Is Shape of Water an indie film? I didn't think $20 million budget films were indie.
The reality is the world of film making has widened well beyond the major studios. That's a good thing for film enthusiasts because we get to see the creativity of a ton more people.
For me, I don't care who wins the awards. I just want to see good movies.
Hi dminches,
"Is
Shape of Water an indie film?"
Technically, yes - it was financed by TSG Entertainment and del Toro's Double Dare You Productions (the latter of which has also produced
Pacific Rim,
Crimson Peak and Netflix's
Trollhunters animated series), and distributed by Fox Searchlight, which specialises in indie, British, art-house and horror films.
Of the other Best Film nominees,
Shape of Water was the fifth costliest to make at $19.5 million, bringing in $126.4 million in box office.
If you rank them by budget, they go from most to least:
Dunkirk - $100 million ($526 million)
The Post - $50 million ($153 million)
Phantom Thread - $35 million ($38.2 million)
Darkest Hour - $30 million ($138 million)
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri - $12 million ($131 million)
Lady Bird - $10 million ($59.4 million)
Get Out - $4.5 million ($255 million)
Call Me By Your Name - $3.5 million ($33.2 million)
If you rank them by return on investment, they go from most to least:
Get Out - 5666%
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri - 1091%
Call Me By Your Name - 948%
Shape of Water - 648%
Lady Bird - 594%
Dunkirk - 526%
Darkest Hour - 460%
The Post - 175%
Phantom Thread - 10%
KeithR said:
jeffrey-t said:
Absolutely agree in terms of the last few years. If you look at the 90's, most winners were blockbusters: Dances with Wolves, Silence of the Lambs, Forest Gump, Unforgiven, Braveheart, Titanic, etc.
the awards have become best indie film in recent years. Sad really.
All the above were major studio films, that's true. But they're the product of an era pre-dating downloading and rampant file-sharing, when big investment made sense because distribution channels were more limited. Now we have on-demand distribution models, not only providing content, but creating their own, producing films to rival major studios who have become somewhat more risk averse. I have a friend who works in development for a major studio, and by the amount of staff turnover and corporate restructuring, it's clear the old model is no longer sustainable. The fact that the three major studio films generated ROI below that of the top five nominees - all of which were indies - lends some credence to this.
Having said that, you only need to go back to the 2015 awards in which five of the eight nominees were all major studio films, with an average budget among the eight of $64 million (
Mad Max, The Martian, and
The Revenant all above $100 million in budget.)
However, I share dminches' sentiments - I don't care how much they were made for, nor which production/distribution channel they originate from, I just want to see great films, and in terms of "Best Film", personally speaking none of this year's nominees transcended their constituent parts.
Best,
853guy