Apple/iTunes to Distribute "Indie" Films?

snowleopard

snowleopard

Well-known member
Interesting article stating that Apple is looking to pick up independent films that don't get picked up for mass distribution, and sell/show them on iTunes.

Personally, I don't think films with $4 mil budgets are "indie", and to equate that with true indie style or filmmaking is somewhat of an insult to true indie filmmakers* who make great things happen with little or no money, but this might be good news from Apple and the shape of things to come.

* To me, true indies are spirited filmmakers and films like the winners we see here on the of the DVXUser fests.
 
Yeah, we are indies. But I would say that a $4 mil picture to most people is indie, especially if they have never heard of it. In fact, if it isn't at their local cineplex I would say most would call that indie.

Does it suck? Sometimes yes, but I cannot see why someone would get offended when a $4 mil film is called independent...
 
Indie doesnt mean "made on 35$". it means its funded ( even millions of dollars) by someone other than a large Film studio. thats all.
 
But who makes the definition? In a sense, at least in the common use of the term, Lion's Gate, Miramax, the Weinsteins, they are all independent. Even if they spend $100mil on a film, they are still independent. The term "independent" has thus become a rubber term, like "conservative/liberal" that can be stretched to mean many things to many people, and those who use it, won't define it (that doesn't include you, TC). My concern is that diminishes accomplishments made by those who can make quality films for very low budgets by riding the coattails of those who do a tremendous amount with very little. It always baffles me when I see a film with no FX, no green screen, not period piece, no elaborate chases, explosions, etc. minimal sets, minimal extras, no weather issues, etc. and yet it costs $25 million to make, but it's still "independent" because it wasn't done by a major studio, and the media articles on them are amazed at how cheap they did it by staying independent. That is what offends me.
 
Usually "no budget" works for films with incredibly small budgets. I don't think the word "independent" diminishes anybody, because if there really is a film that deserves more praise because of the low amount of money it was shot on, there is usually a dollar amount named.

Example: El Mariachi isn't praised because it was an indy film. It is praised because it was shot for $7,000.
 
snowleopard said:
But who makes the definition? In a sense, at least in the common use of the term, Lion's Gate, Miramax, the Weinsteins, they are all independent. Even if they spend $100mil on a film, they are still independent. The term "independent" has thus become a rubber term, like "conservative/liberal" that can be stretched to mean many things to many people, and those who use it, won't define it (that doesn't include you, TC). My concern is that diminishes accomplishments made by those who can make quality films for very low budgets by riding the coattails of those who do a tremendous amount with very little. It always baffles me when I see a film with no FX, no green screen, not period piece, no elaborate chases, explosions, etc. minimal sets, minimal extras, no weather issues, etc. and yet it costs $25 million to make, but it's still "independent" because it wasn't done by a major studio, and the media articles on them are amazed at how cheap they did it by staying independent. That is what offends me.
Click to expand...

I agree with you man, over the years I've heard the word "indie" fly around, even by some major studios... they just use it just to use it, and I hate seeing movies with Major stars and big budgets like you mention use the term "Indie" I think some just say it just to be cool or something, but I do agree the word "indie" now don't mean what it use to mean.

But, I guest like Tim says, there is a thin line, say I finance a film only by myself and it cost me $100 million, is that considered "indie"? In some terms I guest it would because it's my money and I'm independent... but it's a tough call, I do think, the word "indie" has lost it's true meaning. I guest we should just use the words, "low Budget" and "Big Budget", but then even that might get misinterpreted, someone may think a $4 million movie is considered low budget, and some do.
 
capitalP said:
But, I guest like Tim says, there is a thin line, say I finance a film only by myself and it cost me $100 million, is that considered "indie"?
Click to expand...


Yes, I guess it is.
I guess that also makes all the new Star Wars movies the most expensive 'indie' films ever made.

:thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top