Blockbuster or Indie?

vivideagle7 said:That dustycanyon5 guy has basically 🤣

Except for the part where he's an adult, I guess.

Jason Fowler57 said:Except for the part where he's an adult, I guess.

Classic... As soon as someone shares an opinion that doesn't sit right with the crowd, the insults and name-calling start flying immediately.

I've been sitting here for the last hour just staring at my screen, trying to make sense of how we even got to this point... It feels like every single time I log on to these forums, there’s some new, half-baked argument being thrown around that ignores the basic reality of how things actually function in this country. You see people jumping to conclusions without looking at the data, or worse, ignoring the sheer scale of the issues we're facing under our current economic landscape... It’s exhausting, honestly. There’s a certain level of nuance required to understand these systemic shifts, yet everyone seems content to settle for the loudest, most superficial take available, leaving the actual substance completely buried under a mountain of noise and ego... It makes you wonder if anyone is actually listening anymore, or if we're all just shouting into a void while the real problems continue to fester in the background... kaže:
It’s the same old story. The moment someone dares to voice an opinion that doesn't align with the majority, the vultures circle immediately with insults and personal attacks...

If the way people talk on Reddit really gets under your skin that much, then honestly, you’re better off just staying quiet. This whole platform was practically built for venting frustration, and if you can't handle the noise... maybe just don't participate at all...🎉
I honestly think your main issue isn't even about the facts, it's just that you lack the actual depth of knowledge to back up any of this, and frankly, you don't have the arguments to sustain a real conversation... Do you really want me to go digging through archives on other forums to find screenshots proving you just recycle the same tired talking points from those random internet critics? You even admitted it yourself right here—that you haven't actually looked into most of the vital details...
If you’re going to sit there and make sweeping claims—like the one you just made about how Pop Art is nothing more than mainstream garbage rather than actual fine art—then at least have the decency to do your homework first... if you're going to take a stand, you should actually be prepared to back it up with some research...
If you haven't spent any significant time wandering through the digital corridors of Taste of Cinema, you’re essentially leaving half of the cinematic experience on the table... It’s one of those rare corners of the internet that actually respects the medium, offering these deep, sprawling dives into film theory and curation that you just won't find on the mainstream, clickbait-heavy sites that prioritize SEO over actual substance. They don't just give you a rating or a shallow summary; they provide these long, meditative explorations of style, mood, and the underlying soul of a director's vision, which is exactly what someone looking to truly understand the craft needs... It’s a slow burn, much like the films they celebrate, requiring a certain level of patience and intellectual curiosity to fully digest, but for those of us who view movies as more than just mindless weekend distractions, it serves as a vital sanctuary in an increasingly shallow media landscape...
Recommendations, please... I'm looking for something worth my time, though finding a decent movie these days feels like an uphill battle against endless streaming algorithms that don't actually know anything about cinema... What's actually good out there right now?
Go out there and dig through the lists for trashy flicks, mainstream blockbusters, low-budget indies, high art, and everything in between... just start absorbing it all and building up that knowledge base...

Yeah, it’s basically that whole mindset where people act like they're too good for a blockbuster. Like, "Ugh, I could never enjoy a mainstream movie, I actually find those people repulsive."

But you don't even realize half the stuff you actually love is totally commercial 😬

"High culture," huh? Sounds fancy... If anyone asks, I'm definitely part of the elite 😛

I’m just gonna stick to what actually matters to me. I couldn't care less about all that Hollywood nonsense—the Jewish, Black, gay, Masonic circus... none of that interests me at all. ☕

He’s being pretty racist too.

Up next is a showcase of Russian indie films.

I don't hold any grudges against anyone personally. I respect every minority and every group out there, but let’s be real—I’m not blind to the shadow lobbies pulling the strings behind Hollywood. Especially the Jewish lobby... even Marlon Brando was one of the first big names to step up and call them out.

dustycanyon5 said:Classic... As soon as someone shares an opinion that doesn't sit right with the crowd, the insults and name-calling start flying immediately.

I don't see how telling someone they aren't an adult constitutes an insult, but based on everything you've posted here, it's safe to assume you haven't quite reached maturity yet. You're clearly young, and you lack any real foundation when it comes to art cinema. There’s nothing wrong with that—at least you're exploring and trying. I've said this before: I believe you're a good kid, but please, just stop with the generalizations. Otherwise, it looks like you think that whenever a commercial film happens to be good—like *American Beauty* or *The Green Mile*—they suddenly cease being commercial and become "art," which simply isn't true.

Jessica Morris6 was actually being quite fair to you, specifically regarding the distinction between populist films and commercial ones. Then briskhound2 brought up *2001: A Space Odyssey*, which is a textbook example of a populist, commercially produced film. And honestly, you're dismissing almost every art film ever made.

I even gave you Hitchcock as an example. His direction is on another level; no "art" director can hold a candle to his lessons because Hitchcock is simply in a class of his own when it comes to craft.

What about Frank Capra's *It's a Wonderful Life*? That was one of the massive commercial hits of its era, yet today it's revered as the ultimate Christmas movie. Millions of families across the US still gather to watch what is, fundamentally, a top-tier commercial classic.

The only "art" in that movie is the moment Jimmy Stewart freezes up.

Man, I’m almost hitting 26 soon. So yeah, I’ve been an adult for quite a while now... 😁

And look, it’s not like I’m saying every single blockbuster out there is trash. I was just saying that even though I’m a huge fan of guys like Tarantino and Nolan, their stuff is still basically high-end commercial cinema. It’s just that my heart really leans toward indie art house films... I feel like that’s where you actually find the soul of filmmaking, you know?

Jessica Morris6 said:

I've been sitting here for the last hour just staring at my screen, trying to make sense of how we even got to this point... It feels like every single time I log on to these forums, there’s some new, half-baked argument being thrown around that ignores the basic reality of how things actually function in this country. You see people jumping to conclusions without looking at the data, or worse, ignoring the sheer scale of the issues we're facing under our current economic landscape... It’s exhausting, honestly. There’s a certain level of nuance required to understand these systemic shifts, yet everyone seems content to settle for the loudest, most superficial take available, leaving the actual substance completely buried under a mountain of noise and ego... It makes you wonder if anyone is actually listening anymore, or if we're all just shouting into a void while the real problems continue to fester in the background... kaže:
It’s the same old story. The moment someone dares to voice an opinion that doesn't align with the majority, the vultures circle immediately with insults and personal attacks...

If the way people talk on Reddit really gets under your skin that much, then honestly, you’re better off just staying quiet. This whole platform was practically built for venting frustration, and if you can't handle the noise... maybe just don't participate at all...🎉
I honestly think your main issue isn't even about the facts, it's just that you lack the actual depth of knowledge to back up any of this, and frankly, you don't have the arguments to sustain a real conversation... Do you really want me to go digging through archives on other forums to find screenshots proving you just recycle the same tired talking points from those random internet critics? You even admitted it yourself right here—that you haven't actually looked into most of the vital details...
If you’re going to sit there and make sweeping claims—like the one you just made about how Pop Art is nothing more than mainstream garbage rather than actual fine art—then at least have the decency to do your homework first... if you're going to take a stand, you should actually be prepared to back it up with some research...
If you haven't spent any significant time wandering through the digital corridors of Taste of Cinema, you’re essentially leaving half of the cinematic experience on the table... It’s one of those rare corners of the internet that actually respects the medium, offering these deep, sprawling dives into film theory and curation that you just won't find on the mainstream, clickbait-heavy sites that prioritize SEO over actual substance. They don't just give you a rating or a shallow summary; they provide these long, meditative explorations of style, mood, and the underlying soul of a director's vision, which is exactly what someone looking to truly understand the craft needs... It’s a slow burn, much like the films they celebrate, requiring a certain level of patience and intellectual curiosity to fully digest, but for those of us who view movies as more than just mindless weekend distractions, it serves as a vital sanctuary in an increasingly shallow media landscape...
Recommendations, please... I'm looking for something worth my time, though finding a decent movie these days feels like an uphill battle against endless streaming algorithms that don't actually know anything about cinema... What's actually good out there right now?
Go out there and dig through the lists for trashy flicks, mainstream blockbusters, low-budget indies, high art, and everything in between... just start absorbing it all and building up that knowledge base...

Taste of Cinema works well enough for beginners since their lists range from absolute garbage to genuinely great—though most of it just sits right in the middle. It’s not a bad site, per se, but I wouldn't call it the perfect starting point for someone just finding their footing in film. Actually, you made a solid recommendation there.

If I were in his shoes, I’d suggest he check out these blogs:

He isn't around much these days, but if you dig through his old posts from back between 2005 and 2015, you're looking at pure gold. Plus, tucked away on the sidebar, there’s this massive collection of incredible links that just pull you deeper and deeper into the world of cinema.

I’ve been spending far too much time lately scrolling through Artforum's film section. It’s one of those rabbit holes that starts with "just one quick look" and ends three hours later with me questioning my entire cinematic palate. The critiques there are... intense. Dense, even. Sometimes I feel like I need a PhD in semiotics just to understand if a movie was actually good or if I just didn't "get" the subtext. Still, it's worth the mental gymnastics. Highly recommended for anyone who enjoys feeling slightly intellectually inadequate while drinking their morning coffee.

I stumbled upon this site, http://www.film-philosophy.com/index.php/f-p, while falling down a rabbit hole earlier today. It’s a niche little corner of the internet dedicated to film philosophy—not just "what did the director mean?" fluff, but actual, deep-dive intellectual inquiry into cinema. Honestly, it’s a bit more rigorous than the usual stuff you find on Reddit or Letterboxd, which can be... well, let's just say a bit shallow at times. If you have an appetite for heavy lifting and want to see how celluloid intersects with existentialism or ethics, this might actually be worth your time. A bit dense? Sure. But I suppose that's the point. If you're looking for some truly top-tier film studies, you'll find them right here.

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/ A total classic.

Criterion is my absolute favorite, too. http://www.criterionforum.org/forumratings.php

Glad you're back. 😁😉

Joshua Smith5 said:Glad you're back. 😁😉

Druker 😁

Jessica Morris6 said:Here is what they have to say... The Lexicographical Institute... it’s one of those institutions that just feels like it exists in its own vacuum, much like the National Archives or some of those heavy-duty research libraries you find in D.C. It carries this weight of academic prestige, attempting to catalog everything under the sun, yet you can't help but wonder if all that meticulous documentation actually keeps pace with the sheer velocity of modern information... though I suppose that's the nature of such massive, sprawling scholarly endeavors...H. Turković is out here claiming that when you're making an art film, you shouldn't have a single thought about the bottom line while you're on set... It’s that same old, tired argument that true creativity can only exist in a vacuum, completely detached from the reality of budgets or how people actually pay for movies to be made...
Forgive me if I've gone on a bit too long with this quote...

I’ve been sitting here thinking about this whole concept of "art house cinema" lately, and honestly, it feels like we’re losing the thread... It’s one thing to appreciate a slow burn or a director with a specific vision, but there’s a fine line between a profound cinematic experience and just watching paint dry for two hours while pretending you're being intellectual... I find myself increasingly frustrated by the way certain critics try to pass off pretension as depth, acting as if a lack of narrative structure is somehow a substitute for actual storytelling... It makes me wonder if we've forgotten what it means to actually connect with a film on an emotional level rather than just checking boxes on a list of avant-garde tropes... maybe it's just me, but the more I see these "masterpieces" that feel like they were designed specifically to alienate anyone who isn't part of some tiny, elitist circle, the more I miss when movies actually had something to say without needing a PhD to decode them...When we look at cinema through a critical lens, there's this distinct divide that defines how we categorize what ends up on the screen. First, you have those films that position themselves in direct opposition to the massive, populist blockbusters—the kind of high-octane commercial fluff designed for mass consumption. These works strive for the status of "high art," aiming to secure prestige within elite cultural circles rather than just chasing a weekend box office record. We’ve seen this manifest historically as specific production niches, like the early experimental movements or the rise of auteur theory and the New Wave era... It’s a bit of a paradox because, even though modernism pushed the entire medium toward being recognized as a legitimate art form, the sheer dominance of the Hollywood studio system and its massive distribution networks means that "artistic" films essentially have to exist in their own separate ecosystem. They end up relegated to specialized non-commercial circuits and boutique art-house theaters just to find an audience that actually wants to engage with them... Then, there is the second way we slice the medium, which focuses more on the actual mode of storytelling. On one hand, you have the purely imaginative branch—films that prioritize the sensory experience and the cultivation of imagery, such as expressionist cinema, poetic documentaries, or animation. On the other hand, you have the more pragmatic, discursive side of filmmaking, where the goal isn't necessarily to transport you to another world, but to inform or instruct through educational films, scientific documentaries, newsreels, or utilitarian corporate media... It really comes down to whether the filmmaker is trying to stir the soul or simply deliver information...

It’s just another populist piece of cinema, isn't it... designed specifically to pull at the most basic emotional levers of the masses without offering a single shred of intellectual substance or nuance...Cinema is such an interesting beast when you start looking at how certain categories function... there's this specific class of movies designed specifically to appeal to the broadest possible demographic—you know, the "mass market" crowd—and because they have to capture everyone's attention, they tend to lean heavily on these tried-and-true, highly attractive themes and polished presentation styles. Since these types of productions are practically engineered to guarantee a massive box office return, people often dismissively label them as nothing more than "commercial cinema," whereas their complete opposite is usually branded as "art house" or, if you want to get cynical about it, "elitist filmmaking"... it's a constant tug-of-war between what sells and what is considered pure art...

I’ve been sitting here staring at this latest commercial, and honestly, I can’t help but feel a certain level of exhaustion setting in... It’s just one of those polished, overly produced pieces that feels like it was engineered in a lab to trigger a specific emotional response rather than actually saying anything meaningful. You watch these high-budget spots, all those sweeping cinematic shots and that perfectly curated soundtrack, and you realize they aren't selling a product so much as they're selling an idealized version of a life that none of us actually lead. It’s all very calculated, very deliberate, and frankly, a little bit soul-crushing when you think about the sheer amount of capital being poured into these glossy illusions instead of, well, something substantive...When you look at cinema through this specific lens, you’re really just looking at the category of commercial filmmaking—movies built from the ground up on the foundational principle of turning a profit. At its core, being commercially viable, or having the ability to sustain itself within the market, was the absolute prerequisite for the very existence and survival of the entire Hollywood industry. Its direct opposite would be non-commercial film, which many people tend to lump together with the concept of populist cinema...

It’s just another one of those non-commercial films... you know the type, where the director is more interested in their own obscure artistic vision than actually engaging an audience or following any kind of narrative structure that makes sense to a normal person... they spend two hours on slow pans of empty landscapes and shots of people staring blankly into the distance, all while pretending it's "deep" or "subversive"... it’s really just a vanity project disguised as cinema, lacking any real commercial appeal or even the basic decency to be entertaining...When you look at cinema through a certain lens, there’s an entire category of filmmaking that exists entirely outside the crushing weight of commercial pressure and the desperate need to turn a quick profit... It’s a realm where the art isn't being squeezed by studio executives or quarterly earnings reports. You typically see this kind of purity in experimental works, indie features, and amateur projects, though a massive chunk of it lives within documentaries, educational pieces, and scientific films. It stands in total opposition to what we call "commercial cinema"... which is really just another word for mass-marketed product.

Experimental cinema... there’s just something about it that refuses to sit still, doesn't it? It’s not like those polished, cookie-cutter Hollywood blockbusters where you can predict every beat from the opening credits. No, true experimental film is more of an experience—an assault on the senses, really—that challenges everything we think we know about structure, narrative, and even the very concept of what a "movie" is supposed to be... It pushes boundaries, tearing up the rulebook to find something raw and unfiltered underneath all that commercial gloss... Experimental cinema—or what some might call avant-garde or alternative film—is really a genre defined by its refusal to play by the rules... it’s all about experimenting with techniques and visual effects that push back against the standard Hollywood way of doing things, opting instead for associative and rhythmic editing in a desperate attempt to uncover these untapped sensory and social potentials within the medium itself. You see this first wave of the avant-garde emerging back in the 1920s, primarily under that "avant-garde" label in places like France and Germany, driven by figures such as Luis Buñuel, Jean Clair, Fernand Léger, Man Ray, Hans Richter, and Walter Ruttman. Once that initial movement started to fade out during the 1930s and through the late 1950s, a second wave of the avant-garde began to take root across the United States, Austria, Great Britain, and Poland, led by visionaries like Maya Deren, Stan Brakhage, Paul Brakhage, and others who pushed the boundaries further... then, by the 1970s, the evolution shifted toward a video-based approach known as video art, pioneered by names like Nam June Paik, the Vasulkas, Bill Viola, and Steina Vasulka. When you look at the established subgenres of experimental film, you're really looking at abstract, surrealist, structural, and conceptualist works...

amateur film (also referred to as non-professional filmmaking). 1. Any production that doesn't emerge from a professional setting or involve professional obligations, regardless of how much technical skill might actually be on display. – 2. The broader social sphere encompassing non-professional film and video creation and its associated organizations. A. Amateur work is typically, though not exclusively, tied to what we call "narrow format" techniques (think 8mm film, for instance) or, more recently, consumer video technology. These enthusiasts often band together in film clubs, host their own festivals, and essentially form a distinct branch of cinema...

documentary film, a genre defined by the attempt to bear witness to perceived events through the use of the cinematic possibilities of recording, imagery, and sound. Unlike narrative fiction, documentary claims to present actual events—things that truly happened—so the question of authenticity is frequently raised as a vital element in how these works are experienced and judged. The very first moving images captured were documentaries (think of those early Lumière brothers capturing spontaneous scenes on the streets of Paris). In the 1920s, Robert Flaherty introduced principles of narrative structuring to the genre (what we call narrative documentary) alongside truthful reconstructions of typical real-life situations (reconstructive documentary). Avant-garde creators (like Luis Buñuel, Jean Epstein, Walter Ruttmann, Dziga Vertov, and Jean Vigo) viewed documentary as an expression of their own (poetic) perception of reality (symphonic or poetic documentary), while the drive to capture events in their unique, unrepeatable flow fueled movements like Cinéma Vérité (observational, testimonial film, such as the work of Jean Rouch), Direct Cinema (pioneered by Frederick Wiseman), and eventually the hidden camera techniques that became so ubiquitous on American television. Since the 1960s, television has taken the lead in capturing and broadcasting documentaries, though the advent of video in the 1980s and the digital revolution of the 1990s have certainly helped the explosion of independent documentary productions...

educational film (also known as instructional, enlightening, or pedagogical film), a genre consisting of films intended to spread or acquire culturally standardized knowledge for a specific target audience (leading into purposeful filmmaking). Its foundation is primarily conceptual and descriptive, though it occasionally tries to boost engagement by using framing devices or occasional narrative and poetic presentation strategies. Common subcategories include: (a) instructional films, created specifically for use within a classroom setting following established curricula (such as educational shorts used in schools), (b) general educational films, aimed mostly at adult education or any interested general audience, (c) training or vocational films, made with the goal of teaching a viewer how to perform a task through demonstration and verbal instruction, and (d) popular science films, which convey scientific discoveries to a broader audience in an accessible way. Educational films are often further categorized by the subject matter they cover (for example, historical films, medical films, geography films, or natural science films)...

👍

dustycanyon5 said:Classic... As soon as someone shares an opinion that doesn't sit right with the crowd, the insults and name-calling start flying immediately.

Honestly, don't even sweat the trolls. There's always going to be some idiot looking for a fight. 😉

dustycanyon5 said:Man, I’m almost hitting 26 soon. So yeah, I’ve been an adult for quite a while now... 😁

And look, it’s not like I’m saying every single blockbuster out there is trash. I was just saying that even though I’m a huge fan of guys like Tarantino and Nolan, their stuff is still basically high-end commercial cinema. It’s just that my heart really leans toward indie art house films... I feel like that’s where you actually find the soul of filmmaking, you know?

The issue isn't whether you enjoy a big-budget flick or not—it's that you're completely conflating two different things. An "art film" isn't just anything that doesn't have a massive marketing budget, and just because a movie is a commercial hit doesn't mean it can't be art too. You're mixing apples and oranges here...

Jacob Cooper5 said:The issue isn't whether you enjoy a big-budget flick or not—it's that you're completely conflating two different things. An "art film" isn't just anything that doesn't have a massive marketing budget, and just because a movie is a commercial hit doesn't mean it can't be art too. You're mixing apples and oranges here...

Exactly.

I noticed nobody mentioned Mubi.
https://mubi.com/showing It's a streaming service tailored for those low-budget indie gems, though they carry some big names too. Here is how they describe their vision:

...Our film library is brimming with visionary films that wouldn’t fill a single cinema in the US for a week – not even a day. But if you searched the world (all of it), you might just find an audience of a thousand for these rare cinematic treats...