ.

[arjue]

Don't you think?? I really can't say I've seen a decent mainstream movie that came out this year.

Most everything is either an adaptation of a book, or worse, a REMADE movie. Yuck. Complete loss of originality.

So I make my own =)

But really. I mean all 5 of the Academy Award nominees for best picture were adapted from something (even Sideways).

Christ.

Alot of people give "indie" movies alot more credit than they deserve. The fact of the matter is that for every good one you've seen there has been a plethora of others which were too shit to get any distribution. That said, 2 of my top 3 movies this year were "indie" films, being Mysterious Skin, the Life Aquatic, and Sin City (a landmark of a film which you're shitting on you cunt). Go look at your DVD collection, I bet you that there are more mainstream than "indie" films.

[the mongoose]

I think both types of movies have their purposes..... the mainstream stuff is there to visually wow us and provide mindless escapism. Indie films shock us or make us think about things from reality.....not very feel good stuff usually.

Apples and Oranges but neither are better...:)

[Forgotten Sanity]

I think that deciding that one is better than the other is pretty silly. Besides, most indie movies (not all though) are so deadpan, anti-climactic and slow that they put me to sleep. I don't mind cerebral movies, but there should really be a warning on some indie movies: "Warning, this movie contains 90 minutes of nothing but talking and philosophizing."

[Animal Boything]

Also:

-The only good film directors are left-handed.
-Good films are only released on prime-numbered days.
-All the good actors eat on screen.
-Close-up shots of anything inorganic are a surefire mark of poor cinematography.
-Widescreen movies suck.
-Static camerawork is the only good camerawork. Pans, zooms, and handheld shots are the work of idiots.
-Credits that roll with images in the background ruin the whole movie. Credits must be against a blank background. Non-scrolling credits are an eysore.
-Good movies always list the cast in reverse alphabetical order, by names of characters.
-The only good movie scores are played on solo fiddles. Songs in movies MUST NOT contain words.
-Sets in good movies always have blue walls.
-Movies with evergreen trees in them suck.
-There has not been a good movie made since 1979.
-Black and white movies don't count as real movies. I mean, who watches that shit? You can't even tell if the walls are blue.

I WILL FIGHT ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE

[ndrwrld]

thems fighting words.

[bklyndv]

I'm wary of categorizing a group opposed to another as "better" -- there's exceptions for every rule.

Right now "indie" basically means "wishing we were Hollywood but our budgets are a few million short." A far cry from saying something like "capturing a spirit of expression independent of simply making the bottom line."

Really, "indie" (indy?) for the last 10 years or so has meant little more than a marketing gimmick. 'Psycho' and 'Lolita' were both independently financed -- would you say they were anything like, uhm, 'Sin City' (or anything Rodriguez for that matter)?

Whatever you can say for 'Sin City' -- aside from its "look" there isn't anything particular that separates it from a Hollywood produced film. At its core, it follows the same rules any other fictional narrative does -- and there are probably several similar narratives, Hollywood produced, I'd put above it.

So, I find all the "indie" posturing Rodriguez does/did around the film to be overblown. How much was made of his leaving the DGA when in reality he was a member when it mattered. And now, worth millions or possibly billions, he tears up his DGA card and I'm supposed to be impressed? Going down the list of his films at IMDB, it doesn't seem like he did it out of any great sense of artistic integrity, out of any compulsion to tread new creative ground -- he did it because he's rich and making movies is cheaper than ever.

Give me a million dollars and I'll go him one better and never join in the first place :D

[bklyndv]

While we're bitching (by the way), I'm so SIIIICK of comic book and/or late 70's, early 80's TV show movies. :mad:

[the mongoose]

then I guess you won't be going to see the He-man or Transformer movies in 2007 huh?:p

[votingfloater]

I thought you were taking the piss, but then I looked them up... please let it all be lies. Of all the things to re-make: He-Man? I thought Dolph Lundren had nailed that particular coffin firmly shut.

I'm with bklyndv.

[bklyndv]

Transformers? Hey now, let's not overreact... ;)

You know, I see these trailers or online preview blurbs and think I'd like to see these movies, if only they'd let me make them. I remember b.miller had something up a while ago about 'Unbreakable,' where he offered alternate b-sides to 4 or 5 scenes from the film. I kept thinking "Shit, I'd love to pay to see his movie. I felt ripped off leaving the real one."

That's how I feel just about every time I watch a big-bidget trailer these days, as in "Huh. Well, that could have been cool..." Even the "best" of them (like 'Hellboy') are generally near-misses. Particular tastes and whatever aside, I think you could generally say that Hollywood's most consistent error these days is confusing more with better -- look at the second and last Matrix film, where they basically took everything from the first and multiplied the bad guys, the sensuality, the chases, by 'x' number.

The LOTR trilogy suffered the same fate -- oh look, an impossibly large number of enemies. What last-moment twist of fate will save our heroes again?

Though on a positive note, so you don't think I'm all piss, as "big budget" action movies go, I enjoyed 'The Bourne Identity,' 'Batman Begins' and 'Kung Fu Hustle' quite a bit. Still, I could have made Bourne and Batman better :D

[Animal Boything]

The original "Star Wars" was a hollywood production. "The Phantom Menace" was an independant production.

[bklyndv]

The original "Star Wars" was a hollywood production. "The Phantom Menace" was an independant production.

Exactly. Well said.

[b.miller]

go see Hustle & Flow.


it doesn't really have anything to do with this thread... just thought i'd throw it in.

[lukeyd]

look at the second and last Matrix film, where they basically took everything from the first and multiplied the bad guys, the sensuality, the chases, by 'x' number. i actually thought number 2 was quite good, number 3 just entirely failed to do anything with the storyline is was set up with. it was like the wakowski (sp?) brothers became so obsessed with themes and religious iconography, that they forgot they didnt know how to finish the story. i seriously think i could have done a better storyline.

The LOTR trilogy suffered the same fate -- oh look, an impossibly large number of enemies. What last-moment twist of fate will save our heroes again?
im sorry, i dont get this. is there really any other method of doing a david and goliath, against all odds type story? of course some twist of fate will save them in the end, its either that or no twist of fate and they all die. the suspense and story telling skill is what twist of fate

[bklyndv]

Hmm. Well, then maybe that's just not good suspense. I didn't find it working for me after the third or fourth time. Maybe that's the kind of thing best reserved for a book and not a movie.

What's interesting is that in your analogy, no twist of fate or deus ex machina saved David -- it was a well-honed skill coupled with bravery.

[GforGroove]

go see Hustle & Flow.


it doesn't really have anything to do with this thread... just thought i'd throw it in.

Also, Chocolate is good for stress. I just read it.

[grady]

Also, Chocolate is good for stress. I just read it.

Mmmmm it is indeed. Some good chocolate, a nice glass of wine and a good book are wonderful.

Another quip to add to this thread that may or may not have anything to do with it and may or may not have already been written/uttered by someone.

Just because it's an independent film doesn't mean that it's good.

A notion that I subscribed to after working as a projectionist at an art house theater for a couple years and sitting through some rather crappy films, althought I was usually being paid to screen said films before they were opening.

[King of Snake]

The LOTR trilogy suffered the same fate -- oh look, an impossibly large number of enemies. What last-moment twist of fate will save our heroes again?



of course the LOTR trilogy isn't Hollywood either, and the story (at least most of it) is taken directly from the books, so you can hardly accuse Peter Jackson of anything :)

Just because it's an independent film doesn't mean that it's good.
Captain Obvious to the rescue!

[grady]

of course the LOTR trilogy isn't Hollywood either, and the story (at least most of it) is taken directly from the books, so you can hardly accuse Peter Jackson of anything :)


Captain Obvious to the rescue!

HEY NOW!

I had no idea. :)

[bklyndv]

of course the LOTR trilogy isn't Hollywood either, and the story (at least most of it) is taken directly from the books, so you can hardly accuse Peter Jackson of anything :)

Well, given that he directed the films it's pretty safe to say he had some impact on how the books were translated to film, so yeah I would pretty much hold him responsible for what I feel their failings are ;)

Again, like I said above, what works on page rarely works the same way on screen -- books provide good narrative structure but rarely accomplish on screen what works in the medium (which is why I offered the example of Hitch, who when adapting books would read only a handful of pages and "fill out" the rest of a film adaptation with details that worked, cinematically).

[King of Snake]

I get what you mean and of course it's PJ's idea of how the book would translate to the screen. But most/all of the set pieces where the heroes are facing impossible odds and still manage to triumph in the end are from the book afaik. It's not like in the book they die, but they made it Hollywood so they get to live instead. Most people will have read the books anyway so will know beforehand that character x will either live or die, the movie didn't really make any big changes in that respect.

[GforGroove]

too bad LOTR sucks.


lalelu

[dubman]

you guys are BABIES.
"oh that almost worked, oh that could have been cool, oh if only they tweaked things for my tastes, oh SIGH, OH BITCH AND OH MOAN"

there's legitimate complaints, and then there's just sloppily applying your quip to what good moviemaking (or book adaptation) should look like in general. that whole line about books not translating to film well is horseshit. people may not be able to get it right very often, but it certainly can be done well.

certain members here sound like the same kind of people who say "the beatles suck" just to show the world that theyre super-opinionated.
and that can fuck off, really.

[Tom]

dubman wins.

[bklyndv]

Totally. My mind was just blown.

[viddy]

you guys are BABIES.
"oh that almost worked, oh that could have been cool, oh if only they tweaked things for my tastes, oh SIGH, OH BITCH AND OH MOAN"

there's legitimate complaints, and then there's just sloppily applying your quip to what good moviemaking (or book adaptation) should look like in general. that whole line about books not translating to film well is horseshit. people may not be able to get it right very often, but it certainly can be done well.


I agree that it can be done well, but more often it isn't done well. I too often find myself saying "oh that almost worked, oh that could have been cool", specific examples being the Resident Evil movie, the DOOM movie (even though I haven't seen it yet), and hopefully Hollywood will not f*** up the upcoming Silent Hill movie because I really have a special place in my memory playing such a fun and scary game franchise.

For the Silent Hill series especially, I feel the series has a lot of potential to be very a good, not cheesy movie. I really hope I will not be saying "oh that almost worked, oh that could have been cool" once I see the film. For once I just wish someone would take a video game franchise and give it the love and respect it deserves, like what James Cameron did with Aliens. The only reason I feel I can complain that Silent Hill better be good is because I've seen someone take a franchise and respectfully add onto it and expand upon it such as in Aliens. I was worried that Batman Begins would be similar. They needed to respect the first two films and not make this one a joke (like the last two Batman films). It turned out great.

[GforGroove]

certain members here sound like the same kind of people who say "the beatles suck" just to show the world that theyre super-opinionated.
and that can fuck off, really.


yo dubman! Hola :)... Yeah The Beatles suck bigtime before Sgt.Peppers!!! isn't it..?!

Super-opinionted ... that is like you on the music forum all the time no?
yay! im getting cool in here.


(to begin with.. this thread about "indie" vs "mainstream" is sooooo super-opinionated!!)

[dubman]

oh man i need to lighten up.