Is guerilla the new indie?



...DeVito is ultimate MicroFilmmaker
danny_devito3.jpg
 
Sad Max said:
I'm he sure got re-gruntled after a couple more brewskis.
Click to expand...

LOL. Re-gruntled. What a great word. That's almost as great as DESTROY.

TC -- LMFAO. That's a hilarious. Your Avatar changes so much. It's sooooo funny. He looks like a gangster..

Sad Max -- Great quote about success.
 
yeah, and like Warner Independent? they arent even trying to hide it. what is the defining factor between a film they do under warner brothers or one under WI?
 
Barry_Green said:
Having decent actors doesn't mean you had a budget, either. Some friends of mine just shot a microcinema film, "Carnies" (www.carniesmovie.com) and they got Doug Jones to play one of the roles. Doug Jones is The Silver Surfer in the upcoming Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer. Carnies' budget was probably about as much as the DVX they shot it on. Independent film? Of course.

.
Click to expand...

wow that looked really good.
 
Barry_Green said:
Totally with TC. The problem is that microcinema makers have tried to appropriate the word "independent" for their own.

"Independent" has always meant "independent of some studio dictating how the film gets made". It doesn't mean that you're broke. It doesn't mean that it was shot on video or that it was made on a shoestring budget or that it necessarily excludes any known actors.

Robert Duvall shopped around his script "The Apostle" for years to studios, nobody would bankroll it. Eventually he put up his own cash to get it made, he sunk something like $5 million into it, and he starred in it himself, and he made it his way, and nobody told him how he could or couldn't make it. And the result was that he was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor, and it won the Independent Spirit Award for Best Director, Best Feature, Best Male Lead, and was nominated for Independent Spirit Awards for Best Screenplay, and two nominations for Best Supporting Female.

Independent film? Absolutely. The pinnacle of what it means to be an independent film. He financed it out of his own pocket, did it his own way, and did very well with it. Does it matter that it was $5 million and that it also had Farrah Fawcett and Billy Bob Thornton in it? Why would it? Why should it?

Having decent actors doesn't mean you had a budget, either. Some friends of mine just shot a microcinema film, "Carnies" (www.carniesmovie.com) and they got Doug Jones to play one of the roles. Doug Jones is The Silver Surfer in the upcoming Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer. Carnies' budget was probably about as much as the DVX they shot it on. Independent film? Of course.

Heck, by that definition Star Wars Episodes I/II/III would be "independent films". George Lucas put up is own money and made them the way he wanted to, and nobody could say "boo" about it. He even dictated to the theaters as to how they could exhibit them!

So I am actually quite in agreement that a different word should be used to describe what people are trying to accomplish. You can't blame someone who has money to spend and claim that they're not "independent"; on the indie movie "Siren" that I worked on we had a budget of about a half million, but it was absolutely independent in all ways.

I suggest that either "guerilla" or "microcinema" be adopted for films that cost under, say, $25,000. And I'd probably vote for "microcinema" because "guerilla" implies a certain lawlessness about the production which may or may not be true, whereas "microcinema" only implies that it was done with a tiny budget.
Click to expand...
as usual, you shine.. but lucidz has a lucid point too..
 
I remember reading something about indie filmmaking and this other independent filmmaker said that Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi wasn't a true indie film because it was commercial. I was like WTF does that mean. I mean seriously dude sold his body to science in order to shoot the movie. How indie can you get.lol
 
Dude please, those people are goofy, don't even bother with it. What the hell does "commercial" have to do with it? Indy simply means you had no studio backing and covers the whole playing field of big budget indies to micro-budget movies like many of us make. But you're definitely right on, don't pay attention to that kind of bull.

-Nate
 
Frankly the more I listened to these people I started to read between the lines. What they were really saying is that that's not fair I didn't have that kind of money, commercial appeal for my film, contacts etc. I think that's why all of a sudden people started asking stupid questions like why would a Hollywood actor want to be in a microbudget, no budget, indie etc. film when the could make millions. In fact this dude that I worked with asked this very question. I said could it be because they are actors? Didn't say anything after that.lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top