Quote:
Originally Posted by proteanmix
I'm in an indie film group and most indie films are a little too conscious of being "independent." I do think independent films are slightly better on average because their target audience is more focused and expect better quality than films for mass consumption.
|
Well, yeah, I do like some indie films, such as stuff by David Lynch and Stanley Kubrick. Robert Rodriguez is also a great indie film director -- I loved
Grindhouse. Technically,
Star Wars is an indie film -- since it's made outside of the Hollywood system. (Most indie films are still released by major studios.)
But mainstream films can be just as good -- the works of Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, and Tim Burton. And Michael Bay isn't bad -- he's great at what he does.
I don't think that movies made for the mass are of any poorer filmmaking quality, most of the time. The moneymaking factor of these films is more a symptom of the producers than the directors. I think that all film directors are artists, but the producers are the money people -- the artist's obstacle.
Another thing I see about movies is the remakes. I've noticed that these so-called remakes are remakes in name only. As movies, remakes are usually vastly different in terms of storytelling, and they're often superior to the original films -- an example of this is
Poseidon, which I thought was better than 1972's
The Poseidon Adventure, quite honestly.
Ptgatsby, yes, I liked it because it was fun. It's a Michael Bay movie, and most of them are great when you don't take them seriously.