Juno was hipster crap trying to come across as authentic.

It's amusing to me that with every new wave of "indie," a group of people who come across as almost desperately negative to me manage to bash.

Juno is the newest victim of this, as evidenced by plenty of reactions here. And don't even get me started on the hate it gets over at Awards Daily.

It happened to Quentin Tarantino's movies in the 90s, and it will continue happening.

I know that independent films are generally constituted by who is distributing them.

It was written by a stripper & directed by a "who?"

Jason Bateman & Michael Cera were on Arrested Development - beloved by many, but watched by few.

Jennifer Garner's last big "I'm the next Julia Roberts" film flopped, hard.

Of course they're fucking not.

I don't get the "Juno has huge names attached" argument.

It was written by a stripper & directed by a "who?"

Ellen Page was in Hard Candy, which hardly anyone saw.

Jason Bateman & Michael Cera were on Arrested Development - beloved by many, but watched by few.

Jennifer Garner's last big "I'm the next Julia Roberts" film flopped, hard.

JK Simmons has a recurring bit part in the Spiderman films. I really doubt he has a massive following. I bet Rosemary Harris has a bigger fan club.

Allison Janney is a well-respected, supporting actress, but a huge name? Uh no.

These people are only big names to those who are more likely to watch indie films.

Margot at the Wedding would be a recent example of huge names attached to an indie, but no one saw it or liked it so nevermind.

Explain.

These films are essentially financed by studios, but made in the same way as any other indie movie. The only difference is the finance comes from a studio rather than investors.

Juno and LMS are both indie movies. The fact that they have attracted major name stars to the fray does not change that. Indie defines a production proccess which differs from blockbusters. I can guarantee you if you were on the set for a fox searchlight film that no-one in the set would be sitting around thinking their movie is a lock for $50m+. If profitibility is even in the heads of these people, it's "Well maybe we can break even" or "maybe it will break out and make $10m or so!"

As for big name actors. Any indie director who has prestiege gets access to big names. Big names are usually big because they are exceptional performers, and if you have the option of exceptional performers who are going to get your movie noticed or a bunch of nobodies with a small track record but potential, the choice is clear.

On a blockbuster film set, everything is geared towards profitibility. The scale of everything is a constant reminder that films are made to generate cash.

These are movies which are comissioned by a studio, so they are different from indies in the sense that many indies have to be shopped to festivals before a studio will even consider wide distribution, whereas Juno and LMS' creators knew at some stage their movies would be seen in over a hundred theaters.

But the distribution of Juno and LMS being wide and agressive is not the responsibility of the film-makers, its a studio desicion which is made during and after the productions in the can. Likely, JUNO would not have been scheduled for such a wide release, but its intensely positive response meant a rapid expansion and agressive marketing campaign. Same with LMS.

These movies are not really indies anymore. Hell, the first Saw film is much more of an indie.

An independent film is a film that was financed outside of the studios system, typically without distribution in place.

However, there is some substance to the argument that the term "indie" has been misapplied to refer to a certain GENRE of film, that is typically low budget, often with more controversial subject matter handled in a certain style.

This is, btw, why they call it the Independent SPIRIT awards and not just the Independent awards. Because there are a surprising number of films that would not qualify. Juno is not a true independent film because it was financed by Fox, whereas five of the six Star Wars films are truly independent, financed by the filmmaker with his own money.