| World of KJ http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/ |
|
| Indie movies are awful now. http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=28723 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | roo [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Indie movies are awful now. |
It's true... face it. Lately it is as if every single "independent film" speaks with a particularly snarky voice which wouldn't be too unfamiliar on a college campus coming from the mouth of a tattooed Greenpeace activist who spends all day on MoveOn.org chatting with Moby about Knut the Polar Bear from Germany. It's boring, it's cliche, and it's tired. The independent voice has quickly become one voice, all uninteresting liberal do-gooders who don't care about explosions and tits (unless the tits are involved in some sort of "groundbreaking" lesbian love scene, meant to show the audience the true poetry in a woman's embrace). And it's not that drama is bad, but am I wrong for thinking that "the machine" of Hollywood, which turns out endless piles of shit like Wild Hogs also does manage to squeeze through some rather excellent gems? Excellent gems that, because of the studio system, had to go through a certain level of polish. I'm not saying that there are not great indie films. There were fantastic ones that sort of dried out in the early 2000 as the word indie started losing it's meaning. And foreign films have truely shined, and I'm glad they are getting more and more exposure... I guess what I'm trying to say is, all I care about watching this year are movies where ships go flying into the sun, or giant robots fight over shia lebouffe's dead corpse, or where Pirates say "arrrr" and stab each other, while explosions of snakes and blood and Spartan's reign down on them from above like so many toads in Magnolia. This year I'm going to the movies to see things I don't get to see in every day life. Not to have conversations about sex and Iraq and all that shit that really doesn't matter. Because what does matter is giant fucking robots destroying the industrial usefullness of major American cities with their laser eye beams. That's all. |
|
| Author: | Shack [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
My mom is the kind of person who rents indies because she thinks it makes her chic and consience by avoiding mainstream fare, regardless of whether they're shitty or not. I tend to skip out on watching most though. Never been a fan. I want to see The Lookout and In the Land of Women(is that an indie?) this year though. |
|
| Author: | Caius [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Good rant. I like to go to movies to be entertained, not to be preached at. Hollywood used to be able to preach and entertain, like The China Syndrome. Now, you generally get one or the other or neither (like any Robin Williams movie). Good to see you back again, andaroo. |
|
| Author: | kypade [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
What's an indie? |
|
| Author: | Caius [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
What movie pushed you over the edge? |
|
| Author: | Jonathan [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
They've always been this way. I've been reading Down and Dirty Pictures, and they talk about how Sundance almost died in the late '80s because none of the films, most featuring young people ranting about issuesor young people doing random stuff, were catching on with the general public. Had it not been for sex, lies and videotape Sundance would probably be dead. |
|
| Author: | kypade [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
kypade wrote: What's an indie? |
|
| Author: | Jonathan [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
kypade wrote: kypade wrote: What's an indie? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_film |
|
| Author: | BJ [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Andaroo is the best thing to happen to KJ. |
|
| Author: | kypade [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Awards Czar Jon wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_film Little Children Brick Half Nelson Art School Confidential Three Burials for Melquiades Estrada Down in the Valley Those are the types of films that ran at the local 'independent' movie theater here, so obviously people would call them 'indies'. But none of them suck. |
|
| Author: | roo [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
KidRock69x wrote: What movie pushed you over the edge? Shortbus. About mid-way through I was like, "why the fuck do I care". |
|
| Author: | roo [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
kypade wrote: Awards Czar Jon wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_film Little Children Brick Half Nelson Art School Confidential Three Burials for Melquiades Estrada Down in the Valley Those are the types of films that ran at the local 'independent' movie theater here, so obviously people would call them 'indies'. But none of them suck. Little Children is a New Line funded film, Art School is funded by United Artists, Three Burials is "foreign". (incidentally, Art School sucked). There is a difference between small studio film (or imprint) and a true independent film. Half Nelson and Brick are indie (although picked up by majors) and both of them are awful. Sure Gosling is decent, but the film is so utterly flat and lifeless it's a chore to get through. Brick wears out its gimmick in the first 10 minutes when it then becomes about bad actors (except for the lead) stumbling through their lines with the oh so present deer-in-the-headlights look. (these rants are my opinions, I don't mean to piss on anybody's parade). |
|
| Author: | kypade [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hm. I'm thinking 90 percent of the 'indies' I've seen aren't the indies you're talking about, and I disagree obviously about the ones listed, but I guess I see where you're coming from. I can picture plenty of 'indies' (Again, not knowing whether they're really "indies" or not) from the last six years that have been terrible. I think Shortbus looks like one of them... but then, lots of people seem to love it, so I dunno. I really don't have any investment in the topic though, sincelike I said, the vast majority of what I watch is 1000 theater plus hollywood fare or foreign or fake indie...I was just curious to get a read on what exactly you were fed up with. |
|
| Author: | roo [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
KidRock69x wrote: Hollywood used to be able to preach and entertain, like The China Syndrome. yesssssssssssssss But it's not just about preaching. I guess it's about honesty in all things. Indie films are supposed to be about honesty, but they are just as fucking manipulative as a fucking Speilberg movie (with fewer aliens). I just read something on Shortbus, which inferred that the movie essentially exists to spite the MPAA, then of course there is the anti-MPAA film (This Film Is Not Yet Rated) which starts out with a decent premise ("The MPAA needs some fixing") and supplements the film by eventually stalking the members and then somehow throwing the whole film into a tanget linking Jack Valentti and the Industrial Complex and Piracy and probably to the deaths of 800,000 Russian mail order brides and the destruction of the World Trade Center. All this because some housewife decided that Grindhouse was a little too violent for PG-13. So then (if I draw this out) John Cameron Mitchell makes a film in which the reviewer thinks exists SOLEY to spite the MPAA. Sure it's art. But WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I WATCH IT? |
|
| Author: | TDH [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Most indies don't have the budget for fancy special effects so they will most likely be character driven instead of plot driven. |
|
| Author: | roo [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
kypade wrote: I really don't have any investment in the topic though, sincelike I said, the vast majority of what I watch is 1000 theater plus hollywood fare or foreign or fake indie...I was just curious to get a read on what exactly you were fed up with. I guess I should clarify that I end up watching basically anything I can get my hands on. And I saw a poster (like, physical poster on IMPAWARDS not message board poster) and something just snapped. I look at all of these self-important indies that I have liked or tried to reach out and watch. Then I look at the top of my recently viewed DVD pile and see Lost Season 1, 24 Season 1, X3, Borat, Superman II: Donner Cut, Venture Bros. Season 1, Casino Royale, movies I actually enjoy, and I just realize that I just can't stand to sit through movies that look like they were filmed "just for the heck of it", when actually if I sit through another sitting of Junebug I may as well put the gun to my head. I like nice, lush cinematography, well written scripts, great acting, and occasionally boobs and explosions. arrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh. |
|
| Author: | kypade [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
andaroo.temp wrote: I guess I should clarify that I end up watching basically anything I can get my hands on. And I saw a poster (like, physical poster on IMPAWARDS not message board poster) and something just snapped. I look at all of these self-important indies that I have liked or tried to reach out and watch. Then I look at the top of my recently viewed DVD pile and see Lost Season 1, 24 Season 1, X3, Borat, Superman II: Donner Cut, Venture Bros. Season 1, Casino Royale, movies I actually enjoy, and I just realize that I just can't stand to sit through movies that look like they were filmed "just for the heck of it", when actually if I sit through another sitting of Junebug I may as well put the gun to my head. I like nice, lush cinematography, well written scripts, great acting, and occasionally boobs and explosions. arrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh. But then I look at /my/ recent viewings and see stuff like In the Company of Men, In the Mood For Love, Dancer in the Dark, All the Real Girls, Moulin Rouge etc (lol at three films with "in the" ) and realize that for every In the Bedroom (hahah, another) or Requiem for a Dream that I have to sit through, I'll have two or three films like those five (not to mention theater stuff and classic stuff). But that could be just because I've seen so little compared to some people (like yourself, probably). Maybe in ten years it'll be different. But I think what my whole stance really comes down to is, "I dunno"...cuz honestly..I dunno. |
|
| Author: | MovieDude [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The whole term "indie" is really just so twisted at this point. I remember someone wrote a thread in the Foreign and Indepedent section just a few weeks ago about The Brave One, Neil Jordan's new film starring Jodie Foster, the biggest female draw in the business. It's really just a hit-and-miss industry. Sometimes I want to be moved by films, but in general I really avoid the preachy ones. At the Portland International Film Festival last year, I saw Kung Fu Hustle, Kontroll, and Old Boy and avoided the ones about Africa and the dying Russian border patrol man. That's one thing I never understood about the negative reviews for Blood Diamond - yeah it unfolded like the typical, white guy saves everyone Edward Zwick film, but I feel like it explained it's issue in Africa just as well as Hotel Rwanda, Syriana, or plenty of other similar, preachy efforts. The best, most impressive indepedent film I've seen in some time was Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, and that was a slasher movie mockumentary that probably cost less than $50,000. |
|
| Author: | Dkmuto [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think it's unfair to say that such liberal do-gooders as Half Nelson and Shortbus are representative of the current state of independent cinema. I think it's fairer to say that 2006 was a crappy year for film, indies included. |
|
| Author: | thompsoncory [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Shack wrote: I want to see The Lookout and In the Land of Women(is that an indie?) this year though. It was originally supposed to be released by Warner Independent Pictures, but after test screening results were very positive Warner Bros. Pictures decided to pick it up and release it themselves. I guess that would make it a mainstream title now. |
|
| Author: | Shack [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
thompsoncory wrote: Shack wrote: I want to see The Lookout and In the Land of Women(is that an indie?) this year though. It was originally supposed to be released by Warner Independent Pictures, but after test screening results were very positive Warner Bros. Pictures decided to pick it up and release it themselves. I guess that would make it a mainstream title now. Very positive screening results eh... good news, real good. |
|
| Author: | Snrub [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
My biggest niggle with the entire film industry at the mo' is that indie films have now become nothing more than a genre. Films like Little Miss Sunshine aren't indie films, not by any stretch of the imagination. They're atypical Hollywood films filmed in a slow, ponderous style with lots of wide, meaningful shots and quirky characters. The very worst kind of indie film are those like Junebug. Those that say fucking nothing but use that same "indie style" with character actors and those same long, lingering Altman-esque shots to pretend as though they're profound, when, in reality, they're just boring, plot-less skidmarks with dreams of Sundance glory. Essentially, if you want to make your own modern indie flick follow the following criteria: 1) Get the backing of a major studio's independent arm by writing a script that takes tired plots and/or convenions but adds mopy characters, pretentious dialogue and long silences. 2) Cast major Hollywood actors looking to up their indie cred by appearing in a big studio's indie branch's film for a cut price and promise them the Oscars will come knocking. 3) Film the whole thing as though its the most profound thing anyone will ever see, even though everyone involved knows it's boring, overlong, clichéd and trite. 4) Submit to Sundance. 5) Watch the accolades and awards roll in, while the rest of the world goes - "what the fuck?" Once again, the main source of my hatred lies with Junebug... but nearly every new indie film that comes out has a similar structure and style. I blame Wes fucking Anderson. |
|
| Author: | zennier [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
btw moviedude, i put the brave one in the indie forum because 1. people who actually know/like jordan post there and 2. it wouldn't get squashed as quickly. it's definitely not indie, but look at the stuff being discussed in cinemania.... it isn't exactly the best spot to put a topic on a jordan film.... not unless i want to see it quickly forgotten. it's all semantics, anyway. there are good movies and there are bad movies. |
|
| Author: | roo [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Snrub is spot on. Quote: there are good movies and there are bad movies. Of course... but I'm saying (in a confusing, round about way) that all of the indie stuff has become just as predictable and formulaic is the teen slasher flicks. And on top of that it's worse because even a bad teen slasher flick usually ends up pretty amusing. |
|
| Author: | zennier [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
andaroo.temp wrote: Snrub is spot on. Quote: there are good movies and there are bad movies. Of course... but I'm saying (in a confusing, round about way) that all of the indie stuff has become just as predictable and formulaic is the teen slasher flicks. And on top of that it's worse because even a bad teen slasher flick usually ends up pretty amusing. this is true.... but loyal is spot on. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|