Blockbusters vs. Indie Films: Part 1

16 May

By Open Book

The 64th, 2011 Festival de Cannes or Cannes Film festival is set to hand out its awards for best film on May 22, 2011.  Cannes is one of the most influential film festivals in the film industry.  Followed closely behind are Berlin International Film festival, The New York Film festival, and Venice Film festival and of course Sundance. [1] Film festivals are where independent filmmakers go to showcase their films in hopes of getting distribution. Yet, in the last two years major studios have scaled back the number of indie films it distributes and or produce. Why? We will uncover the reason distributors are being cautious, plus review why American audiences prefer to see blockbusters in theaters versus indie films.

Film festivals are wonderful places where creative minds, smart audiences and industry heavyweights come together to celebrate emerging talents.  They provide networking and business opportunities for innovative indie filmmakers.  It’s a place where acquisitions are made and obscure films get discovered.  Film festivals typically run for about two weeks bringing a lot of tourism dollars to cities and states.  For example Robert DeNiro and Jane Rosenthal started Tribeca Film festival in New York in 2001 following the World Trade center attacks to support the rebuilding of lower Manhattan. Tribeca Film festival has quickly become one of the largest bringing in two million attendees and generating 425 million dollars in revenue for New York City each year.[1] Yet, due to the high number of indie films over flooding the multiplex (simply put, there are too many films and not enough theaters) film studios over the last two years began scaling back the amount of indie films they produce and distribute. [2] This trend has impacted indie filmmakers and film festivals around the world.

Do American audiences prefer blockbusters to Indie Films?  The big six studios like Warner Brothers, Columbia, Paramount, Disney, Universal and Fox seem to think so. They own independent film studios that produce Art House specialty films that cater to a certain niche.  But some studios like Warner Brothers in the last two years have shut down their specialty film devisions. In 2005 15% of domestic box office revenue was from independent film studios.  In the 1990’s the Indie film movement was at an all time high due in part to the Sundance Film festival it discovered talents such as Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino, Paul T. Anderson and Steven Soderbergh. Investors outside the major studios were now distributing indie films in huge numbers. Then major studios took notice and began developing independent studios of their own. They include, Sony Pictures Classics in 1992, Fox Searchlight in 1995, Paramount Classics 1998, Focus Features 2002, Warner Independent 2003(which is now closed) and Relativity Media 2008.

By early 2000 Hollywood was producing three different categories of films. They included 1) Big Budget Blockbuster, 2) Art House, which is produced by Hollywood conglomerate indie studios mentioned above. 3) Genre and Specialty films coming from true indie studios and producers who flood the film festivals looking for distribution each year.[3]  Yet, Hollywood has begun to reduce the amount of Art house and Specialty films in favor of producing more commercial Big Budget films.  Why? In an article by Jeffrey Taylor from Showbiz Management Advisors he states;

 “Major film distributors are being far more cautious in acquiring independently financed films for distribution, a situation that has dramatically slowed business at major film gatherings, including Sundance in January and Cannes in May. At Sundance, highly anticipated films drew few bites from buyers.”

Consumers can see this trend by the number of Big Budget Re-makes, Sci-Fi and Action/Adventure films slated to come out this year.  Many of these films allow studios to charge higher ticket prices due to 3-D technology.  But wait! Don’t indie films cost less to produce than a Big Budget CGI film? Yes, but they cost more to market. Due to over-saturation of indie films in theaters, it has driven up the marketing cost to compete with other films. Also, many argue the reason indie films fail at the box office because consumers are choosing to see Blockbusters instead of indie films.  Today it’s safe to assume average moviegoers prefer to see big visual special effect films in theaters and wait to see indie critically acclaimed films at home. All this has changed the market and climate for indie filmmakers and some fear the worst is yet to come. In Part-2 of this series we will review the future of indie films.

Also see: Blockbuster vs. Indie Films: Part 2

  Please join us for a discussion: Tuesday 5/17/2011@7pE/12UTC

118 Responses to “Blockbusters vs. Indie Films: Part 1”

  1. Littlebells May 16, 2011 at 12:57 PM #

    Excellent article, OB! I can’t wait for tomorrow’s discussion!

  2. in2flix May 16, 2011 at 4:23 PM #

    Very informative Open Book. I really enjoy going to film festivals when I can. I do notice there is ground swell of support for good indie films but when they finally make it to local theaters the general public don’t support them because they don’t know about them. IMO! I think it’s due to poor marketing of these films.

    • Littlebells May 16, 2011 at 5:11 PM #

      Hi in2flix! What film festivals have you attended? I would love to be able to attend one. I agree with you about poor marketing. I think there are some great indie films out there. I love “artsie” movies and when I lived in LA I would attend our local art house before it closed.

      If indie films were marketed as well as blockbuster films, I think they would stand a chance.

    • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 7:43 PM #

      Hi In2Filx.

      Sorry I missed u. I enjoy film festivals as well.

  3. Parisienne May 17, 2011 at 1:37 PM #

    Open Book,

    This is a very interesting and informative article. I love indie films just as much as blockbusters. I don’t know if Like Water for Choclate is considered an indie film but it is one of my favorites. Why do you think film makers think that consumers only want to see blockbuster/mainstream films? Especially in 3D. I dislike 3D. I always equate the use of 3D with attractions at Disney and Universal, not in films I want to see.

    Also, how are emerging film makers supposed to showcase their films to consumers if they are not picked up at a festival? IMO, the blockbuster films should not be shown at festivals in order to give the independent films a chance at getting some recognition.

    • littlebells May 17, 2011 at 4:10 PM #

      What she said!!!!

      (Were u able to get my PM?)

      • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 6:51 PM #

        Never mind! I got yours. haha! 🙂

    • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 7:12 PM #

      Hi Paris-

      Great Q’s-I think because of the bad economy and home theater technology improvements, consumers are being frugal. 3-D technology is even improving for home theaters. But CGI still looks better in theaters than in home theaters and it’s been shown consumers will pay extra to see a big CGI spectacle. Like Thor for example. But I think consumers still want substance in CGI films so that’s what studios are trying to do now. I think films like WFE was smart and savvy and still visually stunning and could only be appreciated in theaters. I think filmmakers should do more of that rather than overdosing audiences on CGI.

      • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM #


        Big Budget films come to film festivals to help bring attention to these events. When that happens festivals and indie filmmakers get seen by a broader audience if their film is well regarded and awarded. Plus jurors know blockbusters are only there for publicity. It’s good for both parties. Blockbusters get to advertise and festivals get broad attention.

  4. Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 6:52 PM #

    Going back to Paris’s comment, why DO they show blockbusters at these film festivals? Why waste the time when there are other brilliant unknown films that could ultimately be just as successful?

    • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 6:58 PM #

      Hi LB-

      The reason they show BB at festivlas inorder to get publicity by having actors like Jhonny Depp show up. It’s works for everyone both the actors and festivals advertisers. Does that make sense?

      • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 7:01 PM #

        Ok, I can see that. Makes sense. But wouldn’t actors want to come even if they didn’t have some huge hit coming to theaters? I just assume festivals are THE place to be regardless.

        • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 7:40 PM #

          Yes and no it depends. A-List actors have to think about where they appear more so than say u and I. Because wherever they go they are likely to get attention and attention=money.

  5. Open Book May 17, 2011 at 6:54 PM #

    Hi Everyone-

    Welcome visitors to our discussion tonight. Please share with us your views on this topic. All comments are welcomed.

  6. Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 6:58 PM #

    Hi OB!

    Have you been to any film festivals? I went to the San Jose one a few years ago when How To Be was making the rounds. I felt like such a tool because everyone there seemed to be such a thespian and I was like, “do-dah-do. Little housewife from Modesto driving to see Rob. do-dah-do!” 🙂

    • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 7:05 PM #

      Hi LB!

      I have but have not gone to any this year yet. I like the Santa Monica Film Festival alot. Also, don’t be intimidated by going to these festivals. U be surprised how many people feel like u than not. Which includes me. LOL!

      • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 7:06 PM #


  7. Lurker May 17, 2011 at 7:04 PM #

    Hi everyone!

    OB great article. I have a question. I was told that for independent film makers protecting their ‘idea’ was critical for future success and showcasing it at a film festival was the best way to get their work in front of potential buyers with minimal expenses.

    Marketing isn’t cheap so I would think these festivals should be more geared toward the smaller films.

    • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 7:06 PM #

      Hi! Lurker,

      Nice to see u. BIG WAVES! Let me collect my thoughts and answer your Q. Give me a second.

    • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 7:08 PM #


      • Lurker May 17, 2011 at 7:13 PM #

        Hi! Sorry I’ve been away, swamped at work.

        • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 7:15 PM #

          Real Life happens, so glad you are here. 🙂

    • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 7:18 PM #


      Once filmmakers have shown their films at festivals then it’s about getting them from the festivals into theaters. Heres where the problem begins. In the 1990’s distributing films was sort of a free for all. Investors were releasing a tone of indie films a year anyway it’s created a griddlock and now a small budget film that cost 12 mill is costing 30 to 40 mill to advertise and distribute to compete against the other indie films. Does that make sense? I will go more into detail about this issue in Part 2.

      • Lurker May 17, 2011 at 7:20 PM #

        Makes sense. Follow up Q – Do you think there are many more films being produced today which is causing all the competition to dilute some of the smaller films potential?

        • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 7:24 PM #

          Actually, yes and no. There are more indie films in theaters then there are big budget films and a ton of them are backed logged because theater owners don’t have space. Plus u are taking a chance because most indie films are rated R. So they are also cutting off the teen demo as well.

      • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 7:21 PM #

        Sorry let me clarify it’s costing 12 mil to produce plus 30 to 40 mill to market. making the small budget film into a 50 or 60 mill film. And the 30 to 40 mill is on the low end.

        • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 7:26 PM #

          Wow. That’s an expensive indie. How would you categorize Twilight? It was indie in the beginning, right? I don’t consider it a blockbuster, but where would you categorize it now?

          • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 7:34 PM #

            Well many studios hope for the success Summit had with Twilight. This is like the crown jewel. To spend 20 or 30 mill and make 600 mill is sweet. But Twilight was an indie film but produced by a small studio. Now Summit is a mid-size studio after Twilight’s success. That should tell u something.

            • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 7:40 PM #

              …and just to fall off the planet, imo.

            • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 7:41 PM #

              Summit lucked out because of Edward. That’s basically it. Once he’s gone, well….we will see what happens with Summit.

        • Lurker May 17, 2011 at 7:30 PM #

          Wow those are some pretty significant numbers. Marketing is more expense than the film!

          • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 7:35 PM #

            Factor in distribution with that figure as well.

  8. ozzie20 May 17, 2011 at 7:09 PM #

    Hi, I’m here! Great article!

    • Lurker May 17, 2011 at 7:13 PM #

      Hi Ozzie!

      • ozzie20 May 17, 2011 at 7:23 PM #

        Lurker! Missed not having you here. Naughty work! 🙂

        • Lurker May 17, 2011 at 7:36 PM #

          Thanks Ozzie! I have a bit of a reprieve this week! Yeah!

    • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 7:24 PM #

      Hi Ozzie!

      How are u?

      • ozzie20 May 17, 2011 at 7:39 PM #

        Hi! I’m not with it today and I’m trying to do several things at once! It may end up a disaster! 🙂

        • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 7:56 PM #

          Oh NO….. How well do u juggle?

          • ozzie20 May 17, 2011 at 8:12 PM #

            LOL, not well! Something normally goes wrong. At the moment it’s the browser crashing!

  9. Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 7:10 PM #

    Ooooooozzie! Hi! 🙂

    • ozzie20 May 17, 2011 at 7:23 PM #

      Littlebells! *hugs*

  10. Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 7:14 PM #

    OB, do you think that because the studios you mentioned have created their own independent studios, they don’t worry about the success or failure of the indies they showcasing?

    • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 7:29 PM #

      No they worry. Because u still have to compete at the box office against other distibutors outside the big six. Plus many of the big six use indie films to get critical acclaim at Award ceremonies like the Oscars. In the last two years competition to market films like Social Network, Black Swan The Fighter etc… was fierce and expensive.

      • Lurker May 17, 2011 at 7:36 PM #

        So, it sounds like, there is a missing distribution channel for independent films. Too much box office competition and not enough money to market like the big 6.

      • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 7:36 PM #

        I didn’t know SN was an indie. I knew BS and TF were and wow, they blew me out of the water. Still haven’t seen SN yet. I’m not much into facebook, so…..I don’t know.

        Back on topic! Dumb question (forgive me if you have basically already stated the answer), is their a lot more competition for these films because there are more than there have been in the past? Or is it just competition to “see my film!” “NO, see MY film!” attitude?

        • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 7:45 PM #

          Well SN was produced by one of the big six indie studios Relativity Media which is a subsidiary of Universal.

        • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 7:51 PM #

          Sorry LB-

          Answer to 2nd Q: More competition. For example say a distributor convinces a theater owner to show an indie film that’s won a ton of awards at festivals. They agree to release it but it opens at the same time as Batman, Spiderman and say Fast Five. Guess what happens?

          • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 7:59 PM #

            Ok, that makes sense. Thanks OB!

        • ozzie20 May 17, 2011 at 8:05 PM #

          I didn’t BS was classed as an indie. I knew TF was but I wasn’t sure what SN would be classed as.

          BTW LB, SN is amazing! Hand on heart, there was no way I was going to see a film about Facebook. No one was going to change my mind until I saw this.

          It made me curious, so I watched it and LOVED it. There’s never been a movie where I felt for every character. I also thought JT couldn’t act until I saw this film. It’s now in my favourite films category! There’s a comment I made on an earlier post here where I wrote loads about it, so I’ll stop now! 🙂

          • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:37 PM #

            Alright, you twisted my arm! I’ll check it out! 🙂 And if I don’t like it, I’m coming to England and hunting you down!!! hahaha!

            (ps. where in England are you from?)

            • ozzie20 May 17, 2011 at 8:54 PM #

              Lol, I’ll email you that. Though if you’re hunting me down I should give a fake place. I live in Hogsmeade! *sticks tounge out*

              Don’t watch it if you don’t want to. I don’t want to force you to do something you don’t want to do, lol! 🙂

  11. Lurker May 17, 2011 at 7:43 PM #

    So why aren’t there more film festivals? I thought there were a ton? Or is it just the really big one’s that we hear about?

    • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 7:49 PM #

      Goo question! *looks at OB*

    • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 7:54 PM #


      U know I’m slow Lurker. Sorry!

      There are a ton. They rank in prestiege unfortunately. But there are a ton I did not mention like Toronto and Santa Monica. But I will cover this more in Part 2.

      • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:01 PM #

        My SIL lives in Park City and she hates when Sundance has it’s festival. She thinks everyone is snooty and snotty and act like they are entitled.

        • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 8:07 PM #

          Yeah, u get those but film festivals are really good for tourism dollars. The more prestigious they are the more money they generate for a city. So even though I think snooty upity types are uncalled for they do bring in alot of revenue.

          • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:12 PM #

            Oh definitely! Park City is sooooo nice. I would love to go to Sundance just to people watch. hahaha!!!

            • ozzie20 May 17, 2011 at 8:23 PM #

              I’d like to go to Sundance too. Also Cannes, as well.

              • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:37 PM #

                LIH could go on field trips!!! hahaha!!!

                • ozzie20 May 17, 2011 at 8:55 PM #


      • Lurker May 17, 2011 at 8:03 PM #

        Its ok I’m multi-tasking.
        Trying to cook myself dinner.
        Trying to make Chicken Piccata tonight!

  12. Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:02 PM #


    I guess I am amazed that they are more films than ever considering how crappy the economy is. Where are the studios getting this money? Just from our ticket sales? I hardly ever go to the theater and I know a lot of other folks who rarely go because prices are just too much. I guess I just find it so odd.

    • Lurker May 17, 2011 at 8:04 PM #

      LB you and I both, I’m not a frequent visitor to the movie theater when I have so many things going on. I”m lucky with Netflix, I can watch on my own schedule.

      • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:07 PM #

        High five to netflix! Any suggestions for a movie tonight? Hubs is out of town and my brain seems to have shut down. I want to watch something moving but funny.

        • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 8:22 PM #

          Do u like period films? The Last Station with James McAvoy was an excellent film. It’s about Tolstoy.

          • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:25 PM #

            Ooooooo, that did look good! Thank you! I will see if I can stream it. 🙂

            • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:28 PM #

              Dang’t! It’s only listed as “Save”.

              • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:29 PM #

                I’m an idiot. Looking at the wrong movie. I can stream it!!!!!

                • Lurker May 17, 2011 at 8:33 PM #

                  Oh good. Will have to watch.

        • ozzie20 May 17, 2011 at 8:27 PM #

          Oow, just found out LOVE FiLM has streaming now. It’s probably been around for a while and I’ve only just noticed, lol! I’ll have to check it out!

          • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:39 PM #

            When Harry Met Sally!!!!!!!!!!

            • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM #

              That’s right Ozzie u still need to see this. Tick Tock!! LOL

              • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:48 PM #

                Where’s Paris???? She still needs to see it too! hahaha!! 🙂

                • ozzie20 May 17, 2011 at 8:59 PM #

                  Lol! It is on there but I can’t figure out if it’s available for streaming.

          • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 8:41 PM #

            OH! I love that film it’s the hungarian film from the 70’s right?

    • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 8:19 PM #

      This is where u get into backlog of films. Did u know Tree of Life was shown at Cannes last year and they went back and re-edited the film? Anyway a indie film might be in a holding pattern for a year or two before it’s released in theaters. But studios were buying up films like crazy up until 2008 and now they are feeling the sting by thinking consumers interest would not change toward indie films. Well guess what? The economy changed all that and now Red Box and Netflix is king.

      • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:24 PM #

        I know this is a completely new discussion topic, but I wonder what is going to happen with the film industry in regards to ticket prices. If things get worse, just for arguments sake, prices will have to go down, if they want to fill theater seats. When you can watch unlimited movies for a fixed monthly bill, why go? Sometimes I wonder how much BO numbers are accurately reflecting the success of a film. Would numbers be higher if more people were attending. Maybe a movie is a hit, but since people aren’t going as often, it’s not being recognized in the bO numbers. Is that making any sense???? I think I just confused myself. haha!

        • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 8:29 PM #

          Good, Good Q. Currently big six studios and theater owners are in a battle over allowing consumers to see films online 30 days after a film is released in theaters. This is good for the movie studios because they want to charge 20 dollars for this. But theater owners believe this will put them out of business and I think they are right.

          • Lurker May 17, 2011 at 8:34 PM #

            I agree I think people will wait.

          • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:43 PM #

            ok, wait. Hold the phone. I can now save my $10.50 and watch a movie for $20? Wow!!! What a deal!!!!

            Seriously? I will wait a freakin’ year to watch a movie online for dirt cheap if I have to.

            • Lurker May 17, 2011 at 8:45 PM #

              The topic was big around the holidays. The concept was something like the Pay Per view events like boxing. A one time charge.

              • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:47 PM #

                Oh. That makes more sense. I still like going to theaters though for those big feature films like WFE, Avatar, Inception…some films are just meant to be seen on the big screen.

                • Lurker May 17, 2011 at 8:49 PM #

                  I completely agree. Tron was one of those as well to get the full effect.

                  Remember when Star Wars came out, it was a must see in the theater becuase only they had surround sound then.

                  • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 8:53 PM #

                    Thanks Lurker for clarifying this for me. I really missed u.

      • ozzie20 May 17, 2011 at 8:30 PM #

        Stupid question time! Would Bel Ami’s release be something like the Tree of Life’s?

        • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:44 PM #

          Oooooooo! Possibly. I’m thinking it’s more of the vast difference between Edward and DuRoy’s characters. *look to OB and Lurker because they are much smarter*

          • Lurker May 17, 2011 at 8:47 PM #

            I think there’s more at work with that film – namely uprooting his fan base they need to put in the seats for the final TW movies.

            Bel Ami may not come out for a while – that’s my prediction.

            • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 8:50 PM #


              U have the MPAA rating with this film. If they follow the script I read they might get a NC-17. If they re-edit it to be a PG-13 than this would really impact the narrative. IMO!

              • Lurker May 17, 2011 at 8:52 PM #

                True and recall the article we posted here how many movies that were rated R that didn’t even hit the theater?

                Doesn’t bode well for that movie right now, let alone the MPAA sacking it with an R and then loosing the momentum of the story with a PG13 rating.

                • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:54 PM #

                  oK, I’m lost. What’s the deal with R not being good for ratings right now? What is making them too risky???

                  • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 9:15 PM #

                    R ratings means teens can’t see a film. Anyone under 17 will need to have parents go with them. So it’s bad because u are cutting off a entire demographic during a time when attendance is at an all time low.

                • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 8:56 PM #

                  Yep! It is about appealing to broad audiences to succeed in theaters where theres so much competition.

                  • ozzie20 May 17, 2011 at 9:09 PM #

                    Yes, I thought the delay maybe down to a certain fan base. I was hoping that it would go the same route of The Tree of Life. Shown at a festival later in the year, edited again, shown at another festival and then release, rather than it being held back.

                • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 9:18 PM #


        • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 8:47 PM #

          Well to be honest I think they should wait. The market for R rated films are volatile. Add to that more blockbusters coming out this year and next it’s too risky. Actors are only good as there last film BO numbers. Since R has made some good business decision so far. I think BA should wait. IMO! But what do i know. LOL!!

  13. Lurker May 17, 2011 at 8:07 PM #

    So OB does an independent film have to pay fees to enter their films for these festivals or does it just depend?

    • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 8:12 PM #

      They need to pay inorder to get attention and standout. U can do this by getting a actor like say Lindsey Lohan or by clever marketing. But filmmakers have to be savvy to get their films seen.

      • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:13 PM #

        *snort* sorry!

  14. Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:16 PM #

    Hey I was looking online, and saw movies which were released the same week as Black Swan: And Soon the Darkness, Casino Jack, How Do You Know, Rabbit Hole, Tron: Legacy, and Yogi Bear. I only have heard of three and wasn’t impressed by any of these. Plus I think with all the build up of Black Swan, it was bound to do well.

    • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 8:25 PM #

      Exactly, now throw in a indie film like Casino Jack that did not win any film festival awards? Guess how big a hill they have to climb to get people to see that film?

      • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:26 PM #

        I hadn’t even heard of Casino Jack until it was already out of theaters.

        • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 8:33 PM #

          LOL! They were riding on Kevin Spacey being enough to get people into theaters. Did u know Kevin Spacey was the executive producer of Social Network?

          • ozzie20 May 17, 2011 at 8:38 PM #

            Lol, I only found that out when he appeared on award ceramonys red carpet!

          • Lurker May 17, 2011 at 8:38 PM #

            NO that’s interesting.

          • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:45 PM #

            No! Wow, good for him. Ok, off to see if I can stream SN yet….brb.

            • Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:45 PM #

              nope not yet. It’s too new. I’d have to get the DVD.

  15. Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 8:49 PM #

    Ok what indie films were presented at Cannes this year? I’ll go take a peak too.

    • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 9:02 PM #

      American indie films? Well there are not that many this year, most are Foreign. Cannes is like the Olympics of film festivals. But Tree of Life is one.

  16. Lurker May 17, 2011 at 8:50 PM #

    I’m curious about what’s considered Indie, is budget based or is it studio based?

    • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 9:00 PM #

      I will explain that in Part 2 of my article on this topic.

      • Lurker May 17, 2011 at 9:03 PM #

        Ok great! Looking forward to reading it!

  17. Open Book May 17, 2011 at 8:59 PM #

    Everyone- We are nearing the end of the discussion we have five more minutes. Do u have anymore Q.

    • Lurker May 17, 2011 at 9:03 PM #

      All good here!

  18. Littlebells May 17, 2011 at 9:04 PM #

    Not at the moment. Thanks again for such a great article, OB. And thanks for such a great discussion ladies. 🙂 I’ll see you soon!

    (OB, did you happen to catch Freedom Riders? I’ve only watched the first hour. Quite overwhelming.)

    • Open Book May 17, 2011 at 9:08 PM #

      Unfortunately not yet, but I do plan too.

  19. Open Book May 17, 2011 at 9:09 PM #

    Well Everyone Goodnight and thanks for joining us.


    • ozzie20 May 17, 2011 at 9:16 PM #

      Goodnight all! I’ve had fun!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: