I was wondering what aspect makes the huge difference in quality between Professional movies and independent films. Is it the lighting, camera, camera lense?
Thanks Gdot

All of those are a big factor but the biggest one you left out was money. Money would be the fine line that seperates indie films from studio.

The biggest difference I'd say between indenpendant films (assuming we're talking about like stuff on this site and not 5 million dollar independant films) is the fact that they are lit very well, and shot on film (or in some cases, one hell of a DV cam.)

By professional, I will assume you mean Hollywood or high-budget indie. Those movies look nice due to lighting/camera/cinematographer who knows their stuff, and sound nice due to good location sound/good mixing/great foley and adr and, they typically have great actors, a good director and a well-written script.

You can't really sum up WHY they're better. It's like asking why a sand castle isn't as good as Buckingham Palace.

quote:

It's like asking why a sand castle isn't as good as Buckingham Palace.

Yeah, but Buckingham Palace is so cliched and money-driven these days. The real artists are in sand castles.

Typically, Hollywood directors have more money to work with, so they can afford better equipment and hire more people and big stars and so on. One down side to this, though, is that Hollywood directors are often restrained by conventions that will make that money back. So these films are frequently (not always) more formulaic. If you're talking about quality, I think that's worth considering.

After reading a few of your posts I have an idea for something that might be helpful to you. You're in Oklahoma City, OK? There's probably some kind of community filmmaking resource (like here in Chicago we have the Chicago Filmmaker's Co-op) where you might be able to find really affordable classes that will get you working with decent equipment and meeting other people who want to work on films. Could answer a lot of your questions and also be really fun.

Anyway, good luck.

Okay, so having participated in several sand castle building competitions (and learning just how bad at it I am) I kinda knew those pictures were coming

Better metaphor: it's like asking why a sand castle isn't as good as a gargantuan underground military base with wifi hotspots, geodesic domes, indoor orchards, and an IMAX theater, carved into the rocky lake bed beneath a liquid nitrogen sea on Saturn's moon Titan.

Easy solution: shoot film

quote:

Originally posted by titaniumdoughnut:

You can't really sum up WHY they're better. It's like asking why a sand castle isn't as good as Buckingham Palace.

+ 10,000 points, you now have enough tickets to buy a keychain in New York.

I agree with most of the above but I also think at some point established filmmakers (editors, DP ect.) actually look for more than copy/credit. In other words the independent scene is sort of like a minor leagues; if you prove yourself you get better gigs. So the money isn't just in terms of equipment but access to top caliber talent. And talent always translates to the screen in terms of "differance in Quality".

For example Wes anderson starts with a 15 minute B/w version of Bottle Rocket and eventually through experience and success gets 50 million (budget) to make a The Life Aquatic.

I hear what you're saying but I think Anderson is sort of an exception. He works within the mainstream industry, gets the big financing, but can pretty much do whatever he wants. I think he still has the sensibility of an independent director because of the kind of freedom he has.

I don't know, maybe these categories are sort of outdated. Independent directors aren't necessarily more daring, and "independent" is like a commercial label at this point, and figures like Anderson and Sophia Coppola seem to comnpletely blur the distinctions. On the other hand, money doesn't seem to be the main factor because (like you say) low budget films are always aspiring to be big budget films. So, I don't know.

I guess I just didn't like the assumption built into gdot's question, about Hollywood being a higher quality than a Jarmusch or a Solondz. Youknowmsayin?

The point is "Independent" Filmmakers rarely stay independent. Once the show some talent they get pulled into the mainstream production model.