Talk:Independent film

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Independent film article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Filmmaking This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Surhone, L. M., Timpledon, M. T., & Marseken, S. F. (2010), Vacant Era Film Festival: Film festival, Oklahoma, independent films, Norman, Oklahoma, filmmaking, Edinburgh International Film Festival, Betascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Additional comments OCLC 690986528, ISBN 9786130533670.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abigailnix1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs)

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)

This section ignores independent filmmaking by people of color. There were films made by Asians, African-Americans and American Indians during the silent period, and African-Americans have a rich film history from the 30s through the 1970s. To see some of these films and assess their importance, please see "Treasures from the American Film Archive". There is also a whole history of avant-garde film going back to the 1890s. See "Unseen Cinema". Both boxed sets are available on Amazon. Sidney Poitier, Charles Burnett, Ivan Dixon, Oscar Micheaux and others were all black male independent filmmakers. Jane Campion, Barbara Hammer, Shirley Clarke, Julie Dash, and Ida Lupino were all independents. Sessue Hayakawa produced independent films in the US; there were other Asian-american filmmakers too, like Doroteo Ines.James Young Deer and his wife Lillian St. Cyr were Native Americans who produced and directed early films such as The Squaw Man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.232.28 (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)Mbd71.6.81.62 (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This topic has been addressed by removing the list of films due to POV problem (see below).

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)[reply]

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 low budget does not determine whether or not a film is independent.

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)[reply]

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.

I think we should stick to quantifiable criteria. It is very subjective to determine a film's influence (which is elusive anyway) or significance. In any case, any film on that list must meet the basic definition of indy film. Not all films on the proposed list meet that criteria.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah I reckon it would be too picky to leave it there, especially with no explanation (I actually read this discussion after removing it, sorry :) -- ClementSeveillac 21:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

why don't we just break them up into reasons why they're important to the history of independent films? example: clerks, el mariachi, reservoir dogs, could all be placed after a subheading regarding the fact that they launched careers? or george clooney and mel gibson for their departure from the standard studio thing?L.cash.m (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"plot-driven" is in the lede? Really? 24.243.187.152 (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Really not appropriate as a resource for Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs) 03:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, that's not true. Independent film is not a US concept. 213.162.68.80 (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]