“the paradigm needs an overhaul. how can you make non-commercial films for tens of millions (sometimes pushing 100 million) and expect to turn a profit?”
have not seen it but would point out ‘creation’. here is what is certainly a beautifully made movie that couldn’t draw an audience if you gave the popcorn away free. it probably costs several millions (at the very least) and may never play. how can anyone have thought a movie about darwin and his wife would fill seats?
grab a digi-cam and some actors and make your movie for pocket change. if you can get some investors, great. otherwise, start with a good script, work for nothing, turn in a good movie that’s really truly scary, funny, moving, whatever it is you’re going for (as long as it’s commercial), and pull in an audience, with, hopefully, a modest profit in the end. repeat as necessary.
posted by Alan Green on September 20, 2009 at 8:44am PDT
and this is also true:
The problem is that none of these movies are actually “independent films.” Yes, they might have been funded independently, but they were created with sufficient budgets with the intent that a major corporation would distribute. Well, what exactly does that mean? It means that these are small-scale studio pictures that the studios didn’t have to take a funding risk on, that’s all.
Independent film got bloated. The budgets went too big. The movies became too commercial.
Instead of independent film being the incubator of new hungry talent and independent voices, it became a place for established talent to make smaller films that get them awards and “street cred.” In other words: it stopped working because it got its priorities mixed up.
posted by Edward Wilson on September 20, 2009 at 12:09pm PDT
No comments:
Post a Comment