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
