Why do indie filmmakers usually stay away from true story films?

H

harmonica44

I was watching Frost/Nixon and it occurred to me, that out of every indie film I've seen, which is a lot, I don't think any of them have been based on true stories, or true events.

I mean Hollywood and major studios release movies like this all the time but for some reason the indie circuit, almost always does not take any interest in them. I mean it would be difficult to make a historical movie like Lawrence of Arabia, Schindler's List, or JFK for example... But movies like Monster, The Blind Side, and Conviction for example, have stories that could be made on a low or perhaps even microbudget. Monster especially since the movie looks and plays like an indie film anyway. But after the true story of the woman from Monster ended in real life in 2002, the true story was immediately picked up by Hollywood, casting a well known celebrity actress in the role, who didn't even really look the part that much, and even though she is a great actress, they had to put so much make up on her, it just felt like a forced box office decision.

There was rumors of filmmakers being interested in making a movie, but they were just rumors without anything confirmed. However, I bet Hollywood would pick it up before the indie circuit would, if they would ever.

Why is that though? Why do indie filmmakers and indie film companies, have very little interest, of making movies based on true stories? I've never seen one, and I have seen quite a fair share, not just in theaters or on video, but also none on netflix, or the film festivals I have attended either.

Why is that? Why do indie filmmakers stay away from historical or biographical films that can be done on a low budget? Which is kind of shame since there a lot of great true stories out there.
 
Because historical and biographical films are expensive to make, as many are period pieces - way beyond most indie budgets. Another reason is that it costs a lot of money to secure the rights to "true life" stories. A third reason is that many indie types are much too self-centered, believing that their story will be better than anything real life can provide - they would rather shoot films about young angst or zombies.:D:lol:
 
Alcove Audio said:
Because historical and biographical films are expensive to make, as many are period pieces - way beyond most indie budgets. Another reason is that it costs a lot of money to secure the rights to "true life" stories. A third reason is that many indie types are much too self-centered, believing that their story will be better than anything real life can provide - they would rather shoot films about young angst or zombies.:D:lol:
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, and yes!! :yes:
 
It important to set your criteria; “indie” means different things to
different people. Officially the term “independent” means a movie
produced outside of the studios. But to make people it means a low
budget with no recognizable names. We've gotten into some heated
exchanges here because I believe that a movie is “indie” if it was not
made by a studio and without distribution locked in regardless of
budget and stars.

AA is correct, securing the rights to a person or event is expensive
which prohibits low budget filmmaker from making these types of
films. And even H44 is correct that “Hollywood” will secure the rights
for a lot of money before an indie filmmaker is even aware the story
exists.

“Monster” is an independent film. Media 8 – the company that developed
and financed it is (was) an independent production company. They secured
the rights to the Wuornos story and on the strength of the script (written
by a well known indie writer/director) managed to attract Theron who
worked for very little money because the role was a challenge. So in that
case it was not picked up by “Hollywood”. It was an indie movie financed
by a small prodCo that attracted a big star based on the having the right
material. “Hollywood” wouldn't touch “Monster” until Columbia picked up
the DVD rights. It was distributed by the indie distributor Newmarket Films.

I know some will argue that since Media 8 managed to raise 8 million and
get several well-known stars to work for far below their quote that makes
them no longer independent.

So the reason no low budget indie filmmakers make movies on well
known true stories is because they cost too much.
 
directorik said:
I know some will argue that since Media 8 managed to raise 8 million and get several well-known stars to work for far below their quote that makes them no longer independent.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 'Rik.

"Monster" is indie. Actors may have gained independence from the studio system, but the studio system/business (and it is a profit-making business answerable to shareholders) is still there. That being the case, directors and actors who want to take on projects that the studio system will not attempt "go indie." Your example is most cogent - Theron, et. al. worked for the love of their art and belief that the project/story was worthy of their investment in time, money (working for less than what their star status could command) and talents. That's what indie is all about. "Big names" and extraordinarily talented, unbelievably hardworking unknowns successfully expand the boundaries of what is acceptable to audiences and profitable, and the studios - kicking and screaming all the way - expand their own myopic vision of "commercial" filmmaking. And that's why indie is so important, to keep expanding the boundaries.
 
Okay thanks. But it seems that there are a lot of true stories that can be done on a low budget, and I thought Monster was a great example (but I had no idea it was an indie movie!), because since the main character in the story is deceased, you wouldn't have to buy the rights, as long as you change the other people's names would you?

It just seems to me, that with making movies about deceased people, you can go through loopholes, unless I am wrong of course?

By 'independent', I realize is a subjective term, but it seems that it's always a big movie company, usually located in a major area like Hollywood, and they are always getting big name directors and stars for the movies.

None of the movies at the film festival I attend that is closest me, has ever done such a movie, with the ones that are submitted to it, for example. And it's true, what's with all the young angst and zombie films? Also slasher and vampire films. Almost every movie at the festival is, this type of movie, or about a haunted residence. There is nothing wrong with these types of movies, but it's almost all that's pouring in, and they have become great cliches, especially the zombie ones.

I also do not understand why zombie movies are so popular after we have seen probably 10,000 of them, indie projects and all, since 28 Days Later back in 2004. It was good then, but now it's gotten very old and worn out in my opinion. I am just surprised the festivals will not accept different kinds of genres, especially true story films, unless they are just not coming in and it's slim pickings in there options.
 
Last edited:
harmonica44 said:
because since the main character in the story is deceased, you wouldn't have to buy the rights, as long as you change the other people's names would you?

It just seems to me, that with making movies about deceased people, you can go through loopholes, unless I am wrong of course?
Click to expand...

That probably depends a bit on dead for how long, and what you're basing your source material on. If, for example, you were to write a film on the life of Teddy Roosevelt, because some book you read called "Roughrider: The life of Theodore Roosevelt" was very cinematic and deserved to be adapted, then you'd likely be in trouble for not cutting in the person who wrote your source material. If you wrote a movie based on someone who died recently, but included numerous still living people as side characters and just changed their names, you might be able to get away with it legally, but I'd really question the matter ethically.

If though, as Rik said, you have a piece which is based on your own research, written by your own hand, and based on people who are long since dead, that'd be fine...but it'd be a period piece, and those are often quite pricey.

I suppose you could do a modernized historical piece, like how West Side Story was an update of Romeo and Juliet, or Cruel Intentions was an update of Dangerous Liasons, and that'd be able to work. It'd probably take some pretty clever writing for it to feel right though, considering the original story would be based on history, instead of fiction.

harmonica44 said:
None of the movies at the film festival I attend that is closest me, has ever done such a movie, with the ones that are submitted to it, for example. And it's true, what's with all the young angst and zombie films? Also slasher and vampire films. Almost every movie at the festival is, this type of movie, or about a haunted residence. There is nothing wrong with these types of movies, but it's almost all that's pouring in, and they have become great cliches, especially the zombie ones.
Click to expand...

Horror has long since been one of the, if not the most prevalent film genres in existence. I don't really see this changing soon, and it takes a truly clever story-teller to come up with a truly unique scary idea that isn't just a rehash of old tropes. Hell, even trying to make old tropes feel new is tough enough as it is.

If you feel that you have that truly unique idea, then make it.

harmonica44 said:
I also do not understand why zombie movies are so popular after we have seen probably 10,000 of them, indie projects and all, since 28 Days Later back in 2004. It was good then, but now it's gotten very old and worn out in my opinion. I am just surprised the festivals will not accept different kinds of genres, especially true story films, unless they are just not coming in and it's slim pickings in there options.
Click to expand...

Theorize however you want. Here's one take on why:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=watch?v=RSoIDJCY3r8
 
harmonica44 said:
Okay thanks. But it seems that there are a lot of true stories that can be done on a low budget, and I thought Monster was a great example (but I had no idea it was an indie movie!), because since the main character in the story is deceased, you wouldn't have to buy the rights, as long as you change the other people's names would you?
Click to expand...

There's a little film by the name of citizen kane.
have you heard of it ?
 
Well the man in the video does explain why zombie movies are popular, but a lot of them over the years do not really do much to take it to the next level, not the low budget indie ones that flow in at festivals anyway. Not saying they all don't, just everyone I have seen does not, which was quite a few at the festival so far each year.

That's true Citizen Kane is one example. But you still hardly ever hear of indie films making movies based on true stories. You think they would just do as Citizen Kane did, and change the names of people to avoid lawsuits, but they don't, even though it would save a lot of money.

I don't know if I could name 10 but I think some of the true crime stories you see on shows like 48 Hours Mystery could be made for under a million as long as you don't use the real names.
 
Last edited:
“Kane” is a terrible example. The main character was not deceased.
There were many lawsuits filed, no Hearst paper (and his covered
most of North America) would run advertising or review it or even
mention its existence.

True stories are very complicated legally. True stories are done on
many TV shows so the market is saturated. Most audiences of
independent film aren't very interested in them. Once you change
all the names and the details that will avoid legal complications there
is very little left of a “true” story so an indie filmmaker looses the
marketing hook.

That's way indie filmmakers don't do them.
 
directorik said:
“Kane” is a terrible example. The main character was not deceased.
There were many lawsuits filed, no Hearst paper (and his covered
most of North America) would run advertising or review it or even
mention its existence.

True stories are very complicated legally. True stories are done on
many TV shows so the market is saturated. Most audiences of
independent film aren't very interested in them. Once you change
all the names and the details that will avoid legal complications there
is very little left of a “true” story so an indie filmmaker looses the
marketing hook.

That's way indie filmmakers don't do them.
Click to expand...

Hmm sounds like an excellent example of what can go wrong :lol:
Okay so don't make your true story about someone with millions or billions.
 
Alcove Audio said:
Okay, name ten (10) true stories that can be made by a low/no/mini/micro budget indie filmmaker - say under $1million.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure whether or not this film can be deemed independent (It says it had the Weinstein Company behind it, so it's bigger than an independent flick, I suppose) - Their budget was a tad over the $1 million mark, and I suppose it was actually awarded to them via the 'National Lottery' system in the UK - I'm not from the UK, so maybe someone else can make more sense of it than I can.

Anyway, I remember following the creation of this film because they had many difficulties getting it made and getting support to make it - And the rights to utilize the people in the story. (Since it follows the Quarrymen, not the Beatles, it only has John, Paul and George.)

It was an incredibly enjoyable story - that remained incredibly true to the real story, veering off the path only a couple of times. (Which Paul and Yoko have both mentioned, but were otherwise content)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowhere_Boy
 
harmonica44 said:
I don't know if I could name 10
Click to expand...

I didn't think so....

harmonica44 said:
I think some of the true crime stories you see on shows like 48 Hours Mystery could be made for under a million as long as you don't use the real names.
Click to expand...

But the TV networks don't have to pay for rights as it comes under investigative journalism. For many of those stories you would have to obtain and pay for the rights.

Besides, many of those stories are quite sensationalist, but would probably not make a good narrative feature.
 
It's all about the money when it comes to big true stories.
If it's about how your dad killed the monsters under your bed when you were a little kid, it's easier: it's your true story.
The upside is you won't have to pay for it.
The downside is it won't get as much attention as a movie about Watergate.

Although I must say that the example I'm giving here might resonate with a lot of people because it has something universal to it.

(I want to put to your attention that true stories still need creativity to make it engaging, watchable and to overcome any problem during any stage of the making proces.
I tell you this, because in the end making a movie based on a true story is just as difficult and sometimes even more complicated than fiction.
The only difference is that the inspiration source comes from actual (memories of) events.

I think there is an interesting middle ground: you can be inspired by multiple different events and tie them together to create a fictional story.
You can't say anymore it's based on a true story.
Sometimes people won't believe it anyway: truth can be stranger than fiction.)
 
Last edited:
Alcove Audio said:
Okay, name ten (10) true stories that can be made by a low/no/mini/micro budget indie filmmaker - say under $1million.
Click to expand...

I'll play Devil's advocate and say that ANY story (true or otherwise) can be made into a low/no/mini/micro budget film.

Not necessarily by any indie filmmaker, but the right filmmaker can turn any story into a worthwhile film on a micro-budget.
 
Wild guess here.. but I'm thinking most of the true story films people are interested in make are… documentary. Tons and tons of indie film makers do not shy away from these true story films
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top