Off to see Mission Impossible III this afternoon, but first let's check the economics of the  franchise at www.boxofficemojo.com

The first two have made very close to a billion so far on production and marketing costs of only about 240 million, which I think helps explain why we see more lackluster blockbusters than thoughful, clever films.    Films at this level are much more an economic enterprise than a creative one.  

I'm not saying there are no good blockbusters – many are and I for one really enjoy "big" movies.   But I'm often surprised at how superficial/silly/nasty/foolish/weak/ridiculous/etc the big films can be given their huge production budgets and top level direction writing, and acting.  This may best be explained by the fact they are addressing a mass entertainment appetite and looking to capture the maximum number of viewers (economic concerns) rather than making the most creative film they can.   

So, I'll keep feeding the blockbusters my ticket while hoping for more great independent films to make it into wider distribution – perhaps through the exploding online video venues like youtube.com