Are indie films better than Hollywood movies?

**Mr. Authority** · October 31st, 2005, 02:59 PM

This is a really simple question. Is independent movies better than Hollywood movies?

IMO some Independent films have more depth and artistic value than their Hollywood conunterparts. Indie films have more attention-to-detail when it comes to characters,setting, and plot. Also a positive about indie films is that it goes more into subjects that would'nt even be touched in a mainstream Hollywood flick, like atheism, homosexuality, rascism, surreality, etc. My fav indie films deal with these issues like "Uzumaki"- a thirller set in Japan about a symbol taking over a town or "Elephant"- a movie insipred by the Coloumbine shooting and showing the ambience of a high school and it's students, as well as the cold loneliness of the killers.

Having said all that not all indie films are good. Some are too weird for their own good and end up being more fartsy than artsy. Others could just not make much sense and end up being forgotten.

Hollywood films tend to be more mainstream and into the "popular" thems like comedy, beat-em up action fliks, cheap scare horror films, or a "urban" movie with all the "ghetto" sterotypes. While Hollywood movies do end up using the sterotypes and making the "remakes" ad nauesum. Hollywood has produced some classic films like "The Shining", "Sixth Sense", "Terminator", "Rocky" etc. Not to mention that there are some class act actors that carry these films onto the big screen.

So if I had to choose though, I would choose inde films over Hollywood movies siply because all the reamkes and ad nauseum themes Hollywood uses have made most movies suck. Anyone else agree?

SVZ · October 31st, 2005, 03:03 PM

indie films for me. never have i left an indie film without at least one perspective i have never thought of before.

UndercoverGator · October 31st, 2005, 03:19 PM

I'm a big fan of indie films, but I'm slightly prejudiced because I've done graphics work for several of them. Not only do they tackle subjects that Hollyweird is afraid of they are also fearless for taking unpopular views on many subjects as well as never dumbing anything down like the popular media is so wont to do. Indie film tends to approach their subjects with thought and care unlike the Hollywood craptaculas so popular with most people.

muchlove · October 31st, 2005, 03:20 PM

Indie films, all the way. Although I think bigger "hollywood" films are better when it comes to lighthearted romantic comedies and such (which definitely have their place), but indie films can experiment more. I'd almost always choose an indie over mainstream, unless I just want mindless entertainment.

(Not all indies are new and fresh, though... I've seen a few that were just cheap hollywood wannabes.)

HWBL · October 31st, 2005, 03:22 PM

The majority of Indie movies is more sincere than their Hollywood counterparts. Of course there's a percentage who just try to do low budget Hollywood productions. Most, however are really born from idealism and not out of formulaic greed, so automatically more pure and sincere and thus real.

By the way (allow me as Beatty addict

) when "Bulworth" came out, the media were amazed Beatty had managed to get it made, calling it the first "Hollywood produced Indie film"

haggard · October 31st, 2005, 04:30 PM

My thinking is that when we see "indie" films, we're only seeing the best of the best. So yeah, looking at it now I prefer indie films, but I dont know how I would feel if I saw more indie films than are available to me. Its like, I've seen some that are GREAT and some that are total shit...which is basically how it is with big budget hollywood films too...

SVZ · October 31st, 2005, 06:29 PM

yeah i was going to say that too but got too lazy to post. most of the indie films that we see on TV have won awards, either at movie festivals or some sort of critical acclaim...we don't see the crap because it doesn't make it very far

on the other hand hollywood pushes everything through because if they didn't it'd be a huge loss of money

ourmaninBusan · October 31st, 2005, 11:36 PM

Well,
no indie film is as excruciating as Armageddon, but
they're all just basically ripping off early Scorsese and
Cassavetes films while pretending to be "against the system."
They are also written and directed by people who haven't
lived interesting lives, and thus have nothing to say.

trousers · November 1st, 2005, 10:49 PM

I really think that there really isn't any way to compare the two. Both have produced massive stinkers AND great and moving successes.

The best thing to do, imho, is to take each film as they come and not buy into the hype surrounding either. Independent films aren't necessarily better because they are made on a small budget without studio assistance/interference and hollywood films aren't necessarily better because of the big stars and big budgets.

muchlove · November 1st, 2005, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trousers

I really think that there really isn't any way to compare the two. Both have produced massive stinkers AND great and moving successes.

The best thing to do, imho, is to take each film as they come and not buy into the hype surrounding either. Independent films aren't necessarily better because they are made on a small budget without studio assistance/interference and hollywood films aren't necessarily better because of the big stars and big budgets.

I agree! Each movie should taken on a case by case basis. Hollywood does turn out some good, thought provoking films on occassion, and there are some crap indies out there.

SVZ · November 1st, 2005, 11:32 PM

there's more man hunk in indie film.

ourmaninBusan · November 2nd, 2005, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SVZ

there's more man hunk in indie film.

There's usually more (female) skin in indie flicks and art flicks;
the entire arthouse circuit relies on its reputation for being
respectable smut, as is shown in this link...right Lena Olin?

simone · November 7th, 2005, 08:29 AM

I think the question depends more on what you're seeking in your film experience rather than some objective view of what constitutes a "good" film vs. a "bad" film, although there are some commonly accepted criteria for "good" films.

In film school, we studied both, and I've seen an equal number of both bad and good h-wood and indies. The indies tended to be very pretentious and self-conscious (I am guilty of making some of these, but that's why I'm not a film-maker!), but the beauty of them is that they were free frl\om having to produce what often made h-wood films so inane, so often vapid, bc, well, shit, they have to appeal to a wide range of people because the bills must get paid.

Eh, I could go on. I personally prefer indies or foreign movies, bc I don't have the time to travel the way I used to, and it's a great way to escape for me, while at the same time stimulating different ways of viewing the world.

gonflable · November 9th, 2005, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Authority

My fav indie films deal with these issues like "Uzumaki"- a thirller set in Japan about a symbol taking over a town or "Elephant"- a movie insipred by the Coloumbine shooting and showing the ambience of a high school and it's students, as well as the cold loneliness of the killers.

I'm kinda ambivalent towards "Elephant". I thought it was a little boring because of all the walking, but also quite good because of the way they handled the situation and story. I liked "Zero Day" better.

As for the question- I sometimes prefer Indie-films and I sometimes prefer Hollywood-films. There's rubbish in both lanes

Raspberry gashes · December 22nd, 2006, 06:14 AM

YES, YES, YES. I cant believe half of the crap makes it to the big screen, I prefer indie films, they always seem to have more depth to me, and are far more interesting. Plus i hate the hype that comes with anything thats playing at the cinema. The less people talk up a movie, the better.