Strange Occurences in the Movie Industry.

[UbiSunt]

I?m taking a history of cinema course and while discussing the clash of the blockbuster mentality vs. independent cinema and I thought of something.

Independent and blockbuster cinema has an identity crisis:

Typical traits of independent cinema:
- No name talent
- Bad lighting or outdoor lighting
- Usually shot on locations to keep the cost down
- Conservative scores
- Shaky camera work
- Low gross, low chance of losing money
- Independently produced and distributed

Typical traits of blockbusters:
- Major name talent
- Studio lighting
- Shot extensively on massive sets
- Over the top scores, Hans Zimmer
- Surgical camera work
- Special effects
- Major box-office hits or flops (major money involved)
- Produced and distributed by major conglomerate studios
Keep in mind that I'm generalizing here

Look at the Best Picture nominees this year:

?The Aviator? ?Finding Neverland? ?Million Dollar Baby? ?Ray? ?Sideways?

-With the possible exception of the Aviator and Ray, these films are shot very much with the typical ?independent? style qualities. However, these films were all made by major studios. Further, not a single nominee had broken $100 million in box-office gross by the time of the awards. LOTR the 2004 winner had grossed roughly $350 million by itself by this point, and it was released in December!

-However two of the biggest independent films of all time were not even nominated. Moore?s Fahrenheit 9/11 and Mel Gibson?s Passion of the Christ were overlooked entirely.

-Furthermore, this gets even stranger when you consider how the Passion was filmed/edited. The Passion is shot exactly like a blockbuster epic with professional cinematography, top notch makeup, CGI special effects, and an Armageddon-style score. Further the film carried Mel Gibson?s name, one of the biggest actor names ever. Finally The Passion, if I remember correctly, was the second-highest grossing film of 2004 and had generated roughly $400 million in the box-office by the time of the awards.

-To complicate matters further, the major dark horse hit of 2004, Napoleon Dynamite, was originally independent until MTV, a division of the massive conglomerate Viacom, bought up the rights and distributed it, WTF?

-So my question is? Are the studios simply following their time honored-method of the lottery system and pumping out clones of the occasional jackpot winner, in this situation being independent films that have grossed considerably more than their expenditure? Is this in response to major box-office flops like Alexander? Or is it something different?

 

[ElFenix]

star wars is independent

 

[Amused]

You think too much.

Go here and vote for the third option:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=38&threadid=1580972&enterthread=y

 

[UbiSunt]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
star wars is independent

Star Wars WAS independent.

Also Star Wars is viewed as the firestarter for the Blockbuster mentality. Who pioneered merchandising as a typical trend of Blockbusters? George Lucas of course. In major investment movies it puts a little icing on the cake, or cushions some of the flop.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Sky Captain and the World of Tommorow was independant all the way up until actual actor filming and retained a lot of the characteristics of an independant film.

 

[K1052]

Breakout low budget independent films that have returned huge profits, though not the norm, have induced the major studios to distribute and fund more independent production.

Several of the major and minor studios have recently created art divisions that specialize in nothing but ?art? film.

Often when a small film becomes a hit the company that is distributing it does not have the funds or experience for a wider break on the film. That is why it makes sense to deal with a large distributor in this event.

 

[UbiSunt]

Originally posted by: K1052
Breakout low budget independent films that have returned huge profits, though not the norm, have induced the major studios to distribute and fund more independent production.

Several of the major and minor studios have recently created art divisions that specialize in nothing but ?art? film.

Often when a small film becomes a hit the company that is distributing it does not have the funds or experience for a wider break on the film. That is why it makes sense to deal with a large distributor in this event.

I realize that it makes economic sense but it also allows the major studios to have artistic rights to the previously independent films. Miramax, for example, gave up the rights to their ENTIRE back catalogue of films to Disney when they merged, giving Disney eclusive rights to re-edit ANY of those films. Further, they blocked Harvey from making any NC-17 rated films.

So is the internet the only true venue for Independent films?

 

[WyteWatt]

Originally posted by: UbiSunt
I?m taking a history of cinema course and while discussing the clash of the blockbuster mentality vs. independent cinema and I thought of something.

Independent and blockbuster cinema has an identity crisis:

Typical traits of independent cinema:
- No name talent
- Bad lighting or outdoor lighting
- Usually shot on locations to keep the cost down
- Conservative scores
- Shaky camera work
- Low gross, low chance of losing money
- Independently produced and distributed

Typical traits of blockbusters:
- Major name talent
- Studio lighting
- Shot extensively on massive sets
- Over the top scores, Hans Zimmer
- Surgical camera work
- Special effects
- Major box-office hits or flops (major money involved)
- Produced and distributed by major conglomerate studios
Keep in mind that I'm generalizing here

Look at the Best Picture nominees this year:

?The Aviator? ?Finding Neverland? ?Million Dollar Baby? ?Ray? ?Sideways?

-With the possible exception of the Aviator and Ray, these films are shot very much with the typical ?independent? style qualities. However, these films were all made by major studios. Further, not a single nominee had broken $100 million in box-office gross by the time of the awards. LOTR the 2004 winner had grossed roughly $350 million by itself by this point, and it was released in December!

-However two of the biggest independent films of all time were not even nominated. Moore?s Fahrenheit 9/11 and Mel Gibson?s Passion of the Christ were overlooked entirely.

-Furthermore, this gets even stranger when you consider how the Passion was filmed/edited. The Passion is shot exactly like a blockbuster epic with professional cinematography, top notch makeup, CGI special effects, and an Armageddon-style score. Further the film carried Mel Gibson?s name, one of the biggest actor names ever. Finally The Passion, if I remember correctly, was the second-highest grossing film of 2004 and had generated roughly $400 million in the box-office by the time of the awards.

-To complicate matters further, the major dark horse hit of 2004, Napoleon Dynamite, was originally independent until MTV, a division of the massive conglomerate Viacom, bought up the rights and distributed it, WTF?

-So my question is? Are the studios simply following their time honored-method of the lottery system and pumping out clones of the occasional jackpot winner, in this situation being independent films that have grossed considerably more than their expenditure? Is this in response to major box-office flops like Alexander? Or is it something different?

UbiSunt you are so dead wrong. Spiderman 2 was the second- highest grossed in 2004!

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2004&p=.htm


I remember you all saying Spiderman 2 would never beat Passion of the Christ in the box office but it did. So Ha. Get your Facts Straight Boy.

I don't care about Shrek 2 btw beating Spiderman 2 because 2nd place for spiderman 2 is perfect because spiderman 1 got 1st in 2002 I believe it was, then spiderman 2 got 2nd place in 2004 and then spiderman 3 should get 3rd! So Ha.

Stupid Passion of the Christ was a horrible movie and glad a better movie like Spiderman 2 and Shrek 2 beat it.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: UbiSunt

Originally posted by: K1052
Breakout low budget independent films that have returned huge profits, though not the norm, have induced the major studios to distribute and fund more independent production.

Several of the major and minor studios have recently created art divisions that specialize in nothing but ?art? film.

Often when a small film becomes a hit the company that is distributing it does not have the funds or experience for a wider break on the film. That is why it makes sense to deal with a large distributor in this event.

I realize that it makes economic sense but it also allows the major studios to have artistic rights to the previously independent films. Miramax, for example, gave up the rights to their ENTIRE back catalogue of films to Disney when they merged, giving Disney eclusive rights to re-edit ANY of those films. Further, they blocked Harvey from making any NC-17 rated films.

The Weinsteins were negotiating from a position of weakness against Eisner and they really hate eachother. One key thing is that Harvey is really good with the talent and is taking a number of important directors with him (Rodriguez, Tarantino, and Kevin Smith). Disney always had final say about Miramax films and the Weinsteins knew that Disney would not allow the NC-17 stuff but bought it a couple times anyway to stirr up publicity and thumb their nose at Eisner.

 

[UbiSunt]

Originally posted by: imtim83

Originally posted by: UbiSunt
I?m taking a history of cinema course and while discussing the clash of the blockbuster mentality vs. independent cinema and I thought of something.

Independent and blockbuster cinema has an identity crisis:

Typical traits of independent cinema:
- No name talent
- Bad lighting or outdoor lighting
- Usually shot on locations to keep the cost down
- Conservative scores
- Shaky camera work
- Low gross, low chance of losing money
- Independently produced and distributed

Typical traits of blockbusters:
- Major name talent
- Studio lighting
- Shot extensively on massive sets
- Over the top scores, Hans Zimmer
- Surgical camera work
- Special effects
- Major box-office hits or flops (major money involved)
- Produced and distributed by major conglomerate studios
Keep in mind that I'm generalizing here

Look at the Best Picture nominees this year:

?The Aviator? ?Finding Neverland? ?Million Dollar Baby? ?Ray? ?Sideways?

-With the possible exception of the Aviator and Ray, these films are shot very much with the typical ?independent? style qualities. However, these films were all made by major studios. Further, not a single nominee had broken $100 million in box-office gross by the time of the awards. LOTR the 2004 winner had grossed roughly $350 million by itself by this point, and it was released in December!

-However two of the biggest independent films of all time were not even nominated. Moore?s Fahrenheit 9/11 and Mel Gibson?s Passion of the Christ were overlooked entirely.

-Furthermore, this gets even stranger when you consider how the Passion was filmed/edited. The Passion is shot exactly like a blockbuster epic with professional cinematography, top notch makeup, CGI special effects, and an Armageddon-style score. Further the film carried Mel Gibson?s name, one of the biggest actor names ever. Finally The Passion, if I remember correctly, was the second-highest grossing film of 2004 and had generated roughly $400 million in the box-office by the time of the awards.

-To complicate matters further, the major dark horse hit of 2004, Napoleon Dynamite, was originally independent until MTV, a division of the massive conglomerate Viacom, bought up the rights and distributed it, WTF?

-So my question is? Are the studios simply following their time honored-method of the lottery system and pumping out clones of the occasional jackpot winner, in this situation being independent films that have grossed considerably more than their expenditure? Is this in response to major box-office flops like Alexander? Or is it something different?

UbiSunt you are so dead wrong. Spiderman 2 was the second- highest grossed in 2004!

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2004&p=.htm


I remember you all saying Spiderman 2 would never beat Passion of the Christ in the box office but it did. So Ha. Get your Facts Straight Boy.

I don't care about Shrek 2 btw beating Spiderman 2 because 2nd place for spiderman 2 is perfect because spiderman 1 got 1st in 2002 I believe it was, then spiderman 2 got 2nd place in 2004 and then spiderman 3 should get 3rd! So Ha.

Stupid Passion of the Christ was a horrible movie and glad a better movie like Spiderman 2 and Shrek 2 beat it.

You want a fvking ?

It doesn't matter that it was one off on the ranking because of the context of the statement. The point I was making was that it was one of the highest grossing films of 2004. Further I didn't google any of my OP because it was all from memory, as I wrote when referring to the movie's ranking.

Further, I liked Spiderman 2. So please get your grammar straight and then contribute something useful rather than arguing like you pwned me on a point I wasn't even trying to make.

 

[WyteWatt]

Originally posted by: UbiSunt

Originally posted by: imtim83

Originally posted by: UbiSunt
I?m taking a history of cinema course and while discussing the clash of the blockbuster mentality vs. independent cinema and I thought of something.

Independent and blockbuster cinema has an identity crisis:

Typical traits of independent cinema:
- No name talent
- Bad lighting or outdoor lighting
- Usually shot on locations to keep the cost down
- Conservative scores
- Shaky camera work
- Low gross, low chance of losing money
- Independently produced and distributed

Typical traits of blockbusters:
- Major name talent
- Studio lighting
- Shot extensively on massive sets
- Over the top scores, Hans Zimmer
- Surgical camera work
- Special effects
- Major box-office hits or flops (major money involved)
- Produced and distributed by major conglomerate studios
Keep in mind that I'm generalizing here

Look at the Best Picture nominees this year:

?The Aviator? ?Finding Neverland? ?Million Dollar Baby? ?Ray? ?Sideways?

-With the possible exception of the Aviator and Ray, these films are shot very much with the typical ?independent? style qualities. However, these films were all made by major studios. Further, not a single nominee had broken $100 million in box-office gross by the time of the awards. LOTR the 2004 winner had grossed roughly $350 million by itself by this point, and it was released in December!

-However two of the biggest independent films of all time were not even nominated. Moore?s Fahrenheit 9/11 and Mel Gibson?s Passion of the Christ were overlooked entirely.

-Furthermore, this gets even stranger when you consider how the Passion was filmed/edited. The Passion is shot exactly like a blockbuster epic with professional cinematography, top notch makeup, CGI special effects, and an Armageddon-style score. Further the film carried Mel Gibson?s name, one of the biggest actor names ever. Finally The Passion, if I remember correctly, was the second-highest grossing film of 2004 and had generated roughly $400 million in the box-office by the time of the awards.

-To complicate matters further, the major dark horse hit of 2004, Napoleon Dynamite, was originally independent until MTV, a division of the massive conglomerate Viacom, bought up the rights and distributed it, WTF?

-So my question is? Are the studios simply following their time honored-method of the lottery system and pumping out clones of the occasional jackpot winner, in this situation being independent films that have grossed considerably more than their expenditure? Is this in response to major box-office flops like Alexander? Or is it something different?

UbiSunt you are so dead wrong. Spiderman 2 was the second- highest grossed in 2004!

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2004&p=.htm


I remember you all saying Spiderman 2 would never beat Passion of the Christ in the box office but it did. So Ha. Get your Facts Straight Boy.

I don't care about Shrek 2 btw beating Spiderman 2 because 2nd place for spiderman 2 is perfect because spiderman 1 got 1st in 2002 I believe it was, then spiderman 2 got 2nd place in 2004 and then spiderman 3 should get 3rd! So Ha.

Stupid Passion of the Christ was a horrible movie and glad a better movie like Spiderman 2 and Shrek 2 beat it.

You want a fvking ?

It doesn't matter that it was one off on the ranking because of the context of the statement. The point I was making was that it was one of the highest grossing films of 2004. Further I didn't google any of my OP because it was all from memory, as I wrote when referring to the movie's ranking.

Further, I liked Spiderman 2. So please get your grammar straight and then contribute something useful rather than arguing like you pwned me on a point I wasn't even trying to make.

:roll: