The real indie film perspective backlash to Mark Gill's "sky is falling" speech has officially begun

I just spoke with a couple of non-indiewood/real indie filmmakers who have completely bought into the wisdom expressed in Mark Gill's L.A. Film Festival "sky is falling" speech as being relevant to them & the entire indie spectrum. I tried to convince them that Gill is talking about indiewood stuff; movies made for over $5 million or so, using Hollywood filmmaking skills & experience & featuring Hollywood actors & promoted by Hollywood distribution skills & muscle, & with Hollywood expectations of box office success and not real indie movies ("no" budget, no star, more or less self-distributed in most cases, first or second or third time features, very small crews, etc.), not sure how successful I was at getting my point across. However, not everyone in the indie world believes that Gill's perspective applies to the entire indie film realm. 2 examples:

My post from earlier today.

Anthony Kaufman's post re: the 20 year anniversary of Zeitgeist Films (to whom a gross of $1 million is a success story, as it would be - probably, provide expenses were less than that - to most small businesses in America), just saw it up on the web a minute ago.

This of course is in no way a hard critique of Gill's advice, knowledge or experience (at least that's not what I am doing), I am sure he is well qualified to offer the indiewood sector of the industry advice on improving their business, but the "sky falling" to them is largely irrelevant to real indie films like Yeast, White Lies, Black Sheep, Quiet City, etc. & their makers or indie filmmakers that operate in that realm - the real indie world (also the realm that I & the vast majority of indie filmmakers/real indie filmakers operate in).

- Sujewa