Last year I watched "Casino Royale" and breathed a sigh of relief that the people responsible for the continued coolness of my favourite spy had finally got around to making a good film instead of a series of action set-pieces rounded off with bad one-liners. Of course I'm sure it was visually amazing, but seeing as how I saw it on a seven inch screen inset into the back of someone else's airplane seat, that whole side of things was a bit lost on me.

That got me thinking... those little screens really sort out the wheat from the chaff. In order to make the transition to the tiny screen a film has to maintain your interest with two old fashioned gimmicks: a good plot and good actors. You can't simply fob off in-flight audiences with a load of CGI and pyrotechnics because they just don't look as impressive at that scale.

I propose a new IMDB (smaller, obviously) where people can review films they have only seen on teensy-tiny little screens - airplane / iPod / whatever. More and more often studios are replacing acting ability with beauty and plot with explosions. Maybe they always have done, but we just don't remember the dross.

Either way, this might provide a little bit of pressure in the right direction.
-- wagster, Oct 21 2008

That's sort of the point.
-- wagster, Oct 21 2008


Are you sure this isn't a porn idea?

In a similar vein, watching video with the sound off reveals a great deal about the thinking behind the piece.
-- normzone, Oct 21 2008



random, halfbakery