Talk:Independent film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

I agree with the merge. Independent film goes into more detail than [[Independents]] and all information in Independent film seems relevant. Kushboy 20:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• what about merging this page with Experimental film?

Independent film does not mean experimental film. There are lots of independent films which fall entirely within traditional classical narrative cinema. Merging these two pages would be shortsided and factually inaccurate.

I'm not sure about that list of significant films. Perhaps we ought to take something like the top 10 or 20 of some Greatest Independent Films list (like this one [1]) rather than just arbitrarily picking a bunch of indies. For example, I don't think I <3 Huckabees or Igby Goes Down are that notable while omitting Jim Jarmusch and Run Lola Run and Evil Dead and so on and so on. ...

Why aren't more foreign films on this list?

I removed a number of the films from the list of 'significant films,' some of which were not even independent films but merely small-budget films released through major distributors.

Contents 1 Passion of the Christ?! 2 POV dispute: List of "significant" independent films 3 George Lucas 4 Regarding removed link to indie film wiki 5 A Wiki For Filmmaking 6 Significant films and studios 6.1 List of some significant independent films

[edit] Passion of the Christ?!

How can a film directed by mega-multi-millionaire, Mel Gibson, be an indie film?

It's an indie. The wealth and prestiege of the director has nothing to do with whether it's indipendent or not.

Because he did it indepenently. Don't confuse independent with low budget. Don't worry, the passion is not the worse indie film.

That films is not indie and he did not do it independetly. low budget is one of the main parts of an indie movie.HighInBC 18:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The film, nevertheless, is still considered independent.

The term independent refers to lack of outside control, not the amount of money one has available. Low budget has become associated with indie films because this is commonly the case, but not always so. HighInBC 21:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV dispute: List of "significant" independent films

Okay... the list of "significant" independent films doesn't belong there as it is which is why I removed it. It's POV right now. There's not even any explanation about what makes these films "significant". If there was a list of indy film "firsts" that would be far better. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Freddy VS Ghostbusters http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0439576/ was made on a shoe string budget by Hank Braxtan of http://www.braxtanfilm.com/ a truely "independent" filmaker.

A real indie filmmaker is one who is NOT part of a Hollywood studio. Like New Phoenix Film works is truely independent!!

http://www.newphx.com/ Dave Johnson davidjohnson.johnson@gmail.com

Believe me, I know that, and I know Hank. But FvGB is a fanfilm that was never released commercially, and can never be released commercially because of its appropriation of copyrighted and/or trademarked characters and situations. It doesn't belong on this list, but feel free to create a separate article for it and add it to the fan film category. TheRealFennShysa 20:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the "significant" section can be divided into the "highest grossing" (Blair Witch Project would probably end up there, IIRC) and MAYBE "most influential", with influential being defined as films that had the most significant influence on pop culture (such as Napoleon Dynamite, apparently, and definitely Blair Witch Project which has been parodied all to heck and which there's pretty much nobody who hasn't heard of) and later films, and/or most well-known ones (such as... well, Blair Witch Project, for one. I've only recently gotten into indie film, so I don't know the names of very many influential ones other than a couple :P). Also, definitely "firsts" should be on the list or included as a seperate list. Keeping a list of key (e.g. historically and culturally significant, most popular/profitable) indie films seems fine to me, but it should be carefully done so that POV has less of a chance to sneak in.

Additionally, perhaps notation should be included for the films which some consider "really just major films from major studios only given lower budgets", something like: (note: produced and released by [insert studio here], a subsidiary of [insert that subsidiary's parent company]. As such, not all people agree on whether or not to refer to it as an "independent" film). Because some people keep removing mentions of such films just because of their distributer or whatnot, when many people define independent film as merely done without heavy outside influence or additional monetary backing, which still applies to some of those "independent" films released from studios like Fox Searchlight. Others think low or no budget is a prerequisite (interestingly enough, I did run across a society of indie filmmakers once that DID have that as a prereq in order to join it. Perhaps that's where people are getting it from?), or that being released from a company completely independent of the Big Six is a prerequisite. Runa27 18:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Lucas

To get kind of picky, 5 out of the 6 StarWars films could almost be concidered "Independent" because they were done with Lucas' own money. Although they were distributed through 20th Century Fox. Is there any solid defination of an Independent Film? Personnally, I'd like to think that there is a difference between an "Independent Film", and an "Indie" (Blair Witch comes to mind), and I wish there were separate articles for them. SRodgers--65.24.77.104 03:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

First - there is exactly 0 difference between "independent film" and an "Indie". They are the same exact thing, indie is just shorthand for it. Thus, no need for seperate pages. :)

Second - basically, the main requirement in order to classify a film as an "indie" seems to be "done completely independently, using no financial backers, with no premade distribution deals, etc.". Because of this, there's an association of "independent film" with "low-budget film", but they're really not quite the same thing, even though many indies have low budgets by their very nature. If Lucas did not have ANY distribution deals in place before he made the first Star Wars films, and he made it ONLY with his own money, only then would they really be considerable as indies. If those requirements are met, then it seems like they'd fit, even though I'm sure people would try to take it off the page if you put it in but didn't elaborate on how they were indies. Runa27 18:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding removed link to indie film wiki

I would just like to make it clear that my link was not spam as another editer called it as it is both on-topic and non-commercial. Also linking to a website one runs is allowed if it is encyclopedic to the topic. I am fine with the link being removed if that is consensus but please know I had the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart when I added it. I do not profit from that site, and I sincerly felt it would benefit wikipedia. HighInBC 21:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The link is as follows:

• Harm Reduction Productions wiki - A wiki for the creation of scripts for independent production.

I would like to get a second opinion on whether this belongs in the external link section as my objectivness on this subject has been questioned. HighInBC 21:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless arguements, other than the fact I run this site(which does not disqualify it under WP:NOT), are presented that disqualify this link under wikipedia guidelines, or consensus finds it to be undesirable, I will return this link in 24 hours. HighInBC 21:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The first thing on that link which you have billed as "On-topic,non-commercial,does not violate WP:NOT" reads "This site is for the development, tracking, and archiving of projects for Harm Reduction Productions. Harm Reduction Productions is an independent production company that works with small budgets. While this site is open to be read and edited by the public, all content of this wiki is copyrighted to Harm Reduction Productions. Any modifications made to this wiki becomes the exclusive property of Harm Reduction Productions." That doesn't sound like a general interest site - it's a site that you maintain, which DOES disqualify it under WP:EL, specifically under points 1 and 4. The clause about taking control of any submissions is extremely troubling as well. In any case, it's not a general interest site, and it does not beling on the page. TheRealFennShysa 17:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this issue based on it's encyclopedic value. HighInBC 17:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Wiki For Filmmaking

I apologize if this is somehow considered spamming or vandalism, but I thought this might be of interest to people who contribute to the Film Portal. If this should be deleted, by all means do so. I've created a filmmaking wiki, at http://wikifilmschool.com. My aim is not to duplicate the efforts of the Film Portal or any other project that seeks to catalogue films themselves (though, in truth, that may be an eventual effect if the project grows as large as I hope it will), but rather focus on the art and craft of how films and movies are actually made; cataloguing technique, terms, resources, and all knowledge that is related to how one would actually put together a motion picture. My goal is to cross the spectrum of filmmaking, from informing on the arcana of names and terms used in professional filmmaking that are only generally privy to professionals and people who have accumulated schooling and/or experience to cataloguing every possible way to achieve professional level results with as little money and as little "industry standard" equipment as conceivable. I hope some people will be interested in contributting, as Wikifilmschool could benefit from people with general wiki experience (formatting, templates, community building, etc.) as much as actual content. I intend to post this in a few other spots related to film, so I apologize in advance to anyone who comes across this message more than once. HamillianActor 16:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Significant films and studios

Moved the following section to talk as part of the unaddressed POV dispute:

[edit] List of some significant independent films

• Shadows (John Cassavetes, 1959)
• Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (Russ Meyer. 1965)
• David Holzman's Diary (Jim McBride, 1967)
• Night of the Living Dead (George A. Romero, 1968)
• Easy Rider (Dennis Hopper, 1969)
• Pink Flamingos (John Waters, 1972)
• The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Tobe Hooper, 1974)
• Assault on Precinct 13 (John Carpenter, 1976)
• Eraserhead (David Lynch, 1977)
• Halloween (John Carpenter, 1978)
• Return of the Secaucus 7 (John Sayles, 1980)
• The Evil Dead (Sam Raimi, 1981)
• She's Gotta Have It (Spike Lee, 1986)
• sex, lies and videotape (Steven Soderbergh, 1989)
• Roger & Me (Michael Moore, 1989)
• Reservoir Dogs (Quentin Tarantino, 1991)
• Slacker (Richard Linklater, 1991)
• El Mariachi (Robert Rodriguez, 1992)
• Naked (Mike Leigh, 1993)
• Clerks (Kevin Smith, 1994)
• Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1994)
• Heavenly Creatures (Peter Jackson, 1994)
• Kids (Larry Clarke, 1995)
• Swingers (Doug Liman, 1996)
• Bottle Rocket (Wes Anderson, 1996)
• Cube (Vincenzo Natali, 1997)
• Gummo (Harmony Korine, 1997)
• The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick & Eduardo Sánchez, 1999)
• Donnie Darko (Richard Kelly, 2001)
• Bend It Like Beckham (Gurinder Chadha, 2002/2003)
• My Big Fat Greek Wedding (Nia Vardalos and Joel Zwick, 2002)
• The Passion of the Christ (Mel Gibson, 2004)
• Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel Gondry, 2004)
• Primer (Shane Carruth, 2004)
• Napoleon Dynamite (Jared Hess, 2004)
• Crash (2004 film), (Paul Haggis, 2004)
• Mysterious Skin (Gregg Araki, 2005)
• Good Night, and Good Luck (George Clooney, 2005)
• Capote (Bennett Miller, 2005)
• Brick (Rian Johnson, 2005)
• Me and You and Everyone We Know (Miranda July, 2005)

This section was not good for a variety of reasons. First of all, it's a list. Wikipedia:Embedded lists says lists make Wikipedia worse, not better. Second of all, because it's a list it makes no assertion about "significance". It doesn't define what a significant film is - so what we end up with is a list of films that people consider to be "significant" from their own points of view. There are films here that are listed because they grossed a lot of money, were popular and/or had some measure of critical acclaim. If we were to list all independent films that fit that criteria, then this list could take up way too much room. In addition, the section also dredges up another point of view issue about what an "independent film" is.

If a film is significant, then it belongs in the "History" section as prose with some cited claims as to why it is a significant, historical and independent film. As it is, this list is POV and largely unverifiable.

Also, I've added an "unreferenced" tag to the "major independent film studio" sections. If anyone can find references about how these studios are major, please add it. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)