   At the movies/video shop
  I just finished watching a dvd, you know, the kind that looks good on the shelf and then turn out to be fairly disappointing?This particular movie was called "Blade of the Rose: The Twins Effect 2." Honestly, this movie was like a B-grade love story wrapped in a C-grade fairy tale with a series of B-grade fight scenes (the fight scenes were good, just not good enough for an A). It has Jackie Chan on the cover, even though he's not in a prominent position, and so far I haven't seen a movie with JC (either as the main character, or supporting) that I haven't liked, so I hired it.It seems I should have paid more attention to the back of the cover: "Special appearance by Jackie Chan." Which of course means that he was in a single 3-4 minute fight sequence, which was completely worth it. The rest of the movie fell fairly short.Now, here's a question for anyone who knows: where exactly is the line?You know, the line between "good enough" and "excellent"? Do movie producers take a look at a "good enough" script and say "good enough"? Or do they actually think that all the movies are going to be fantastic? (for the purpose of this post, we'll ignore Uwe Boll's movies)How about other movies that looked great in the ads, but that when watching, you realise that the advertising was the most exciting part of the movie?Shouldn't there be a limit, at least on the advertising? Here's my suggestion: have a bunch of people watch the movie, and assign scores to each explosion, plot twist, fight scene and corny one-liner that the movie has. Then, watch and score the ad, using the scores that were devised during the watching of the movie. If it turns out that the score for the ad (1-2 mins worth of movie footage) has at least a quarter of the score that the movie has, it's time to redo the ad and replace some of the higher scoring footage with some lower scoring footage (yes I know that this will reduce the hype so less people will see it in cinema, and it's a stupid idea from a marketing point of view, so movie producers will never do it). This will hopefully get rid of the feeling that I get when watching some movies that I've already seen half of the good scenes.What do you think? Could this possibly catch on? [smile]   
  Executives (the guys who green light studio pictures) don't look at movies in terms of it's quality. They only look at in terms of how much it will make. In other words, they don't give a rat's behind whether Blade IV sucks, only that they can make a profit from it.  But when movies are initiated by established directors (Spielberg, Lumet, Scorsese, Jackson, etc.), the full intention is to make a fantastic movie.   ;  I used to get really excited about movie trailers around the mid-to-late 90's. Seeing the trailer for Independence Day blew me away. Seeing the trailer for Starship Troopers had me clapping my hands with glee. But now it just doesn't seem to be the same anymore. Nowadays - especially with special effects movies - you probably know that the best parts of the movie are in the trailer, and little of any substance is contained in the movie itself.Nowadays, there seems to be disturbing trend that if there is a movie I am remotely excited about, it ends up getting poor reviews at the box office and ends up being a dud.Nothing lives up to expectation anymore. *sigh*We live in a world motivated by money, and artistic value is a concept long forgotten in today's media-driven society.;Quote:Original post by SandbarWe live in a world motivated by money, and artistic value is a concept long forgotten in today's media-driven society.The latest movie that I've seen that I think was good action wise and artistically was Hero with Jet Li.