indie film - Gawker

posts about #indiefilm more →
Will Miramax's Impending Doom Signal the Death of Studio Indies?
This Week in Indie Film Catastrophe: Falling Skies, Rolling Heads and Oscar-Winners Attack

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

Lincolnsbeard33
10/03/09

In reply to Will Miramax's Impending Doom Signal the Death of Studio Indies?
The indie film has been dead since the 90s
Reply

PaisleyPajamas promoted this comment Lincolnsbeard33 was starred Lincolnsbeard33 was unstarred

PaisleyPajamas
10/03/09

@Lincolnsbeard33: The 90s were definitely the hey day, but I think the cathartic effect of movies has been unfulfilled by the current schlock shoved down our collective throats. Add in a recession and woo-lah! New indie movement in film.
Reply

PaisleyPajamas was starred PaisleyPajamas was unstarred

PaisleyPajamas
10/03/09

In reply to Will Miramax's Impending Doom Signal the Death of Studio Indies?
So: studio indies are coming to an end. Thank god.

Did any of the people involved realize the oxymoron they were dealing with? Imminent doom of a business model if there ever was one. The idea that studios could fashion themselves after juggernaut independent features was, is and always will be the height of arrogance on their part. I suppose they thought (hoped?) they could always market the hell out of anything that was obvious crap pre-release and still turn a profit. Problem is there isn't any profit when your "indie" has a budget of $10-million-plus. The best part of seeing a good indie is knowing that the makers have hit movie lotto by investing more sweat equity and heart than cash into their film.

If they're looking for ideas, they should go no further than hacking down the price tags of their "blockbusters," because the audience just isn't fooled by hundreds of millions spent on CGI without a story anymore, and finance multiple smaller movies--law of averages they will turn a profit on a few of them and make up for their stinkers. They'll also put a lot more people to work on endeavors that are actually worth being a part of.
Reply

PaisleyPajamas was starred PaisleyPajamas was unstarred

mexiback
10/03/09

@PaisleyPajamas: "because the audience just isn't fooled by hundreds of millions spent on CGI without a story anymore"

Yes, they so are: Transformers 2.
Reply

mexiback was starred mexiback was unstarred

Lincolnsbeard33
10/03/09

@mexiback: and 2012 is going to be a hit as well.
Reply

PaisleyPajamas promoted this comment Lincolnsbeard33 was starred Lincolnsbeard33 was unstarred

PaisleyPajamas
10/03/09

@Lincolnsbeard33: The studio is so desperate for a "hit" (defined in their perception as earning a dollar amount that can be bragged on as a profit even if our marketing costs rise above production costs) that they ran a good 2-minute segment of the SFX as a "commercial" during Jay Leno's show last week. This movie is going to be awful. Guaran-effing-teed.
Reply

PaisleyPajamas was starred PaisleyPajamas was unstarred

PaisleyPajamas
10/03/09

@mexiback: T2 will not win any creative awards and will stand as the beginning of the end of the trilogies of tripe peddled by the studios: Too expensive to market, too panned by critics to be taken seriously and too predictably bad after minimal initial success. It would be interesting to know how their marketing budget stacked up to the production budget on this (and a few others this summer). If it weren't for the Battle of The Beauty and The Beast (Meagan Fox and Michael Bay) in the tabloids, how would anyone even remember this movie was released this summer?
Reply

Edited by PaisleyPajamas at 10/03/09 4:35 PM PaisleyPajamas was starred PaisleyPajamas was unstarred

mexiback
10/03/09

@PaisleyPajamas: It doesn't even matter if no one remembers it because it sucks; that's beside the point.

It was by far the highest grossing movie of the year in the US (the second highest was Harry Potter, which was behind by a hundred millions). So, basically, a lot of people enjoy crap, and that's a fact. And maybe the mkt budget was very high, but with a grossing of more than 400'000'000 (in the US alone!) I think it's pretty safe to say the studio made a big buck with it.

Disclaimer: I haven't even seen it, so I'm not actually defending it, but those numbers don't lie.
Reply

mexiback was starred mexiback was unstarred

Lincolnsbeard33
10/03/09

@PaisleyPajamas: oh I know it will be horrible but that doesn't mean it won't be a huge hit.

Saw the latest trailer before Zombieland last night in a packed theater and the crowed was just cheering for it.

Big budget disaseter movies tend to be a hit.
Not to mention there is a large part of the population that is convinced something is going to happen on 2012 so they will go see the movie.
Reply

Lincolnsbeard33 was starred Lincolnsbeard33 was unstarred

PaisleyPajamas
10/03/09

@mexiback: I haven't seen it either and watched T1 on HBO over my shoulder as I read a book (so there's my full disclosure), but I will say this with every ounce of my conviction: HOLLYWOOD FIDDLES WITH NUMBERS. I give you Superman Returns as the most egregious example of this. They had the gall to spout off about their "opening weekend box office." Problem was, they had a 7-DAY OPENING WEEKEND, people.

They ploy the public into thinking they're missing something, when in actuality the public is just going to miss the price of admission after they plunk their hard-earned dollars down for these shitty movies.

Since Superman Returns I haven't given any credence to box office in my movie going decisions, except for maybe 300 and that had nekkid Gerard Butler goin' for it.
Reply

PaisleyPajamas was starred PaisleyPajamas was unstarred

PaisleyPajamas
10/03/09

@Lincolnsbeard33: Again I point out the fact that the title of a movie is part of the marketing. Therefore, this back pocket fear that people have about 12-21-2012 is as much a part of the making of this junk piece of shit as is the casting of John Cusack and Amanda Peet; it will not stand the test of time, except perhaps to show future generations how not to make a movie with an emotional charge or any sort of unique storyline.
Reply

PaisleyPajamas was starred PaisleyPajamas was unstarred

Lincolnsbeard33
10/04/09

@PaisleyPajamas: no one is talking about it standing the test of time we are talking about if it will be a hit and make the studios a lot of money which it will.
Reply

Lincolnsbeard33 was starred Lincolnsbeard33 was unstarred

mexiback
10/04/09

@PaisleyPajamas: Agree with you that Hollywood lies. But do you honestly believe that they keep doing these crappy movies for other reasons than simply because they get a lot of money from them?

There's no logic behind making a big budget movie, difficult to produce, time consuming, and costly to market, if it didn't bring them the BIG bucks.
Reply

mexiback was starred mexiback was unstarred

PaisleyPajamas
10/04/09

@mexiback: They only have to worry about one production (expensive) and they can keep all of their corporate hacks on salary throughout the year. YES, I think there are BIG financial reasons for them to justify what they are doing. We might be having two different arguments at this point--I'm saying what they are doing is not worthwhile, even if they make a dollar for dollar profit margin. The amount of money it takes for the company to produce one is just out of proportion to what is being produced. I feel the same way about Hummers.
Reply

PaisleyPajamas was starred PaisleyPajamas was unstarred

PaisleyPajamas
10/04/09

@Lincolnsbeard33: Why yes, I was talking about the worthiness of the film and whether anyone will want to even purchase it for high-rotation pay cable playback and more and more the answer is a resounding "No, t'anks" for the big budget, sequel-esque crapfests the studios like to throw out because they know some dude with a camera in Podunk, Middle America can't make their product.
Reply

PaisleyPajamas was starred PaisleyPajamas was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

#indiefilm

Gawker

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker

Will Miramax's Impending Doom Signal the Death of Studio Indies?

This Week in Indie Film Catastrophe: Falling Skies, Rolling Heads and Oscar-Winners Attack

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment