There's just as many uncreative indie films as hollywood films you just don't hear about 'em. If a hollywood movie bombs or is the same ol same ol of course you hear about it but if a guy gets a few grand and makes a piece of crap that ends up in the back of the corner store rental section you'll probably never hear of it. Most of the indie films you hear about are the good ones that made it to the surface. There's just as much crap(if not more) in indie as there is in hollywood.

Exactly, and one could make the same argument towards foreign films.

The late 80s early 90s had a good run like that. Grunge Neo-Realism style of shit..... till it got bastardised by unoriginal hacks. I think the next couple of years will have some greakbreaking stuff. Each decade kinda finds its voice towards its end and culturally reinvents itself to lash out at the old and established conventions.

At least the aesthetic of a indie or forgein film is instanltly more interesting than the usual star driven Hollywood cockbuster.
There a bit more unpredictable and 9/10 times more original, inventive and many of them have a lot more heart.

I don't see why it's a crime if everything isn't a big groundbreaking,genre defining classic. You're not going to get The Godfather or Reservoir Dogs everytime you go to the theatre.

The money involved in these Hollywood films is so vast, that fatcat producers dare not make a single mistake in the crafting or marketing of their latest baby to their target audience.

This means big Hollywood films are mechanical, formulaic and glossy but with empty hearts (some might say, mirroring the target audiences themselves...).

As an example of how cash registers mean creative censorship, consider how test audiences can dictate the outcomes of filmed stories - it is wonderful but rare when a director will win the fight to keep his original darker vision intact in the face of idealistic souls who want the leave the cinema unchallenged (the producer will always side where the money is, unless he takes a gamble with successes like Seven).

This argument is based upon a typical big budget/A-list production.

given that hollywood is now owned mainly be multinational corporations and makes most of its boxoffice money from overseas - i would say we no longer have a 'hollywood' or anything like an 'american' cinema at all.

Does anyone remember the old expression, "To sing for one's supper?"

I think these big celebs should have to do the film, with whatever props they've got, and depending on whether it's actually good or not bases what and how much they get paid. If their performance sucks we get to run them out of town.


But don't mind me. I'm just a cynical nihilistic little puke today.

Not necessarily. Indy movies can be predictable as hell, too.

Them being mechanical, formulaic, glossy, and heartless is a generalization, not all of them are like that, but I assume that you didn't mean ALL of them, blah blah blah, so I'll move on.

Not all darker endings to movies are good. This isn't a big budget A-list production, but the best example I can think of is Clerks. There is no way the movie would've been as good if they'd have left on the ending where Dante dies. Point being, there are times, not always, but they do exist, where the darker isn't ALWAYS better. Also, a good amount of the time, the darkness is just for sake of darkness, not because that's the better direction to go, and that's just as bad as idealism for idealism's sake.