Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shadowdancer" data-source="post: 1112631" data-attributes="member: 515">Your definition of mainstream seems to be linked to a movie's box office success. That's waaaaay too limiting. As is your requirement that it have an identity separate of the movie. There are lots of mainstream movies, i.e. movies marketed by the studios to a mainstream audience, rather than a niche audience (such as scifi geeks, or horror fans, or people who only like action adventure movies), which fail miserably at the box office. There also are plenty of directors and performers who can attract a wide potential audience to a film -- make it mainstream -- no matter what the film's source or "identity" is prior to the screenings. Steven Spielberg. Tom Hanks. Julia Roberts. Ridley Scott, because of his recent track record, is one of those directors. That's one of the reasons why Matchstick Men should be considered mainstream. Tarantino is another director, even though he's only directed a handful of movies. He's notoriety makes his movies marketable to a wider audience than you would otherwise expect. So do the actors he is able to attract to his movies.</blockquote>