Wen es interessiert, alle anderen bitte weiter scrollen! 
auf eigene Gefahr, der Post ist etwas länger
hier mal zwei interessante Artikel zur, von mir angestoßenen Debatte, ;Gap between Blockbuster and Indie Movies, bevor es von einigen auf eine sehr persönliche und abstruse Bahn gezogen wurde…
Nenne auch keine User mehr, aber einer meinte es sollte nur am Film selber ausgemacht werden ob einem etwas gefällt oder nicht, denn alles andere wäre nicht Zielführend, …totaler Humbug… man kann einmal etwas Systemisch kritisch beäugen, hinterfragen, und/oder eben Einzelwerke… nur sind dies zwei von einander losgelöste Methoden!
Aus dem Artikel
On one side: big-budget studio movies made for broad international audiences and designed to maximize the sheer sonic and visual spectacle afforded by King Kong-sized IMAX screens. On the other: low budget indie features of modest length and technical ambition borne of their makers’ personal sensibilities and aimed (or at least marketed to) niche audiences on streaming sites and VOD. Right now we still consider both of these things “movies”—but for how long?
So und der zweite Artikel der Financial Times, leider kann man den link nicht verlinken da irgendein Tool dazwischen gehauen wurde, der Artikel heißt The unstoppable rise of independent films und ist über Google zu finden
Hier ein paar Auszüge aus dem Artikel.
Observers have been talking about the impending death of the mid-budget movie — films costing $50m to $70m to make, somewhere in between low-budget indie and big studio spectacular — since at least 1997, when Steven Spielberg warned: “It’s kinda like India where there’s an upper class and a poverty class and no middle class. Right now we are squeezing the middle class out of Hollywood and only allowing the $70m-plus films or the $10m-minus films [to be made].”
The middle-budget movie has, more-or-less, disappeared now and the independents, or speciality divisions within the studios, are filling in the gap.”
Wiederum aus einem anderen Artikel…
It wasn’t always this way. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, when Waters and Lynch were doing their most commercially successful work, it was possible to finance — either independently or via or the studio system — mid-budget films (anywhere from $5 million to $60 million) with an adult sensibility. But slowly, quietly, over roughly the decade and a half since the turn of the century, the paradigm shifted. Studios began to make fewer films, betting big on would-be blockbusters, operating under the assumption that large investments equal large returns. Movies that don’t fit into that box (thoughtful dramas, dark comedies, oddball thrillers, experimental efforts) were relegated to the indies, where freedom is greater, but resources are far more limited. As Mad Men’s Matthew Weiner put it, “Something happened that nobody can make a movie between $500,000 and $80 million. That can’t be possible.”