Are a lot of great indie films, just not getting enough marketing?

H

harmonica44

I went to a film festival this year, and it's the second one I have been too. Like the last one, a lot of the movies were not really that good. They were decent, say if you are watching TV, and there is nothing better on at the time, but almost none of the movies were really mindblowing, or compelling enough to say, 'that's one of the best movies of year' type deal. Accept for one perhaps, but just one only.

But a lot of times I see movies that are major studio movies, that are really good, and are big budget, which could be made possibly on a low budget. Like for example, I saw The Skin I Live In (2011) recently, and I though it was one of the best movies of all time. I may feel different about it on a second viewing, but on a first, I could probably put it on my top 10 films of all time, that's how good it was.

Now this movie could have possibly been made on a microbudget with no name actors, but it wasn't. Antonio Bandaras was the star, so it's a major studio film, obviously. Same with other great movies I've seen like Oldboy (2003), 12 Angry Men (1957), The Silence of the Lambs (1991), etc.

It seems that these movies could be made by newcomers wanting to sell their movies to festivals, with unkown actors, but I am yet to see a movie with unknown actors, with scripts as good as these. Is it possibly because major studios are just buying all the good scripts, and the best screenwriters, just do not want to make their own scripts into a movie, and just sell to highest bidder instead?

There are some good indie films I've seen. The Last House on the Left (1972) was kind of good, in a bad way, but definitely a lot more memorable and will stick in your head after, compared to a lot. El Mariachi (1992) was better than usual but not perfect at all, and could have been better. Halloween (1978), was good, but not as great as some say. Paranormal Activity was the last really good one I saw, but still not as great as some of my favorite low budget studio films.

I am just curious since a lot of indie films I have seen, especially in two festivals so far, do not have films that are as epic in aspirations, as major studio films by comparison. There are a lot mediocre to bad studio films out there too, but it seems that the ratio is less compared to indie. Or there are a lot of really great ones out there, but did not get a wide enough release, or not enough marketing.

I've also noticed that the music in most of these movies is not very epic or big sounding as well. The music is very often very low key. One of the short films had a really elaborate and epic score, like the kind of big score you would hear in John Williams give in Star Wars or something. Some of the people at the festival did not like this, saying the music was too big in feeling, for such a low key tone of movie. However, I found it refreshing and it really stood out and made the movie different, for me, and I was surprised they said that when comparing them to the others. This isn't really related to movies having good scripts, or being marketed well, but it does seem to reflect how a lot of them just do not seem to have a lot of high aspiration, even possibly from the people judging them at the festivals.

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
I'd say it's hard for indie movie makers to make their idea come true due to limited budget.And it's not lack of marketing,as I think,but rather lack of trust from the viewers.Who would like to see some unknown hipster movie (as an example) when there are Avengers? So maybe it's just that people do not consider such movies worth it.
 
Well it doesn't have to be an unknown hipster movie. As a moviegoer, I am just looking for good story, and something I haven't seen before, that will mesmorize me, and a lot indie films are just not offering that? Even if filmmakers do not trust the viewer, don't they think that maybe the viewer is tired of seeing bad or cliche movies as well?

For example, part of the festival I went is actually called "The Fount Footage Festival". A lot of people do not like found footage movies cause the idea has become very cliched in the past few years and too many people are doing it. Do the festivals encourage filmmakers to do the same thing, over and over again? It should be a crime to have a found footage festival. How about have a festival called "The original horror movie, without severely overdone cliches festival" I don't mean to be sarcastic, but it seems the festivals are encouraging it, by having things like that for people to make movies and enter.
 
What do you think?
Click to expand...

You're a typical audience goer. Winge, bitch and moan how nothing fresh comes out. When it does, you complain that it's not as "epic or big sounding" and go back to watching your Avengers.

Show business is where you give the audience what they'll pay for.
 
I just get the feeling that people who want indie films get access to them quite easily. The problem is that most audience goers aren't interested in seeing indie films, they prefer studio pictures that give them what they want. Even the indie films that gain popularity among most movie goers are not even real 'indie' films in my opinion because they are produced by 'indie' Hollywood studios.

At the same time, you are right, indie films don't have as much marketing as studio films but I feel that isn't all there is to it. As much as I love a filmmaker like Hou Hsiao-hsien for example, I don't think that any marketing campaign can get large audiences to his films, they just don't have wide appeal. So I think that it's important to note that large audiences usually want to watch films with high production value, a traditional style narrative, and a more conventional aesthetic based on continuity editing (in most cases this is now intensified continuity which places emphasis on faster cutting and more use of close-ups) with very little visual abstraction. If an indie film has all of these things plus good marketing, it has a chance at getting a large audience. At the same time we should recognize that indie films are known for also having content that doesn't have the broad appeal that big studio films do, so I think subject matter is also important.
 
Okay thanks. What do you mean about the editing? Is the editing different a lot of the times in indie films, compared to major studio? Is it because indie productions tend to not have as much time to get in as many shots perhaps? I haven't noticed much of a problem with the editing, per say.

Plus, when it comes to subject matter, I have noticed that one of the bigger problems with these movies at the festivals, is that there doesn't seem to be as much plot as we are use to. If the script had twice as many twists and turns thrown into it, that would really help, compete with major studio films, a lot in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
harmonica44 said:
Okay thanks. What do you mean about the editing? Is the editing different a lot of the times in indie films, compared to major studio? Is it because indie productions tend to not have as much time to get in as many shots perhaps? I haven't noticed much of a problem with the editing, per say.

Plus, when it comes to subject matter, I have noticed that one of the bigger problems with these movies at the festivals, is that there doesn't seem to be as much plot as we are use to. If the script had twice as many twists and turns thrown into it, that would really help, compete with major studio films, a lot in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It isn't that the editing is 'bad' or 'good,' it's just different. For the most part the differences in editing probably can be seen in the average shot lengths. Even someone like Tarantino tends to have a longer average shot length than most Hollywood blockbusters.

There are obviously much more noticeable differences in arthouse films or foreign films (all of which are independent) that tend to use longer takes, and sometimes experiment with constructive editing (think Wes Anderson or Takeshi Kitano). In indie films you get a much wider variety of filmmaking techniques, and with editing in particular I think these go against the norm in Hollywood as different ways of constructing space and cutting are used in indie films.

But should indie filmmakers even be trying to compete with Hollywood films? Unless the particular indie filmmaker wants to make Hollywood style films or actually work in Hollywood later on, I don't think that they should try to compete with Hollywood films. My favorite films tend not to have a "plot" in the way that Hollywood films do. I'm not saying all films should be like this, but I do think that we shouldn't want our alternative option to just imitate Hollywood, unless said indie filmmaker genuinely wants to make films in a more Hollywood style of storytelling. So what you see as a problem, I actually see as a good thing because I generally prefer films that have more organic forms of storytelling that aren't based on structures that have been used a million times (but of course I love a lot of those too).
 
harmonica44 said:
I went to a film festival this year, and it's the second one I have been too. Like the last one, a lot of the movies were not really that good. They were decent, say if you are watching TV, and there is nothing better on at the time, but almost none of the movies were really mindblowing, or compelling enough to say, 'that's one of the best movies of year' type deal. Accept for one perhaps, but just one only.

But a lot of times I see movies that are major studio movies, that are really good, and are big budget, which could be made possibly on a low budget. Like for example, I saw The Skin I Live In (2011) recently, and I though it was one of the best movies of all time. I may feel different about it on a second viewing, but on a first, I could probably put it on my top 10 films of all time, that's how good it was.

Now this movie could have possibly been made on a microbudget with no name actors, but it wasn't. Antonio Bandaras was the star, so it's a major studio film, obviously. Same with other great movies I've seen like Oldboy (2003), 12 Angry Men (1957), The Silence of the Lambs (1991), etc.

It seems that these movies could be made by newcomers wanting to sell their movies to festivals, with unkown actors, but I am yet to see a movie with unknown actors, with scripts as good as these. Is it possibly because major studios are just buying all the good scripts, and the best screenwriters, just do not want to make their own scripts into a movie, and just sell to highest bidder instead?

There are some good indie films I've seen. The Last House on the Left (1972) was kind of good, in a bad way, but definitely a lot more memorable and will stick in your head after, compared to a lot. El Mariachi (1992) was better than usual but not perfect at all, and could have been better. Halloween (1978), was good, but not as great as some say. Paranormal Activity was the last really good one I saw, but still not as great as some of my favorite low budget studio films.

I am just curious since a lot of indie films I have seen, especially in two festivals so far, do not have films that are as epic in aspirations, as major studio films by comparison. There are a lot mediocre to bad studio films out there too, but it seems that the ratio is less compared to indie. Or there are a lot of really great ones out there, but did not get a wide enough release, or not enough marketing.

I've also noticed that the music in most of these movies is not very epic or big sounding as well. The music is very often very low key. One of the short films had a really elaborate and epic score, like the kind of big score you would hear in John Williams give in Star Wars or something. Some of the people at the festival did not like this, saying the music was too big in feeling, for such a low key tone of movie. However, I found it refreshing and it really stood out and made the movie different, for me, and I was surprised they said that when comparing them to the others. This isn't really related to movies having good scripts, or being marketed well, but it does seem to reflect how a lot of them just do not seem to have a lot of high aspiration, even possibly from the people judging them at the festivals.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

its not as if there are mind blowing indies that didnt have enough marketing. A great movie as you say wouldnt need it. indie film makers and studios just arent making good films. You guys seem to miss the fact that you cant be wrapped up in technology and the safety of todays living and do anything great in art and film.

Plus the business has changed its all run by sick megalomaniacs who dont care about telling it right. So.. stop expecting anything unless you are willing to do everything.

You see the broadening of indie and more affordable equipment just made it possible for 99 percent of guys to afford to do film as a hobby doesnt mean they can entertain you. There is that possibility for the 1 percent though
 
Last edited:
What I'd like to add,also,is the fact that indie movies are usually done not for mass audience but rather for few viewers who are looking for a unique story and some different perspective.While mass audience consumes Marvel,iPhone apps and Starbucks coffee (ok i am exaggerating here:) ), there will be these few people who know how to appreciate all the things despite their size,fame,etc.
 
Okay thanks, but I can still appreciate a good unique story. Some of my favorite movies, include, 12 Angry Men, The Shawshank Redemption, Mysterious Skin, Monster's Ball, etc.

These movies do not follow blockbuster formulas but they still have enough plot in the script to fill 90 minutes or more of time. A lot of these indie films literally feel like they do not have enough plot, and their time lengths feel stretched. One of the rules of screenwriting you always here, is to make sure you have enough plot to keep the script going, but they seem to break that rule a lot.

It's not that I don't appreciate unique stories, it's just a lot of times I find that they are too stretched out, length wise. As far as the editing goes, focusing on longer shots, I don't mind that, as I love movies that do that as well such as Lawrence of Arabia, Gone With the Wind, High and Low, Unbreakable, etc. That's not the problem I don't think. I think maybe if the shots had better blocking to allow for such longer shots to be more active, or something maybe that would be better.
 
Last edited:
harmonica44 said:
Okay thanks, but I can still appreciate a good unique story. Some of my favorite movies, include, 12 Angry Men, The Shawshank Redemption, Mysterious Skin, Monster's Ball, etc.

These movies do not follow blockbuster formulas but they still have enough plot in the script to fill 90 minutes or more of time. A lot of these indie films literally feel like they do not have enough plot, and their time lengths feel stretched. One of the rules of screenwriting you always here, is to make sure you have enough plot to keep the script going, but they seem to break that rule a lot.

It's not that I don't appreciate unique stories, it's just a lot of times I find that they are too stretched out, length wise. As far as the editing goes, focusing on longer shots, I don't mind that, as I love movies that do that as well such as Lawrence of Arabia, Gone With the Wind, High and Low, Unbreakable, etc. That's not the problem I don't think. I think maybe if the shots had better blocking to allow for such longer shots to be more active, or something maybe that would be better.
Click to expand...

Your right they do not have enough plot and shouldnt be made at all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top