Whenever I go into Blockbuster, I always end up spending a lot of extra time not picking out something to rent, but examining all the titles I've never heard of before.  As an obsessive EW reader, I've skimmed titles and reviews of every film that has hit a theater.  If I haven't heard of it, then it's probably before my time or went straight to DVD.

 Those that fall into the latter group make me feel sad and pensive.  I want to know if the people that worked on them knew that the fruits of their effort would never get an opening weekend gross.  I also wonder what makes them different than movies that did make it to the local AMC.  There are plenty of crappy movies that did, so is there a crappy scale to determine what makes the cut?  And in terms of budget, there are plenty of low-budget films that go on to become hip-indies or hidden-gems.  So again, what's the difference?

This has popped into my mind particularly because these straight to DVD flicks aren't just horror or erotica films with random actors, but now include dramas and rom-coms with big time movie and TV stars too; Michelle Pfeiffer, Paul Rudd, Alec Baldwin, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Amber Tamblyn, Sharon Stone, Timothy Hutton, and Tilda Swinton have all recently been part of movies that never hit a multiplex. When a well known actor is involved, the theory that there is a crap meter studios use to measure a film against becomes all the more plausible.  Rather than tarnish the reputations of bankable stars, it's easier to just pretend like it never happened.

This whole essay could become philosophical, comparing these movies to that tree that falls in the forest but doesn't make a sound because no is around to hear it; BUT that would be incorrect because money is made from these movies and people do watch them.

My curiosity for these films ends 99.9% of the time at picking up the box and reading the blurb on the back*, but many people take them home--maybe the box suggests the movie is really sexy or scary, or maybe its star is sort of famous.  Sometimes I am curious about them, especially when I want to find out if "straight to DVD'"is really a euphemism for "crappy".  Unfortunately for me, these movies sort of are like that philosophical tree in the forest.

*I rented Suburban Girl, a terrible movie starring Sarah Michelle Gellar and Alec Baldwin about a young book editor who finds her way in the world after she has a relationship with an older man.  What probably kept it from theaters, aside from  the poor writing and directing, was that no one really wanted to see Sarah Michelle Gellar and Alec Baldwin together.  If you don't understand why, rent the movie...if you dare.