Quote Originally Posted by Lee
But, in 'porn' isnt that what we want the viewer to do?
I mean, we want them to buy the next movie featuring that hot guy they like, not keep watching the same one over and over again.

There should be 'some' auditory stimulation in movies but at the same time, only the minimum amount required like a sound track or just the 'sounds' of the guys going at it. Regards, Lee
Well there is no "correct way" vs. "incorrect way" to make a movie. And I would also say that I completely disagree with that entire statement.

I will suggest that people who proceed to create films like that... ones with *minimally sufficient* qualities... you will basically be making something interchangable, and that looks like everything else. I would suggest as well that such projects will create minimal returns.

For comparative purposes let's look at Horror Movies. There are companies that stamp out inexpensive, very forgettable movies... and there are people who make a little extra effort for their productions. Would you say that Clive Barker flicks not only going to entertain viewers more and earn more money?

Or David Cronenberg? Compare that --- noone may not know what I'm taking about here --- like those really cheap American International Pictures horror flicks in the 1970... like Tales From the Crypt with Joan Collins back in the early 70s.

And you don't need a lot of money either. Using the horror genre - John Waters and John Carpenter made early movies on piggybank budgets.... and people still seek out to rent and watch Polyester or Halloween after all these years.

All I am saying is that producers can take a shaker of Accent spice and shake it over their movie by just doing a few little extras, and it would turn it from something that looks like everything else, to something that would generate some buzz.

Steve