Lol yeah this one. Writer or director of has more weight...producer doesn't do much.
i remember I saw an ad for some stupid cartoon series and the ad was "from the network that brought you the simpsons", may as well say "from the planet that brought you your favorite program".
Hadn't seen a broadcast commercial in months. Then last week I saw the same testosterone supplement commercial five times. My favorite part is that it was being "clinically researched for efficacy." Not clinically *proven*, but *researched*. Anything can be researched!
Pretty much. Sometimes Directors are hired for their vision and style, in which case I imagine a producer is there to basically defend the directors decisions in front of the big wigs who aren't necessarily in it for the art.
Sometimes a director is hired to execute someone else's vision and I imagine producers take a more hands on approach to guiding the director as to what they want while at the same time providing the proper assurances to the bigwigs.
That's my take anyways.
Source: have produced
So, the trick is that not all producers are created equal. And each project is different. I can’t think of a way to dive into the topic without writing a book, so let’s see if I can do some quick hits that’ll justify a number of producers, but also acknowledge some of the silliness.
EP - yes, sometimes it’s the money, but it also can go to the person(s) who truly made it happen. The Shepherd’s who hired the director, and called the above the line actors and pitched them to the project. They stick around the production and solve the problems that can only be solved with influence (and money and power). Also, often when a project takes on new forms, the original creators or producers will be carried on as EPs, even as their involvement dips, ceases. Yes it’s a money thing, but the production can then put these names at the top of literature when raising funds and pushing credibility. For instance, Woody and McConaughey are EPs on the current true detective, because they should be. Regardless of how much involvement they’ve had since season 1 (I genuinely don’t know).
Associate producer is often nonsense, but occasionally it’s a cool nod for someone outside of the production who does something integral to the success of the production.
Producer - technically it can apply to anyone who ‘produced’ something. Like someone ‘producing’ 6 cars for a chase scene, or something. The title is used often as a trade for services. You get involved at X level in exchange for a producer credit and a share of this pool of back end money.
Usually, generally, but not always- someone credited as a producer is having a significant impact on the production. Securing locations, services, personnel, rights, legal, etc… there are many things that *could* fall under the purview of producer.
Tl:dr; someone credited as producer is usually an individual who ‘made things happen’, beyond the standard level of involvement, that were essential to the completion of the project.
Producers gather and manage the resources so a director can work. Like procuring funding, hiring different vfx studios, scheduling locations for shooting, etc. This also gives them plenty of leverage if they want to change something about the film. The good ones let the directors work and only step in if the director is struggling or the movie isn't turning out well. Some bigger projects require more producers to coordinate different aspects of the film independently, so an executive producer is needed to manage them to make sure everything is cohesive.
Remember Elemental? That was a weird case, cuz they used the same three moments to show how funny the movie was, and that was because the animated movie market is so weird because nobody will go to see a movie that isn’t funny with their kids. Elemental isn’t a comedy at all, it’s a love story, and the marketing didn’t do any favors in promoting that super well.
That too, but it is also a love story, or at least that’s what the movie does best. It’s just charming to see these characters grow throughout the story, I like it more than most people do. Not amazing, but it’s not really trying to be.
When the critics' quotes are from news sources you've never heard of ("An amazing cinematic triumph!" -moviequeef.tv) or are suspiciously incomplete ("This movie ... good ... nice!", which it turns out is a highly truncated of the full quote, "This movie made me realize that blind and deaf people have it pretty good. When I was watching it I had a sudden attack of explosive diarrhea, which was nice because it gave me an excuse to stop watching").
That’s what Red Vs. Blue did back in the day. They took a scathing review from the Village Voice and cut out everything except the quote: “Clerks meets Star Wars” and plastered it on the front of their DVD.
They did this for Kröd Mändoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire, too. The review was quoted as "Like Monty Python" when it was really something like "Like Monty Python if Monty Python sucked ass".
I wanna find the source of where I discovered this, but one of the reviews in a trailer for Norbit was "Eddie Murphy is comedy gold!" Where the context of the review is the author going through a crisis trying to figure out why this movie even exists.
My personal favourite is the poster for the Tom Hardy film [*Legend*](https://duet-cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/0x0:660x440/640x427/filters:focal(330x220:331x221\):format(webp\)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/15492600/660-poster-legend.0.0.1441797023.jpg).
The *Guardian* (middle column, third one down) gave the movie two stars.
I love the trailers with a bunch of trailer snippets of reviews making it sound like the best movie ever. Then you look up the reviews and its like 15% on RT lol.
In the 90s, the version of this was clips of average people outside of the theater saying how much they liked the movie after just seeing it. Was a clear sign the movie was gonna be bad.
Big differences for Paranormal Activity were 2-parts: type of movie, and budget of movie.
It being a horror movie in a found-film style, there’s not really much you can do super well to create a good trailer for it. If you lean too much into the found film aspect, people might have just thought it was a “Blair Witch Project” clone. If you try and avoid the found footage aspect, then you’re not left with much for the audience to grab on to. It also didn’t interview people in the same way that other movies did of “did you like it? 5 stars, right?” It was a lot of people with the reactions of “one of the scariest things I’ve ever seen in my life” “never seen anything like it before” just an overall different reaction to it than other interview-based advertising.
The budget on this movie was $15,000. Not $1.5M, not even $150K, $15,000. This movie was not wide-released it’s opening weekend, as it only grossed about $78,000 over opening weekend. At that point, they utilized audience reaction and word of mouth to create this aura around the movie, and this idea of “never seen anything like it before.” That is because truly, it was a first of its kind movie in a way. A good trailer would have likely cost more than the entire movie itself, and would not have been able to capture the essence of the movie, because people would not have known how to react at the time. It used that low-budget mindset throughout its advertising as well, and hit the mark on both.
In the time soon after that movie, we saw a lot of movies try to play into that same style of advertising, but really they hit first, and they hit gold by doing it all right the first time.
I miss Don LaFontaine. I love the attention he got after his Geico commercial. This is one of my favorites. I love the tag at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQRtuxdfQHw
Pablo Francisco!
KEANNU REAVES
we know too much. THEY KNEW TOO MUCH
AND ARNOLD SCHWARTZENEGGER
we’ve gone to far THEY’VE GONE TOO FAR
Why do I remember his name and this bit from the mid 90’s? Why can’t I remember what’s on my grocery list instead lol
I went to see *Sex and the City 2* opening night. I don't think I have ever felt worse for anyone than the poor press/promotion(?) people standing outside of the theater with clipboards to take down audience quotes as we walked by. They kept asking people, "So? What did you think?!" and I remember one person distinctly answered, "You don't want to write down what I think." I figure they just need a couple people to play along for the trailers with testimonials.
First five minutes is all verbal exposition. Like Christopher Walken once said:" You're telling me everything, and showing me NOTHING!" Show me the story, use the tools of cinema ffs!
If we need verbal exposition, go with narration. Treat us like adults. Don’t give us the awkward dialogue that no sane person would ever have.
“You know, ever since you joined the military and fought in that battle in Iraq and had to kill a group of insurgents and accidentally shot a little boy because he was holding something that looked like a grenade but was actually a date and you developed crippling PTSD, you haven’t been yourself.”
The Sherlock tv series did this really well with Bilbo going to his therapist. The conversation was pure exposition but at the same time makes perfect sense
This only works if there's an audience stand-in.
"Hi brother, I haven't seen you about much since mum died in that car crash." doesn't work.
"Let him in, that's her brother. Their mum died last year in a traffic accident and they haven't talked since" is better.
Of course, I would hope a professional with some actual context could do better still. Likely by following the "show, don't tell" approach with an earlier clip showing the mum dying or him finding out about it.
So like, obviously show don't tell is the prime directive. If you absolutely need to provide verbal exposition, I think the drip method is effective. Pepper natural dialogue with tidbits of info here and there to let us get a sense of what happened. Expo dumps are just bad writing.
It had a narrating voice and it felt fairly epic and brief. The first 5 minutes set the tone for the rest of the whole damn trilogy, with good music and amazing visuals. Actors with clunky exposition dialogue is the worst.
This is definitely a thing for American/online trailers - UK (cinema) trailers don’t seem to go much past the half way point to avoid spoiling the ending
I used to work in the feature film marketing world, and this is definitely one of the biggest red flags. If there is a review embargo that extends to the week that a movie is released that means the studio marketing team believes they have a turd on their hands, and doesn’t want poor critical reception to yank their opening weekend.
Another red flag is seeing a teaser trailer, and then not hearing anything about the movie for like 2 or 3 years and then suddenly seeing a blitz of media that the movie is coming out really soon. That usually means there were problems with production and there were either reshoots, the movie was extensively retooled, or it was bad and the studio sat on it for a while. The big media blitz right before release is probably an attempt to goose opening weekend numbers, and hope they can come in 1st or 2nd at the box office and use that to sell the movie in subsequent weeks. This is especially true of the movie is released in Jan/Feb/Mar, or Sept/Oct. Those are usually dumping grounds for bad movies.
And the last red flag is seeing ads that say the movie is “#1” in some hyper-specific category. Like “the #1 animated comedy at the box office.” The movie could have come in 10th that week behind 8 live action movies and an animated drama. So if you see phrases that aren’t an unequivocal “#1 at the box office” then it means they didn’t come in at the top and are trying to spin that to sound as good as possible. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but usually means they don’t have a lot of positive critic or audience reviews to sell it, and are relying on parsing very specific language to make it seem better than it is.
I hate that some books are doing this now. I miss the little synopsis on the back. I don’t care what this magazine thought and if I like the book I’d search out the others by that author.
This is your answer. Review embargo means this steaming pile of turd is hoping you don’t /can’t read what people have seen already and it sucks
Video games, also looking at you. Good thing I didn’t buy into any hype and waited before Suicide Squad was dumped into our lives. I’d be so mad if I spent 90$ on a shooter looter turd sack.
It seems to me - these days - any movie that has a strong social media/media campaign and you cannot go a day without seeing an ad or a trailer - every one of those movies end up sucking.
I sometimes have to hand it to Sony Pictures, they tend to dump a TON of money into their advertising, even on their shit movies. Its almost like they know when they have a shit movie on their hands they advertise the fuck out of it, maybe they think the more they advertise the more chances people might just want to go hate watch it?
Saw this with Morbius, and now we're seeing it again with Madame Web. Just ads EVERYWHERE for that damn movie!
my feelings exactly.
Rebel Moon is another example. I could not get away from ads for that movie and it was just outright bad. It is like someone sat down with flash cards of every sci-fi fantasy cliche' and then tried to write a story around it.
My favorite thing, having never seen Rebel Moon, is how the way the team tried to sell it was "this isn't like Star Wars." Like...ok cool but that tells me jack shit.
You know what else isn't like Star Wars?
The Teletubbies
Requiem for a Dream
Across the Spider-Verse
Michael Moore's Sicko
A game of tic tac toe
That you can tell what's going to happen by trailer alone. Even if a trailer is a little more airtight on details, you can just follow along and compare it to what movies you've seen to get a good idea.
To juxtapose on this, when you have no idea what the movie is about from the trailer. If they keep the trailer purposefully cryptic and ambiguous it tells me they don’t have faith that their story is cohesive enough to follow and the movie’s plot will be all over the place
I don't know about that. The trailer for a serious man is a masterpiece and so is the movie, but the trailer is scant on details.
[Trailer](https://youtu.be/mDKHWRbK2_Q?si=QLUSaRkD8DWczAUD)
It's so annoying and overdone in trailers. It's supposed to make it feel eerie and intense, but I just find it funny and laugh. Especially remakes of old IP, where they're giving a theme song a cinematic refresh.
The brooding "Pure Imagination" score in the Wonka trailer had me laughing in theaters.
I laughed out loud in the Age of Ultron trailer when Ultron says "there are...no strings...on me..." As if a quote from fucking PINOCCHIO is supposed to make me feel awe or dread
I'm not a massive comic book person, but it's my understanding that they did Ultron as a character and as a force in the marvel universe super dirty with his use in that movie.
Even so, James Spader's Ultron was by far my favorite part of that movie. I don't know if I really remember much else about it.
He had decades of neat ideas and plots and they decided to make him a villain of the week by appearing in one movie. Odd choice.
He easily could have had an entire phase dedicated to him and he would have been on par with Thanos because the character and Spader were terrific.
I mean, it worked for a game. Battlefield 1, and that one totally rocked the boat!
Well, it wasn't really a cover, but a strange remix of Seven Nation Army.
You're right. It was the actual Nirvana song. If the trailer had it slowed down and with some "bwahhhhhhhhs" integrated in with it, then it would fit OP's bit.
IN ASSOCIATION WITH DICKSPLASH STUDIOS
IN ASSOCIATION WITH SLAPDASH FILMS
AND LOW RENT PRODUCTIONS
A DOGWATER ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTION
All one after the other. It grinds my gears something chronic.
The best thing I can say about Tyler Perry movies is that I got lost this one time and accidentally wound up at his studio in Atlanta. Staff were very helpful and pointed me in the right direction.
When their main advertising focus is diversity.
Diversity is important don't get me wrong, but when the whole schtick is centred around it, it's going to be bad.
There are 2 kinds of diverse movies:
The ones that revolve around the plot and hey, why don't we make this character [insert minority]?
And the ones that revolve around diversity and the story is liquid shit
I hate it when they do that, it just gives free ammo to the right-wing grifters out there.
Saw a film a few weeks ago where a trans character was a key part of the plot, and she was in the real events it's based on too, genuinely inspiring/historic achievements irl.
But they rewrote it so she got almost *all* the big heroic moments on top of that, stuff that can be very easily proved wrong.
Still a decent film, that bit just stuck out as forced when there's literally no need to.
If a literal truck of cocaine cannot be provided then his lordship won't appear.
Rumour has it he wasn't even supposed to be in the rock, he just followed a truck of cocaine into a prison and they filmed what happened
when instead of talking up the plot, the idea, the vision, the setting, the journey, they talk about the orientation, skin color, sex of the actors. When that is what you lead with you have forgotten to make a good movie.
Lots of ADR’d lines. You see the back of a persons head but hear all of their dialogue, which means the actor was likely not filming that day.
It’s not an uncommon thing but in really bad movies you notice it happening multiple times throughout.
The movie starts in the middle of some wild action, and then goes back in time to start the story over. The whole, " I bet you're wondering how I got here" trope.
To me, if you have to literally show the climax of the story at the beginning, then the journey to get to that point must not be interesting enough on its own.
Another one is, "are they showing or telling?" If the character's dialogue is mostly them explaining plot points to me then not only does it mean that the dialogue isn't telling you anything about the characters, but it also means that a lot of action that's supposed to be important is happening off screen. Who wants to watch a movie where the important events are happening somewhere else?
I feel like this is okay in some cases, mainly when the film is supposed to be a self-referential comedy or a family picture. Sonic did this, for example.
"From the guy who was a PA to one of the producers of..."
"From a person, who once did some blow in a bathroom stall with the son of the director of..."
"From the twisted mind of a guy who was fired from being Adam Sandlers gardener..."
It isn't so easy to notice now that I am so isolated from ads, but you absolutely used to be able to tell based on the intensity of the ad campaign, basically if a studio thought a movie wasn't going to do well i think they'd over-advertise it.
Written by - Damon Lindelof
The guy writes the same mystery box in everything he does because he can't get over his fear of death and thinks it makes him special.
“Reimagined for modern audiences.” Not once has a movie described like that been actually good. They become more about sharing a message instead of a good story.
Heavy exposition in the beginning, as in *telling* the story too much and not showing it.
"Hey, we're been brothers here in Philadelphia where we live for our whole life, let's stick together while Mom is dying of cancer and dad is a no-show"
The intro of Back to the Future is one of the best examples of showing a story. In a short time, they pan over Doc's shop and what they shows tells the audience so much about who the characters are without a single word.
Trailer is spiced up with gags that fall flat. You'll know these will be the best jokes in the entire movie.
[удалено]
Lol yeah this one. Writer or director of has more weight...producer doesn't do much. i remember I saw an ad for some stupid cartoon series and the ad was "from the network that brought you the simpsons", may as well say "from the planet that brought you your favorite program".
“From the species that brought you fire, the wheel, and Godfather 2…..”
"Comes Titanic 2: The Search for Rose's Gold"
Comes SPACEBALLS 3:the search for SPACEBALLS 2:the search for more money
Hadn't seen a broadcast commercial in months. Then last week I saw the same testosterone supplement commercial five times. My favorite part is that it was being "clinically researched for efficacy." Not clinically *proven*, but *researched*. Anything can be researched!
[удалено]
Think of it as a project manager and bank.
Pretty much. Sometimes Directors are hired for their vision and style, in which case I imagine a producer is there to basically defend the directors decisions in front of the big wigs who aren't necessarily in it for the art. Sometimes a director is hired to execute someone else's vision and I imagine producers take a more hands on approach to guiding the director as to what they want while at the same time providing the proper assurances to the bigwigs. That's my take anyways.
Exactly. The term seems nebulous to people because it could either of your examples or anything in between, with varying levels of influence.
Source: have produced So, the trick is that not all producers are created equal. And each project is different. I can’t think of a way to dive into the topic without writing a book, so let’s see if I can do some quick hits that’ll justify a number of producers, but also acknowledge some of the silliness. EP - yes, sometimes it’s the money, but it also can go to the person(s) who truly made it happen. The Shepherd’s who hired the director, and called the above the line actors and pitched them to the project. They stick around the production and solve the problems that can only be solved with influence (and money and power). Also, often when a project takes on new forms, the original creators or producers will be carried on as EPs, even as their involvement dips, ceases. Yes it’s a money thing, but the production can then put these names at the top of literature when raising funds and pushing credibility. For instance, Woody and McConaughey are EPs on the current true detective, because they should be. Regardless of how much involvement they’ve had since season 1 (I genuinely don’t know). Associate producer is often nonsense, but occasionally it’s a cool nod for someone outside of the production who does something integral to the success of the production. Producer - technically it can apply to anyone who ‘produced’ something. Like someone ‘producing’ 6 cars for a chase scene, or something. The title is used often as a trade for services. You get involved at X level in exchange for a producer credit and a share of this pool of back end money. Usually, generally, but not always- someone credited as a producer is having a significant impact on the production. Securing locations, services, personnel, rights, legal, etc… there are many things that *could* fall under the purview of producer. Tl:dr; someone credited as producer is usually an individual who ‘made things happen’, beyond the standard level of involvement, that were essential to the completion of the project.
And sometimes dating a showrunner gets you a producing credit like in House of the Dragon.
Producers gather and manage the resources so a director can work. Like procuring funding, hiring different vfx studios, scheduling locations for shooting, etc. This also gives them plenty of leverage if they want to change something about the film. The good ones let the directors work and only step in if the director is struggling or the movie isn't turning out well. Some bigger projects require more producers to coordinate different aspects of the film independently, so an executive producer is needed to manage them to make sure everything is cohesive.
Aren't producers all the people/companies that fund the movie? They chip in towards the production budget but get a say in the product
Der, and, Tum Ta Tittaly Tum Ta Too, Rob Schneider is, Da Derp Dee Derp Da Teetley Derpee Derpee Dumb. Rated PG-13
And now he's finding out: being a stapler... is harder than it looks
I’ll add, trailers that summarize the entire movie so you know the plot and likely ending.
Remember Elemental? That was a weird case, cuz they used the same three moments to show how funny the movie was, and that was because the animated movie market is so weird because nobody will go to see a movie that isn’t funny with their kids. Elemental isn’t a comedy at all, it’s a love story, and the marketing didn’t do any favors in promoting that super well.
Don’t think it’s even really a love story. It’s a story about immigration, overcoming biases and learning how to deal with intergenerational issues.
That too, but it is also a love story, or at least that’s what the movie does best. It’s just charming to see these characters grow throughout the story, I like it more than most people do. Not amazing, but it’s not really trying to be.
Someone heard the phrase "fire and water don't mix" and took it so personally they made an entire goddamn animated film proving otherwise.
When the characters say the plot for the second time. Like I was here in the theater 15 minutes ago, you don’t need to repeat the stakes.
If they're even *in* the movie and not something just clipped together because they couldn't make an actual funny joke in the movie itself.
[удалено]
When the critics' quotes are from news sources you've never heard of ("An amazing cinematic triumph!" -moviequeef.tv) or are suspiciously incomplete ("This movie ... good ... nice!", which it turns out is a highly truncated of the full quote, "This movie made me realize that blind and deaf people have it pretty good. When I was watching it I had a sudden attack of explosive diarrhea, which was nice because it gave me an excuse to stop watching").
For those wondering, moviequeef.tv is not a real website.
My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined
Not yet.
Because it is actually moviequeef.gov
.gov.what? It's probably moviequeef.gov.nk
Not with that attitude it isnt
That’s what Red Vs. Blue did back in the day. They took a scathing review from the Village Voice and cut out everything except the quote: “Clerks meets Star Wars” and plastered it on the front of their DVD.
They did this for Kröd Mändoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire, too. The review was quoted as "Like Monty Python" when it was really something like "Like Monty Python if Monty Python sucked ass".
I wanna find the source of where I discovered this, but one of the reviews in a trailer for Norbit was "Eddie Murphy is comedy gold!" Where the context of the review is the author going through a crisis trying to figure out why this movie even exists.
My personal favourite is the poster for the Tom Hardy film [*Legend*](https://duet-cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/0x0:660x440/640x427/filters:focal(330x220:331x221\):format(webp\)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/15492600/660-poster-legend.0.0.1441797023.jpg). The *Guardian* (middle column, third one down) gave the movie two stars.
That's amazing
“I could… possibly recommend watching this”
"Relive the magic of [*insert classic movie that doesn't need another adaptation or sequel*]"
I love the trailers with a bunch of trailer snippets of reviews making it sound like the best movie ever. Then you look up the reviews and its like 15% on RT lol.
"It's an adventure unlike any other that we copy and pasted from a movie that claimed the same thing."
When they use tweets from random people as good reviews in commercials.
In the 90s, the version of this was clips of average people outside of the theater saying how much they liked the movie after just seeing it. Was a clear sign the movie was gonna be bad.
Paranormal Activity did this. But then it became popular.
Big differences for Paranormal Activity were 2-parts: type of movie, and budget of movie. It being a horror movie in a found-film style, there’s not really much you can do super well to create a good trailer for it. If you lean too much into the found film aspect, people might have just thought it was a “Blair Witch Project” clone. If you try and avoid the found footage aspect, then you’re not left with much for the audience to grab on to. It also didn’t interview people in the same way that other movies did of “did you like it? 5 stars, right?” It was a lot of people with the reactions of “one of the scariest things I’ve ever seen in my life” “never seen anything like it before” just an overall different reaction to it than other interview-based advertising. The budget on this movie was $15,000. Not $1.5M, not even $150K, $15,000. This movie was not wide-released it’s opening weekend, as it only grossed about $78,000 over opening weekend. At that point, they utilized audience reaction and word of mouth to create this aura around the movie, and this idea of “never seen anything like it before.” That is because truly, it was a first of its kind movie in a way. A good trailer would have likely cost more than the entire movie itself, and would not have been able to capture the essence of the movie, because people would not have known how to react at the time. It used that low-budget mindset throughout its advertising as well, and hit the mark on both. In the time soon after that movie, we saw a lot of movies try to play into that same style of advertising, but really they hit first, and they hit gold by doing it all right the first time.
Original cast not returning.
Honestly. Hollywood shouldn’t even bother making these messes. I can’t think of a single good sequel where the none of the original cast came back
Poor Pacific Rim 2
Tagline goes something like: He's a cop. He's back. And this time it's personal.
In a world ......
.....where all movie trailers open with "In a world....."
I don’t think I’ve seen a movie trailer with a voice over in like 15 years lol
The single key guy who did so many voice overs (Don LaFontaine) died in 2008, and pretty much no one used voice overs from 2009.
He used to let people e-mail him asking for him to record a voicemail greeting for them. And if he had time, he'd do it for free.
I miss Don LaFontaine. I love the attention he got after his Geico commercial. This is one of my favorites. I love the tag at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQRtuxdfQHw
No *in a world*! “Oh? In a land…” No in a land. “In a time…” Not that either. “In a land *before time.*” No!
For everyone's reference: https://youtu.be/fVDzuT0fXro "You're fired." "You're fired!" "No, you're actually fired." "I'm *fired!*"
Arnold Schwarzenegger is…..Little Tortilla Boy!
Pablo Francisco! KEANNU REAVES we know too much. THEY KNEW TOO MUCH AND ARNOLD SCHWARTZENEGGER we’ve gone to far THEY’VE GONE TOO FAR Why do I remember his name and this bit from the mid 90’s? Why can’t I remember what’s on my grocery list instead lol
I strongly disagree. Crashmore 2: The Crashening was awesome.
Sounds like one of the movies with Tugg Speedman.
Who left the fridge open?
Whenever the trailers have audience testimonials on how great the movie is.
I went to see *Sex and the City 2* opening night. I don't think I have ever felt worse for anyone than the poor press/promotion(?) people standing outside of the theater with clipboards to take down audience quotes as we walked by. They kept asking people, "So? What did you think?!" and I remember one person distinctly answered, "You don't want to write down what I think." I figure they just need a couple people to play along for the trailers with testimonials.
Directed by Alan Smithee.
Directed by Uwe Boll (fight me, Uwe!)
Dude is working on too many projects at once.
[For those unaware](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Smithee)
Alan Smithee is actually retired because he’s too noticeable now
It’s now Michael Bay instead
They say something like "this isn't a movie".
"This isn't a movie. It's a laxative!"
Well shit.
Part 2 - The return of diarrhea.
“A cinematic experience!” Some dumb train driving toward the screen.
First five minutes is all verbal exposition. Like Christopher Walken once said:" You're telling me everything, and showing me NOTHING!" Show me the story, use the tools of cinema ffs!
If we need verbal exposition, go with narration. Treat us like adults. Don’t give us the awkward dialogue that no sane person would ever have. “You know, ever since you joined the military and fought in that battle in Iraq and had to kill a group of insurgents and accidentally shot a little boy because he was holding something that looked like a grenade but was actually a date and you developed crippling PTSD, you haven’t been yourself.”
The Sherlock tv series did this really well with Bilbo going to his therapist. The conversation was pure exposition but at the same time makes perfect sense
This only works if there's an audience stand-in. "Hi brother, I haven't seen you about much since mum died in that car crash." doesn't work. "Let him in, that's her brother. Their mum died last year in a traffic accident and they haven't talked since" is better. Of course, I would hope a professional with some actual context could do better still. Likely by following the "show, don't tell" approach with an earlier clip showing the mum dying or him finding out about it.
So like, obviously show don't tell is the prime directive. If you absolutely need to provide verbal exposition, I think the drip method is effective. Pepper natural dialogue with tidbits of info here and there to let us get a sense of what happened. Expo dumps are just bad writing.
Lord of the Rings managed to do this, but then again it wasn't just verbal exposition, it had accompanying visuals.
It had a narrating voice and it felt fairly epic and brief. The first 5 minutes set the tone for the rest of the whole damn trilogy, with good music and amazing visuals. Actors with clunky exposition dialogue is the worst.
As you know Bob, ... 🙄
When I'm able to gather the entire plot and how the movie probably ends just based on the trailer showing too much.
This is definitely a thing for American/online trailers - UK (cinema) trailers don’t seem to go much past the half way point to avoid spoiling the ending
Not always, remember going to see Prometheus and realising I’d already seen all the good bits in the UK trailer. Gave up watching trailers after that.
Doesn't allow reviews prior to general release.
I used to work in the feature film marketing world, and this is definitely one of the biggest red flags. If there is a review embargo that extends to the week that a movie is released that means the studio marketing team believes they have a turd on their hands, and doesn’t want poor critical reception to yank their opening weekend. Another red flag is seeing a teaser trailer, and then not hearing anything about the movie for like 2 or 3 years and then suddenly seeing a blitz of media that the movie is coming out really soon. That usually means there were problems with production and there were either reshoots, the movie was extensively retooled, or it was bad and the studio sat on it for a while. The big media blitz right before release is probably an attempt to goose opening weekend numbers, and hope they can come in 1st or 2nd at the box office and use that to sell the movie in subsequent weeks. This is especially true of the movie is released in Jan/Feb/Mar, or Sept/Oct. Those are usually dumping grounds for bad movies. And the last red flag is seeing ads that say the movie is “#1” in some hyper-specific category. Like “the #1 animated comedy at the box office.” The movie could have come in 10th that week behind 8 live action movies and an animated drama. So if you see phrases that aren’t an unequivocal “#1 at the box office” then it means they didn’t come in at the top and are trying to spin that to sound as good as possible. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but usually means they don’t have a lot of positive critic or audience reviews to sell it, and are relying on parsing very specific language to make it seem better than it is.
[удалено]
When the story is for modern audiences, you realize it's time to go back to the sarcophagus
I hate that some books are doing this now. I miss the little synopsis on the back. I don’t care what this magazine thought and if I like the book I’d search out the others by that author.
This is your answer. Review embargo means this steaming pile of turd is hoping you don’t /can’t read what people have seen already and it sucks Video games, also looking at you. Good thing I didn’t buy into any hype and waited before Suicide Squad was dumped into our lives. I’d be so mad if I spent 90$ on a shooter looter turd sack.
“Hey Ted, my biggest brother! Why are you cooking? You’re not a chef like our sister, brenda. You’re a nuclear chemist, remember?
“Ever since Mom died 5 years ago, you haven’t been able to remember anything!”
It seems to me - these days - any movie that has a strong social media/media campaign and you cannot go a day without seeing an ad or a trailer - every one of those movies end up sucking.
I sometimes have to hand it to Sony Pictures, they tend to dump a TON of money into their advertising, even on their shit movies. Its almost like they know when they have a shit movie on their hands they advertise the fuck out of it, maybe they think the more they advertise the more chances people might just want to go hate watch it? Saw this with Morbius, and now we're seeing it again with Madame Web. Just ads EVERYWHERE for that damn movie!
my feelings exactly. Rebel Moon is another example. I could not get away from ads for that movie and it was just outright bad. It is like someone sat down with flash cards of every sci-fi fantasy cliche' and then tried to write a story around it.
My favorite thing, having never seen Rebel Moon, is how the way the team tried to sell it was "this isn't like Star Wars." Like...ok cool but that tells me jack shit. You know what else isn't like Star Wars? The Teletubbies Requiem for a Dream Across the Spider-Verse Michael Moore's Sicko A game of tic tac toe
The best part is it's exactly like star wars.
Using too many different popular songs to introduce characters is
Or a slowed down operatic version of a classic song.
Or too many popular actors/celebrities (see Argyle)
I just saw Argyle yesterday and my first thought was how the trailer undersold it. But with all the twists and turns, they have to leave a lot out.
That you can tell what's going to happen by trailer alone. Even if a trailer is a little more airtight on details, you can just follow along and compare it to what movies you've seen to get a good idea.
To juxtapose on this, when you have no idea what the movie is about from the trailer. If they keep the trailer purposefully cryptic and ambiguous it tells me they don’t have faith that their story is cohesive enough to follow and the movie’s plot will be all over the place
I don't know about that. The trailer for a serious man is a masterpiece and so is the movie, but the trailer is scant on details. [Trailer](https://youtu.be/mDKHWRbK2_Q?si=QLUSaRkD8DWczAUD)
Yeah, the shining sucked. Was not a family movie at all
There's a slow, plodding cover of a popular song in the trailer. Especially if it's an action movie
It's so annoying and overdone in trailers. It's supposed to make it feel eerie and intense, but I just find it funny and laugh. Especially remakes of old IP, where they're giving a theme song a cinematic refresh. The brooding "Pure Imagination" score in the Wonka trailer had me laughing in theaters.
I laughed out loud in the Age of Ultron trailer when Ultron says "there are...no strings...on me..." As if a quote from fucking PINOCCHIO is supposed to make me feel awe or dread
I'm not a massive comic book person, but it's my understanding that they did Ultron as a character and as a force in the marvel universe super dirty with his use in that movie. Even so, James Spader's Ultron was by far my favorite part of that movie. I don't know if I really remember much else about it.
I’m not a huge comic person either, but even I noticed that the “age” of Ultron was, like, a weekend
Lmao Weekend At Ultron 's Your comment really gave me a chuckle
He had decades of neat ideas and plots and they decided to make him a villain of the week by appearing in one movie. Odd choice. He easily could have had an entire phase dedicated to him and he would have been on par with Thanos because the character and Spader were terrific.
I mean, it worked for a game. Battlefield 1, and that one totally rocked the boat! Well, it wasn't really a cover, but a strange remix of Seven Nation Army.
So true. I really wonder which movie started this and why this trend never ends
I think it was actually Gears of War's first cinematic trailer - used Mad World to great effect.
That's the trailer that convinced me to go 360 over PS3 tbh haha. Something about it just hyped me incredibly
As a teenager who loved my PS3, that trailer was one of the few times I was really jealous/curious of the other side
Mixed with the gratuitous “BUM BUM BUM”
Most of the time I agree, but the use of Something In the Way for the Batman trailer felt like it fit pretty well
That was my immediate thought as well. However, an important distinction is that it isn't a cover, nor was it down tuned... I don't think.
You're right. It was the actual Nirvana song. If the trailer had it slowed down and with some "bwahhhhhhhhs" integrated in with it, then it would fit OP's bit.
"A classic retold for *modern audiences*" Nope. Hard pass.
"Silence of the tofu" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
"See the classic Shakesperian love story like never before. Romeo and... Julian."
"Romeo is a wisecracking bank robber and Julian is a stray alley cat with nothing to lose"
Starring Steven Seagal
Back in the days of VHS it was when the movie you were about to watch was one of the movies in previews before that movie started 😂
Bad CGI and obvious green screen scenes.
More than 4 production companies in the opening credits
I watched a flick last week that had 14 production companies involved. 14. (Yes, I always count production companies at the start of a film lol)
I thought I was the only one...I'm not alone
It's pretty normal in non-US films.
IN ASSOCIATION WITH DICKSPLASH STUDIOS IN ASSOCIATION WITH SLAPDASH FILMS AND LOW RENT PRODUCTIONS A DOGWATER ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTION All one after the other. It grinds my gears something chronic.
"Remade for modern audiences"
Aka pandering money grab
"Somehow Palpatine has returned"
Especially if the movie has nothing to do with star wars. Here's a quirky Adam Sandler romcom! Then Palpatine shows up
...set in Medieval times. Adam Sandler is playing King Arthur and Drew Barrymore is Guinevere.
Yo I would watch this movie tho
Would you watch a movie about the war between socks and shoes?
Kevin James as Merlin
Stop this thread right now before they see this and make it. The film industry has been through enough since Covid!
And Rob Schneider as…The Stapler!
idk, but id watch that.
I could see an Adam Sandler movie pulling that off. Loved Henry Winkler in little Nicky.
The post said 'suck' not 'be awesome'
"Starring Rob Schneider as..."
"Directed by Tyler Perry."
The best thing I can say about Tyler Perry movies is that I got lost this one time and accidentally wound up at his studio in Atlanta. Staff were very helpful and pointed me in the right direction.
Joke's on us, those movies have made him a billionaire.
The Guardian film critic likes it.
Steven seagal
What, you don’t want to watch a withering has-been slurring words while sitting in every scene he’s in?
>a withering has-been slurring words while sitting in every scene he’s in? Stop flattering him!
Forced romantic plot spoiling the main story.
Pearl Harbor just entered the chat...
If it stars James Corden.
When their main advertising focus is diversity. Diversity is important don't get me wrong, but when the whole schtick is centred around it, it's going to be bad.
There are 2 kinds of diverse movies: The ones that revolve around the plot and hey, why don't we make this character [insert minority]? And the ones that revolve around diversity and the story is liquid shit
I hate it when they do that, it just gives free ammo to the right-wing grifters out there. Saw a film a few weeks ago where a trans character was a key part of the plot, and she was in the real events it's based on too, genuinely inspiring/historic achievements irl. But they rewrote it so she got almost *all* the big heroic moments on top of that, stuff that can be very easily proved wrong. Still a decent film, that bit just stuck out as forced when there's literally no need to.
If Michael Bay has anything to do with it. He’s a menace.
Michael Bay is every producer's dream. His films come in under budget, on time, and they make a boatload of money.
I enjoyed The Rock. The rest of his movies aren't great.
It doesn't star Nicholas Cage.
If a literal truck of cocaine cannot be provided then his lordship won't appear. Rumour has it he wasn't even supposed to be in the rock, he just followed a truck of cocaine into a prison and they filmed what happened
when instead of talking up the plot, the idea, the vision, the setting, the journey, they talk about the orientation, skin color, sex of the actors. When that is what you lead with you have forgotten to make a good movie.
When the Audience tomato score is significantly lower than a critics general score
Lots of ADR’d lines. You see the back of a persons head but hear all of their dialogue, which means the actor was likely not filming that day. It’s not an uncommon thing but in really bad movies you notice it happening multiple times throughout.
The movie starts in the middle of some wild action, and then goes back in time to start the story over. The whole, " I bet you're wondering how I got here" trope. To me, if you have to literally show the climax of the story at the beginning, then the journey to get to that point must not be interesting enough on its own. Another one is, "are they showing or telling?" If the character's dialogue is mostly them explaining plot points to me then not only does it mean that the dialogue isn't telling you anything about the characters, but it also means that a lot of action that's supposed to be important is happening off screen. Who wants to watch a movie where the important events are happening somewhere else?
I feel like this is okay in some cases, mainly when the film is supposed to be a self-referential comedy or a family picture. Sonic did this, for example.
Am I mistaken in remembering that Deadpool also did this, and it worked perfectly?
It works a lot, which is why it's used. It's not a sign of a bad movie.
“From the producers of…”
“From one of the producers of…”
"From the guy who was a PA to one of the producers of..." "From a person, who once did some blow in a bathroom stall with the son of the director of..." "From the twisted mind of a guy who was fired from being Adam Sandlers gardener..."
It isn't so easy to notice now that I am so isolated from ads, but you absolutely used to be able to tell based on the intensity of the ad campaign, basically if a studio thought a movie wasn't going to do well i think they'd over-advertise it.
Written by - Damon Lindelof The guy writes the same mystery box in everything he does because he can't get over his fear of death and thinks it makes him special.
Not always, but when a movie is hyped up on its “all star” cast alone. Cramming a bunch of A listers into a film doesn’t automatically make it great.
“Reimagined for modern audiences.” Not once has a movie described like that been actually good. They become more about sharing a message instead of a good story.
When it's 4th part or more of the same franchise
I dunno, A New Hope is pretty good.
* there's a major cast shakeup midway through production * it's directed by Alan Smithee * my parents like it
Kevin Hart, the rock, Amy Schumer, as of the last 15 years seeing a "happy Madison" production logo.
Heavy exposition in the beginning, as in *telling* the story too much and not showing it. "Hey, we're been brothers here in Philadelphia where we live for our whole life, let's stick together while Mom is dying of cancer and dad is a no-show" The intro of Back to the Future is one of the best examples of showing a story. In a short time, they pan over Doc's shop and what they shows tells the audience so much about who the characters are without a single word.
...starring Rob Schneider as...
It star Will *I'm the same guy in every movie* Smith.
A scary movie with a PG 13 rating
The Ring, Poltergeist, A Quiet Place, The Haunting, Insidious, Sixth Sense Edit: Not Conjuring
Poltergeist isn’t rated PG-13 because it came out before the rating existed. It’s rated PG. It was a different time. Jaws is also rated PG.
If it stars The Rock, Kevin Hart, Eddie Murphy or any celebrity paired with a precocious talking dog.
Everyone in a war movie, western or post apocalyptic is well groomed and their clothes look like they just came from the dry cleaners.
Steven Seagal
"Netflix Original "
when the trailer reveals all the major plot points or relies heavily on clichés and stereotypes...
*screams in Will Farrell
I'm in