I read that article which was indeed very good. However the problem I have with the argument presented is it misleads the reader. The argument presented is akin to saying if a product is promoted and marketed with a large budget, then that is a proof that the product is of bad quality. Can you already see the hole in this argument? Is it not possible that inspite of the big studios, financiers and stars tampering with the story, the end result could be a good movie. The article wants us to believe that if all or any of the above happens then the end result will always be a bad movie, which I disagree with.
Also, the article does not define the criteria on which a movie and be judged as good or bad. Schindlers List, Malcolm X are cited as exmaples of bad movies but the article does not explain why are they bad. I guess they were cited just to create a sensation, perhaps to keep the readers interest in the article. I will not accept that a movie is bad just because it stars big stars or is made by big studios or has a Hollywood heavy-wieght directing it just as I will not agree that Independent or unknown movies that are not advertised are all good.
I can also argue that the article was lobbying for Indie movies just as film magazines lobby for big blockbusters. There is no difference that I can see apart from the scale of lobbying.
