Talk:Independent film

message: 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 ) 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.
The opening remarks can simply state that “An independent film, or indie film, is a film that is produced outside of any major film studio”.   A link to the major film studio page should sufficiently explain what a major film studio is.  The remainder of the opening paragraph has too much off-topic information.  The page is about Independent films, not a history of the studio system.  It can be noted that is a U.S. perspective and leave it at that.--Davmpls 03:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: This entire section should be deleted.  Most of it duplicates information found elsewhere in Wikipedia and contains entirely too much detailed background on the topic.  Any history on independent film should address independent filmmaking, not the history of the industry as a whole.--Davmpls 03:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I believe that there are usually 8 majors considered as part of the "Golden Age" of studio  movie distribution. United Artists (Founded by Chaplin, Pickford & Griffith) was the eighth... (So I am adding a mention of "UA" into the article. The main thing that separated the MAJORS (& some of the MINORS, Like Republic & Monogram) from the INDEPENDENTS was distribution. If the film was produced without any studio affiliation ahead of time, then the producers would find themselves trolling the Majors after the fact to try & cut the best distribution deal they could. The Studios Had- (& still have) the ability to open a movie "Wide" i.e. in a thousand theaters or more, Indie films don't. Because of distribution. Bruce Campbell has been described as saying (memory-quote here) "If you know the date that your movie is going to be showing in theaters, then you are probably NOT working on an independent Film."    I believe, (My POV here perhaps) that Cast & Budget actually have little to do with the independent status of a project. There have been peculiar & odd productions made with big money that had trouble finding distribution after completion. Independents with savy work towards getting a "Pick-Up" deal from a distributor by using exposure through festivals or sometimes clever marketing. THEN they can get the reward of wide distribution. Remember, Rodriguez Had NO plans ahead of time to sell "El Mariache" to the studios- he did his post on 3/4 inch tape because he was going to sell it to the Mexican VHS market! But when opportunity Knocked- He grabbed for it. Anyway I'm just sayin' 
71.6.81.62 (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this issue can be addressed by simply avoiding this depth of detail in the article.  The opening paragraph has been edited with this in mind.  The definitions of major studios are covered in other articles.  Including too much distracts from the topic of the article.--Davmpls 03:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seven Majors?! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding removed link to indie film wiki 

message: 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)
thread_title: A Wiki For Filmmaking

message: Moved the following section to talk as part of the unaddressed POV dispute:
===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)
thread_title:  Significant films and studios 

message: *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)
thread_title: List of some significant independent films

message: Hi everyone. Good job on the Indy Film page. There is one Indy film maker Sarah Jacobson,  who died in 2004, has a wikipedia page. Someone has tagged it for deletion. I would appreciate it if any of you Independent Film editors could review the article and then leave your comments on the proposed deletion page? Thanks --David Straub 01:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sarah Jacobson

message: "plot-driven" is in the lede? Really? 24.243.187.152 (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculous 

message: On the whole thing. Almost all of it is poorly written, and I don't think its necessary to have lists under "technology" and "independent film studios". Its seems kinda counter intuitive to the readability of this article. RiseRobotRise (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely.  I think most of the article is extraneous information that does not support the topic.  The whole history section seems to be about the film trust, not independent filmmaking.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs) 03:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Cleanup needed

message: Can movies that are produced by some of the largest companies in the world (for example Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which is a Focus Feature, which is 80% owned by GE, the world's second largest company), really be considered "independent"?! Sure, it's not fully funded by a company that 100% devotes itself to film production, but I'd only count movies that are purely financed by the filmmakers themselves. Thus I'd count movies like Pi and the Blair Witch Project as "independent", but probably not Pulp Fiction and certainly not Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.144.177 (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "independent" 

message: I realize its a cartoon, indeed an internet cartoon, but the popular homestarrunner.com site has a fairly incisive take on the difference or "diff" between indie films (IE High budget, big name actor but pretends to be "honest" vs truly low budget traditional independent films, and it seems like it warrants a mention in this article:
http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail203.html
I'll just leave that out there as a suggestion.
Mrrealtime (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Really not appropriate as a resource for Wikipedia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs) 03:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homestar runner parody of the definition of indie vs independent films 

message: First paragraph typifies the tone problem:
*If independent filmmakers are independent of majors, how can they be "no longer dependent"?
*The major studios do not provide equipment to independent filmmakers nor do they control it.  Professional equipment can be rented from equipment houses by anyone; this has not changed.  
*Editing software is only one tool needed for post-production.  Other essentials include optical printing, mastering, sound mixing, conforming, etc. all of which must be done on professional equipment.
*There is no verifiability or citation for any of this.
--Davmpls 14:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Present day and digital filmmaking 

message: Propose deleting this section or linking the information to a separate page on the topic.  It's a good point, but too much detail.  I would mention the impact of high technology on filmmaking and provide some links to the tech page.  
POV-Remember that the majors use all of this new, portable technology too.  Remember also that indie filmmakers use conventional equipment too.  These technology ideas are too closely linked to an ideological tone.--Davmpls 14:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology and independent films today 

message: I notice that Independent cinema redirects here. In the UK, as far as I am aware, that term only refers to what Americans would call "movie theatres", not to movie production. There is a page Independent Cinema in the United Kingdom which should definitely redirected or disambiguated from Independent cinema but before I do that, I want to know if the term "independent cinema" is also interpreted by some (apart from whoever created the redirect in the first place) to mean "independent film". Tesspub (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent Cinema 

message: Does independent film only exist in USA? It seems so in this article, and if so, it should be stated in the beginning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.27.133.162 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  International perspective? 

message: I'm far from a film expert, but isn't John Cassavetes considered the godfather of American independent film? Woodshed (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Independent film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309164155/http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/history/1992.html to http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/history/1992.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.film-makerscoop.com/history.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.govisland.com/PDFs/RFEI/RFEI.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The sections following the large history section of this article, 2010s: digital filmmaking and it's sub, Technology and independent films in the 1990s–2000s are mis-titled because they are not necessarily about history (and are not part of the History section). Also, it's about more than just digital.  I'm renaming the main section, "Technology and democratization" and making a subsection on the switch from film to digital as it related to indies, and adjusting content accordingly. I'm also removing some redundant content in those sections.Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Non-History" sections