low budget films

[dtgs1980]

i agree with ac_01...
firstly, what's the point in coming onto an independent movie board, and asking if anyone else thinks they're pointless... obviously no one here will agree.
secondly, although there are a lot of good (or at least entertaining) hollywood movies out there, to call them 'artistic' is stoopid. art can't be made from a wish simply to make money (although that's not saying that all indie films are artistic).
dan
---------------------------------------------
"come on rambler's let's get rambling"

------------------
dan

[redlum]

"art can't be made from a wish simply to make money "

'Everyone' assumes that the people who create films in Hollywood are in it mostly for the money. Why!? The people who are in it for the money are generally the studio executives, but most of the time the people who are crafting the film are there to tell the story, the best way they can. Good directors will bring their own style or 'artistic' thinking to the film.

I know this is a stupid post and I'm participating in it but it just annoys me that people stereotype Hollwood and the films made there. I think that is more stupid than this post.

Can somebody just ban posts that aren't to do with filmmaking ffs. Anybody who enters the arguments are fundamentaly flawed from the beginning anyway.


------------------

[bm321482]

Thank god.
I know that was a dubious message to place, but there was a reason for it. I enjoy alternatives to the "mainstream". A debate around low budget films being a stepping stone for directors, and therefore being devalued has been going on around my and so i wanted to have others opinions to back up my point, and now I have, so thankyou.
Anything that is low budget, ie for under a grand by British standards, but under a million by Hollywood standards have to be more than just an imitation, otherwise what's the bloody point.

------------------