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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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.

[the mongoose]

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

[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.