Appreciate the comments, folks, even those from the discontented customers.

Just a couple of points of clarification: We tweaked the cover type on this piece on Thurs AM because I felt the term "indie cred" was a little misleading. (Cover type is almost always written by editors, not the authors of the stories in question.) The point was largely that Sundance, and the indie-film industry in general, seems to have lost the power to influence the culture beyond the hardest core of film fans. At least when it comes to dramatic feature films. As I could perhaps have discussed more clearly in the article, I see the big documentary wave as something else, driven by larger social and political forces. "Why We Fight" is a pretty good film, but it's just not appealing to the same nerve endings, or quite the same audience, as "Being John Malkovich."

For the reader who thought "Oldboy" was great, or the other one who Netflixed "The Woodsman" and told all his friends about it -- all I can say is, Hey, cool! Liking adventurous movies, and seeking them out, is what this column is all about. Does it matter that 99 of 100 people in America have never heard of either film? Well, it matters in some way. You can decide you don't care about that. And given today's technology I can watch almost anything I want anytime I want. But it does have ramifications: On the micro scale, it effects whether that filmmaker can keep working, and what kind of distribution s/he will get. On the macro scale, it contributes to a climate of Global Entertainment Warming, in which the globe is increasingly dominated by homogeneous products of the Fun Industry.

Sundance has settled into hosting three kinds of films: earnest documentaries (the heart of the festival now, in many ways); arty little films that hardly anyone will end up seeing; and near-Hollywood product that's just there to generate buzz. None of that's a crime, mind you, and all other festivals, from SXSW to Tribeca to Cannes, are largely in the same boat. But, well, isn't that kind of too bad?

Oh, and for the record, I haven't even seen "King Kong."

Goodness, I wasn't aware I had run over anybody's kitten in the column this week.

I appreciate your defense of my honor, though, Elisabeth! And in answer to your very fine question, obviously the Best Picture nominees are very much found Within the Multiplex. Arguably I should just leave that stuff alone. But "Good Night, and Good Luck," "Brokeback Mountain" and "Capote" are all, in some technical sense, independent films. Is that meaningless? Yeah, pretty much so. But still true. (I'm not even sure "Crash" is technically a studio film. I haven't seen it, and can't tell you offhand who produced or distributed it.)

I do want to add a clarification about "Darwin's Nightmare," which was indeed not among the 200 or so films I have seen in the past year. The criticism I referred to has come from environmental activists and aid workers, not primarily from film critics, and I could have said that. As originally written, the paragraph also seemed to imply that I thought it, and "Street Fight," were less worthy of nomination than Werner Herzog's films. Although I'm inclined to suspect that's true, it wasn't what I meant to say, and we've edited the passage to make that clearer.

As to "Brokeback," it's been reviewed by Salon, and it's not my job to revisit or question Stephanie's review (which is as well argued and well written as all her stuff -- hey, I used to be her editor!). Do I believe it would speak well of Hollywood to give its biggest award to this particular picture? Essentially the answer is yes, and I pretty much said that. But since I haven't seen all the Best Picture nominees, I don't have an informed opinion about what film should win on aesthetic grounds. Nor, frankly, do I find that question all that relevant. The Oscars are an important marketing tool for the film biz, and they do possess social significance. But any relationship between those statuettes and good movies is pretty much accidental IMHO.

Thanks, guys. I especially appreciate rosalei's dissection of the "Bleep!?" films, which had a level of specific detail my comments lacked. (I've read a fair amount of popular science, but have no real expertise.) As for the rest of it, I've said my piece. If my bad attitude is causing the destruction of the world, things are worse than I thought.

Next week, though, the world improves! For movie buffs anyway. I'll interview the director of "Sophie Scholl," the genuinely inspiring Oscar-nominated German film about a heroine of the anti-Nazi resistance. There's also "Battle in Heaven," the controversial (i.e., smutty) film from Mexican director Carlos Reygadas, and a low-budget noir called "Love" by the Serbian-born filmmaker Vladan Nikolic (which I haven't seen yet). See you at the movies.