The death of independent cinema.

So up until recently it seemed like the indie movie scene was booming, and studios had been opening up pseudo-indie labels to develop cheaper films for the arthouse audience.

But now, it seems like things are changing. Part of it is the economy. Part of it is that assholes go to see GI Joe and Transformers 2 know it sucks and not caring. A friend of mine in the business tells me that "Execution dependent" is a new bit of pejorative jargon that had cropped up recently, to reject movies that will only succeed if they're good. The studios want movies with a built in audience that will show up regardless of quality. This means remakes, comic book movies, unnecessary sequels and all of the shit we hate, but most of us go to see anyway.

The industry needs big blockbuster movies to function. The problem is not the $200,000,000 budget, it's the complete lack of accountability to quality. If a studio feels like the name is all they need to make money, then names are the only thing they will value.

Roger Ebert wrote an upsetting bit about the Toronto Film Festival in which he noted that very few films were picked up for release at all, despite many excellent movies with known stars and established directors. These movies are completed and ready for release, receiving good reviews, and yet the studios don't want to distribute them.

Ebert points out that the cost of advertising and creating awareness of a movie is a considerably investment, and this is true. Interestingly enough, though, the economic crash has lowered the cost of advertising and increased movie attendance, so why have things suddenly collapsed?

I've also been reading Alex Cox's book which is telling about the state of independent cinema. His last movie was released only in Japan (where Straight to Hell maintains an inexplicable following), despite a very low asking price. People are afraid to invest, even in movies that have already been completed, unless there's some kind of 80s cartoon or comic involved.

Makes you wonder where all this is going. It seems like in some ways films should be getting cheaper to make (the availability of digital video, editing software, and people who can do effects), and yet it's not. Where do you think it's all going? Are these movies going to dry up?

What? No. I don't think film schools are going anywhere. If Straight to Hell didn't get distribution (I've seen it), there's probably A Very Good Reason (it sucks).

Movie studios, like the music industry, are fucking clueless when it comes to knowing what their audience wants. Even if the current distribution model does never happen again though (I don't think it is dead) there will still be independent film. Hell, how long is it going to be before a biggish name director decides to release a film straight to the internet ala Radiohead? Making a movie hasn't become as trivial as it has recording an album, but the price has decreased hugely over the last 10 years. But I still think some other distribution model could exit out there than the current reliance on being picked up by a huge studio and fed through the grinder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YellerDog

What? No. I don't think film schools are going anywhere. If Straight to Hell didn't get distribution (I've seen it), there's probably A Very Good Reason (it sucks).

---

You didn't read what I said. And I know Straight to Hell sucks (hence why I said its following was "inexplicable"). It also got released, 20 years ago, which is why you know it sucks. No one was talking about that.

I said his last movie (Searchers 2.0) went unreleased, except in Japan, where it got attention because Straight to Hell was popular there. Searchers 2.0 wasn't a mainstream movie, but it was good and it should have found a DVD deal at the very least.

Also, the studios do not give a shit about what everyone in the audience wants. They give a shit about profit, and so far the remakes are profiting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Holliday

Also, the studios do not give a shit about what everyone in the audience wants. They give a shit about profit, and so far the remakes are profiting.

---

But so do movies like Napoleon Dynamite and Juno. The thing with independent movies is that they are a gamble, but it's a gamble that, given enough plays, will pay off in the end. You could make 10 independent movies and if one is as successful as Napoleon Dynamite, then you made a shitload of money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

The studios want movies with a built in audience that will show up regardless of quality. This means remakes, comic book movies, unnecessary sequels and all of the shit we hate, but most of us go to see anyway.

---

so, the movie studios want maximum reward for minimal risk? who'd have thought!

Sounds like Frog needs to make a movie.

PS - our local "arthouse" cinemas are doing awesome lately. Coolidge is having a screening of Return of the Living Dead preceeded by a burlesque show in a couple weeks. Just because. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cka

so, the movie studios want maximum reward for minimal risk? who'd have thought!

---

But you can only make so many movies like that. You can't put them out every week. The industry is moving toward releasing fewer and fewer movies, and I don't think that's necessarily a good business plan overall, because you exhaust your possibilities.

I'm not saying they shouldn't make the big movies. I said the industry needs them. But if you want to get the most out of your dollars, you need to fill out the schedule with smaller projects that are still profitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YellerDog

Sounds like Frog needs to make a movie.

---

Fuck no. I know people in the business and I wouldn't step foot in it.

Quote:

---

PS - our local "arthouse" cinemas are doing awesome lately. Coolidge is having a screening of Return of the Living Dead preceeded by a burlesque show in a couple weeks. Just because. :D

---

I feel like this has been a very good decade for independent movies, but it seems like in the last couple years there's a bit of a chilling effect, and Ebert's story of how many good movies are going unreleased is compelling anecdotal evidence to that effect.