Indie vs Mainstream

[carpaltonnel]

I'm igniting this thread for a total of three reasons. First out of pure curiousity. (seems like after my short time combing through these fine forums i'm finding that we have all types, shapes, and sizes of movie lovers) Young and old each of us has one thing in common, a passion for great films. Second, is to stir up the "Great Debate," Which is better, and why? And finally third and I think most important, Discovery and Resource.

I'll begin with a +1 for the Indies. Because they tend to be raw, heartfelt, and tackle issues as well as take chances that the "Blockbuster" studios might not have the stones to.

[J_UNTITLED]

It depends on the film and the filmmaking team behind that said film. There are many studio-backed peices that are just as raw, heartfelt and tackle relevant issues just as there are many indies that are just as asinine and empty-headed as their mainstream-counterparts.


Movies are movies and in the end it all depends on the particulars of the project at hand and how it is handled. There are difficulties in navigating both the studio and independent avenues of cinema.

[jsteinhauer]

Some indies get praise simply because they are indies. They still suck. Good ones are as few and far between as big budget films. How many have you watched seem like some student's class project? A low budget is no excuse for a bad script or bad acting.

I used to watch a lot more of them than I did, but that was before there were more movies coming out on BD than I had time to see.

[blu_chaplin]

when I think "indie" I think limited release...so by that definition I go with indie films all the way, the only blockbusters I go for are summer popcorn flicks, other than that blockbusters tend to suck imo.

I mean would I rather see: There Will Be Blood, The Wrestler, Milk or Hitman, I am Legend, and Jumper? lol choice is pretty obvious to me.

Because I see it like this, indie films tend to focus on acting, story, direction...whereas blockbusters tend to focus on "entertainment" which means put as much cgi and explosives in that you can.

[J_UNTITLED]

Originally Posted by jsteinhauer

Good ones are as few and far between as big budget films.

That is the short answer, absolutely.

Originally Posted by blu_chaplin

when I think "indie" I think limited release...so by that definition I go with indie films all the way, the only blockbusters I go for are summer popcorn flicks, other than that blockbusters tend to suck imo.

I mean would I rather see: There Will Be Blood, The Wrestler, Milk or Hitman, I am Legend, and Jumper? lol choice is pretty obvious to me.

Because I see it like this, indie films tend to focus on acting, story, direction...whereas blockbusters tend to focus on "entertainment" which means put as much cgi and explosives in that you can.

Well, I personally find that mindset to be all-too-narrow and clouded by pre-judgments and/or personal ticks. There are undoubtedly just as many bad independently-financed movies as there are conglomerate-backed movies and there is no reason why a so-called "blockbuster" can't be just as focused on story, acting and direction as a film that is not dealing with as explosive or wide-ranging of scenarios.

[blu_chaplin]

Originally Posted by J_UNTITLED

Well, I personally find that mindset to be all-too-narrow and clouded by pre-judgments and/or personal ticks. There are undoubtedly just as many bad independently-financed movies as there are conglomerate-backed movies and there is no reason why a so-called "blockbuster" can't be just as focused on story, acting and direction as a film that is not dealing with as explosive or wide-ranging of scenarios.

I know its narrow because I am basing it off the films made today, there are a handful of blockbusters that come out nowadays that are worth a damn.

But this is all my opinion, I know there are people who would never step foot into indie theaters for whatever reason lol

[J_UNTITLED]

Originally Posted by blu_chaplin

I know its narrow because I am basing it off the films made today, there are a handful of blockbusters that come out nowadays that are worth a damn.

But this is all my opinion, I know there are people who would never step foot into indie theaters for whatever reason lol

All I meant was I think that is the case for both avenues of cinema (i.e. that either field is narrow in terms of quality). True, it in the end is purely-subjective but I still think to say one has an easier or better shot at a good or better film than the other is super-flawed.

[tacoreed]

Originally Posted by jsteinhauer

Some indies get praise simply because they are indies. They still suck. Good ones are as few and far between as big budget films. How many have you watched seem like some student's class project? A low budget is no excuse for a bad script or bad acting.

I used to watch a lot more of them than I did, but that was before there were more movies coming out on BD than I had time to see.

+1. But I also think the quality of mainstream films is rapidly deteriorating.

[andyman1970]

Overall it really depends on the movie. A good film is a good film and a bad film is a bad film regardless of weather it's mainstream or indie. I will give extra points to the indies just based on the fact that most times they are more original where as most mainstream films are the same recycled ideas over and over again. I also think indies at least try to deliver a good story with strong acting, directing and cinematography.

[blu_chaplin]

Originally Posted by andyman1970

Overall it really depends on the movie. A good film is a good film and a bad film is a bad film regardless of weather it's mainstream or indie. I will give extra points to the indies just based on the fact that most times they are more original where as most mainstream films are the same recycled ideas over and over again. I also think indies at least try to deliver a good story with strong acting, directing and cinematography.

And thats how I feel, it seems like every mainstream movie is: remake of foreign film, remake of horror film, remake in general, stupid comedy, video game movie, comic movie.

Nothing is original anymore it seems.

[J_UNTITLED]

Originally Posted by andyman1970

Overall it really depends on the movie. A good film is a good film and a bad film is a bad film regardless of weather it's mainstream or indie.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by andyman1970

I will give extra points to the indies just based on the fact that most times they are more original where as most mainstream films are the same recycled ideas over and over again. I also think indies at least try to deliver a good story with strong acting, directing and cinematography.

Well, it's not like most filmmakers behind mainstream-produced films are trying to make bad movies or not deliver a good story with good performances, direction and cinematography (among a number of other things).


Again, I just have to respectfully disagree with that notion. Movies are movies and it is difficult to produce a decent or better piece regardless of whatever means it is coming out of.

Originally Posted by blu_chaplin

And thats how I feel, it seems like every mainstream movie is: remake of foreign film, remake of horror film, remake in general, stupid comedy, video game movie, comic movie.

Nothing is original anymore it seems.

There has never been a period of time where the majority of films released were all of some decent or better quality... just to say. Remakes/reboots, adaptations, sequels as well as just bad movies in general are always much more plentiful than the other kind.