[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/tv/ - Television & Film


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 7473772383282.jpg (31 KB, 458x670)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
Why are indie filmmakers so fucking pretentious?
>>
Because what tards call pretentious is cool and blockheaded pandering to mass appeal gets uninteresting and lame after a while. It does not mean mainstream cinema is bad by default but it's usually the best when it pulls elements from shit people deem pretentious. Notice how the best blockbusters of the 80s-90s were made by either former New Hollywood people or by people pulling from New Hollywood. As well as "pretentious" foreigners. Paul Verhoeven started as an arthouse filmmaker in Netherlands. Milos Forman was making artsy social realism in Czechoslovakia.
Doesn't mean if a movie is "pretentious" it's automatically good btw. But retards who even use that word don't differentiate, just hate things above their level by default.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.