Apparently my comment/question is being analyzed far too thoroughly.
is there something wrong with discussion?
I was, of course, alluding to the fact modern film making by and large is far different than the studio system (and in particular the studio system's far more condensed shooting schedules). Factories churn out product efficiently. Although the scope of modern films has certainly changed, the process and timeline to get them made is several levels of magnitude longer than in the "golden age" (again for the most part).
no question. Many people like Robert Rodriguez have created their own studios as hybrids (working with Hollywood, but via their own studios in far-flung locales).
Others like Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt have their own Hollywood production companies to handle dealing with the Hollywood studios.
But there is no question that few films are made with an under $10m budget and they are considered Indie films
the statistics today show Bollywood makes about 1000+ film annually, but Hollywood only makes half that number and when you consider that during the 1930s-40s that Hollywood was cranking out some 3000-4000 movies a years under a studio system that was comparable to a factory is indeed marked change from how entertainment is created in America now and an example of how corporate America has changed the business landscape geared to massive profits immediately rather than slow and steady profits over a period of time.
