Blockbuster or Indie?

For over half a century now, it feels like the movie world has been split right down the middle between people who live for big commercial hits and those who crave indie, auteur-driven art films. I've been wondering lately... which camp do you guys fall into?

Personally, I’ve always leaned toward the latter without even thinking twice about it. I mean, don't get me wrong, a few years back I was totally fine watching those massive Hollywood blockbusters—stuff like Terminator, Die Hard, or Lord of the Rings... but everything changed once I really started diving into actual cinematic art. Once you discover directors like Lynch, Bergman, or Tarkovsky, there's just no going back. Nowadays, I mostly stick to those deep, artistic films and tend to steer clear of the big commercial stuff...

In my decades of being a movie buff, I feel like I’m just swallowing the same stuff over and over... I keep rewatching the same classics... I don't touch anything new... I just trash commercial garbage and stick to the old school... and yeah, I definitely pick fights with my wife about it too...🙂

Old music, old movies... give me the classics any day... even if they're older than me...

As far as "modern" stuff goes, I'll take Ridley Scott because of Alien, or Tarantino because of that whole Tarantino vibe...

I can't stand Adam Sandler, and God forbid anyone younger than him... I won't watch them... unless it's Charlize Theron, period...

Tsotsi is probably the youngest, most artistic film I've ever sat through...

I’m fine with either approach, provided the execution actually hits the mark. Take a movie like *Stalker*—that’s genuine art, high-quality filmmaking. Now, don't get me wrong, I usually lean toward big-budget commercial hits, but I absolutely can't stand it when someone tries to lecture me with those pretentious, quasi-metaphysical, low-key "art house" projects that feel like they're trying too hard. So, look, I'm all for art, but I have zero patience for this kind of nonsense where I'm left staring at a blank screen wondering what on earth I just watched three seconds after the credits roll...

It’s commercial—but honestly, that's only because I'm just not in the mood for indie art house flicks during this particular stretch of my life.
That doesn't mean I won't be back for them in the future, tho

Great topic, but I wouldn't generalize too much here. Honestly, any movie—no matter how you slice it—can be considered art in the broadest sense of the word, even if it lacks real artistic merit.

We’ve definitely seen plenty of examples, and there are tons of movies that could easily fit into both categories at once...

The whole "art" label gets thrown around way too often just to excuse a total flop in certain cases, so I try not to fall into that trap.

I voted that I love them both equally! Though, don't get me wrong, I can't stand the massive commercialization and the "industry for industry's sake" vibe... where they use those cheap, cookie-cutter marketing schemes just to drag crowds into theaters without actually giving them anything worth watching.

That's honestly why those critic aggregator sites exist anyway... they can convince you something is worth a look before you even step foot in the theater.🙂 It saves you money and time!☕

Amanda Robinson4 said:Great topic, but I wouldn't generalize too much here. Honestly, any movie—no matter how you slice it—can be considered art in the broadest sense of the word, even if it lacks real artistic merit.

We’ve definitely seen plenty of examples, and there are tons of movies that could easily fit into both categories at once...

The whole "art" label gets thrown around way too often just to excuse a total flop in certain cases, so I try not to fall into that trap.

I voted that I love them both equally! Though, don't get me wrong, I can't stand the massive commercialization and the "industry for industry's sake" vibe... where they use those cheap, cookie-cutter marketing schemes just to drag crowds into theaters without actually giving them anything worth watching.

That's honestly why those critic aggregator sites exist anyway... they can convince you something is worth a look before you even step foot in the theater.🙂 It saves you money and time!☕

That’s exactly the point. Anything can be considered art if you look at it through the right lens and respect its specific scale, much like how... Lethal weaponry... Is this kind of art meant for those cheesy buddy cop movies, or what...? I’ve been sitting here staring at this screen for a good while now, trying to wrap my head around how we even got to this point with the current state of things... it’s almost exhausting to think about the sheer scale of the dysfunction we're witnessing daily. You look at the way the systems are grinding against one another, these massive, unyielding structures that seem more interested in their own preservation than actually serving anyone, and you can't help but feel this creeping sense of inevitability... like we're watching a slow-motion collision that everyone sees coming but nobody has the guts to steer away from. It feels less like progress and more like a relentless, unstoppable force just barreling forward, indifferent to the wreckage left in its wake, much like those old sci-fi machines that just keep coming no matter how many times you think you've shut them down... it leaves you wondering if there's any way to actually break the cycle before it's far too late... When it comes to science fiction, it really doesn't matter that back then Arnie couldn't even string together a coherent sentence in English...

A good movie is a good movie, whether it’s a deep indie darling or a big-budget blockbuster.
An exceptional art film tends to linger in your mind much longer than a great commercial hit, though I suppose those blockbusters have their place. On the flip side, a mediocre Hollywood flick is still easy enough to sit through, whereas a mediocre art film usually ends up being nothing more than pretentious nonsense.

I started out doing commercial work back when I was just a kid, you know? Eventually, I discovered "fine art," but I mostly drifted right back to the commercial side of things. It’s pretty simple: just because something is made for profit doesn't mean it lacks artistic soul or value. Plus, honestly, the paychecks are usually a lot better.

Honestly, I dread a trashy blockbuster just as much as some pretentious art house flick where I have to hunt for the plot—it's exhausting. At the end of the day, I just want a good movie, regardless of what genre it falls under.

I mean, what we call an "art film" nowadays is such a fuzzy, ill-defined term, and honestly, calling something that doesn't actually say anything about how good the movie is. You look at guys like Hitchcock, Leone, John Ford, De Palma, Fritz Lang, or even Coppola—they were making massive commercial hits, big-budget blockbusters, but those are still absolute masterpieces of cinema. On the flip side, if you actually direct the average audience toward the "art house" scene, you’ll quickly realize there’s just as much garbage there as there is in the mainstream stuff. If you head out to a serious film festival—I'm talking Sundance or SXSW, and I don't mean showing up on the final day when they're handing out awards or screening some untouchable classic, but actually sitting through the competitive selection—you'll find that maybe only one in three films is actually worth your time. But those mediocre ones get filtered out, leaving only the gems behind. That's why people fall into this trap of thinking art films are inherently superior to commercial movies (where, let's be real, they have to advertise the absolute trash just to get people in seats and turn a profit).
As for the hyped-up directors everyone won't shut up about, I was genuinely disappointed by this latest Lanthimos flick, and don't even get me started on Villeneuve; he’s got that whole pseudo-art aesthetic that everyone seems to be obsessed with lately, but frankly, it just makes me roll my eyes. At the end of the day, quality is about the film itself, not whatever pretentious little circle it crawled out of.

It’s nothing but Pinky Violence, and honestly, nothing else matters.

A greasy burger in a bun for $8.25, or maybe just a tiny slider on some fancy toast served up on a designer plate for $83?

Hmm...

Steven White7 said:I mean, what we call an "art film" nowadays is such a fuzzy, ill-defined term, and honestly, calling something that doesn't actually say anything about how good the movie is. You look at guys like Hitchcock, Leone, John Ford, De Palma, Fritz Lang, or even Coppola—they were making massive commercial hits, big-budget blockbusters, but those are still absolute masterpieces of cinema. On the flip side, if you actually direct the average audience toward the "art house" scene, you’ll quickly realize there’s just as much garbage there as there is in the mainstream stuff. If you head out to a serious film festival—I'm talking Sundance or SXSW, and I don't mean showing up on the final day when they're handing out awards or screening some untouchable classic, but actually sitting through the competitive selection—you'll find that maybe only one in three films is actually worth your time. But those mediocre ones get filtered out, leaving only the gems behind. That's why people fall into this trap of thinking art films are inherently superior to commercial movies (where, let's be real, they have to advertise the absolute trash just to get people in seats and turn a profit).
As for the hyped-up directors everyone won't shut up about, I was genuinely disappointed by this latest Lanthimos flick, and don't even get me started on Villeneuve; he’s got that whole pseudo-art aesthetic that everyone seems to be obsessed with lately, but frankly, it just makes me roll my eyes. At the end of the day, quality is about the film itself, not whatever pretentious little circle it crawled out of.

And honestly, that’s kind of where the whole debate hits a wall.

It’s actually pretty fascinating from a history perspective, though. If you talk to culture students, they’ll tell you that the era where big commercial movies were also considered "art" basically died with Raging Bull when the blockbuster craze took over. Most people point to Star Wars hitting the Oscars as that big turning point, where the industry shifted toward all that glitz, glamour, and massive marketing blitzes...

Nowadays, the term "art house" is mostly just reserved for a niche audience, which makes sense. But theater trends have definitely shifted because of it too. (Though, you have to admit, something like Tarkovsky's Solaris stayed on the schedule at theaters in New York for years because people just couldn't get enough of it!)...

As long as it actually has a decent plot... and keeps things interesting
and I'm watching

I honestly feel like that’s a bit of a false dilemma. Life isn't really just black and white, is it? I don't think it's ever an "either-or" situation; instead, I guess you have to look at how everything works together.
That’s why I try to keep an eye on both sides of the coin.

Honestly, I haven't really sat through a single Hollywood blockbuster that actually holds any artistic weight. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're all garbage... some of those big studio flicks are actually super fun and I love them for what they are. But from an artistic standpoint? Nothing really sticks. At the end of the day, their main goal is just making bank at the box office.

dustycanyon5 said:Honestly, I haven't really sat through a single Hollywood blockbuster that actually holds any artistic weight. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're all garbage... some of those big studio flicks are actually super fun and I love them for what they are. But from an artistic standpoint? Nothing really sticks. At the end of the day, their main goal is just making bank at the box office.

If that's how you feel, I’d have to wonder why you’re even bothering with Film School in the first place.

Where would you slot movies by guys like Sidney Lumet, William Friedkin, Clint Eastwood, or John Frankenheimer?

dustycanyon5 said:Honestly, I haven't really sat through a single Hollywood blockbuster that actually holds any artistic weight. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're all garbage... some of those big studio flicks are actually super fun and I love them for what they are. But from an artistic standpoint? Nothing really sticks. At the end of the day, their main goal is just making bank at the box office.

Let's start with an example. I would argue that this particular film manages to be both a commercial success and a genuine piece of art. 😉

Jessica Morris6 said:Let's start with an example. I would argue that this particular film manages to be both a commercial success and a genuine piece of art. 😉

[/I]

👍

I honestly think it might be the most successful Brazilian film out there.