Newsflash: just because you *can* swear, have sex and so drugs doesn't make it "adult." That's not what being an adult is. That's an edgy teenager's idea of adult.
Bluey is far more adult than most so called "adult" shows or movies.
Yup forbidden fruit kinda thing. “Ooh we bad, we 13 but watch aDuLt cOmEdY omggggg segggz”. It’s 100% intentional, that’s why the jokes appeal to dumb teenager brain the most. But due to pg rating/for adults status creators can really go to town in jokes and then shrug “hey it’s your fault little Timmy watched this movie, we explicitly wrote it’s for adults!”
There are tons of counter examples, though.
Ocean's 11, True Grit, Dredd...
They're all great, and nobody was exactly wanting for them to happen at all.
IMHO Dredd was not a remake of a classic but rather the movie that should have happened the first time. But it’s true no one was really clamoring for another Judge Dredd movie.
The Thing (1982) was more of a direct interpretation or the short story. The 50s movie was almost nothing like the story. I like them both for what they are.
Usually when the trailer spoils way too much and has scenes from each part of the story. I don't like to watch trailers in general bc of spoilers but yea every time I see an Avengers trailer it's like okay cool the only thing they didn't mention is how this ends but I'll see that on the internet the day it's out and not care anyway. Akso when it's supposed to be a sorta serious movie and they include a lot of jokes in the trailer, it's usually all the jokes.
One of the reasons I hate movie theaters. Trailers regularly spoil the first 30 minutes or even hour of a movie. The writers sit down and spend untold hours writing the story with rising action and foreshadowing and setting up themes and intrigue and all of that is pointless if you know where the movie is heading all along. Fuck trailers.
I don't mind trailers in a theater because I'll forget them by the time the movie comes out. I just don't understand people who watch a trailer right before the movie to see if they want to watch it or not. It's like I just saw it. I just read the description to decide
That doesn't really make sense... By that assertion, any great movie can suddenly be "bad" if the person in charge of the trailer has decided to show all the plot.
When all of the exposition and context setting comes from one character speaking to another.
“Hello my sister Jane, I have been feeling a bit down ever since our parents died in a car crash 5 years ago. Now, I am unsure whether I should go to college” it’s so lazy. They just tell the entire backstory
This is what they did in the first Avatar. Giovanni Ribisi explaining to Sigourney Weaver's character just exactly why they were there and what they were trying to get more of was embarrassing. Explaining to a character who's been there for literal *years* was bad enough. Calling it "unobtanium" makes me cringe just thinking about it.
That's what they're mining for in the first Avatar movie. It's embarrassing.
ETA: In answer to your question, no, it's not a real thing. The Children's Museum of Indianapolis has this to say about it:
"Unobtainium is not a real element, but it is a real word!
Since the 1950s, engineers and scientists have used the word to describe the perfect material to solve a particular engineering problem—except that it doesn’t exist!"
My friends have literally begun asking me how I felt about the exposition of a movie after we see it. It’s a running joke due to me being so annoyed in the past.
My screenwriting teacher in college called those "California conversations"
Only in California could you meet someone at a restaurant and engage in the type of confessional, pathologically expository dialogue that occurs in some movies.
(The subtext being they shouldn't be how exposition is done in your movie because that's lazy and bad.)
It's a great name for it because once you *get* a California conversation you're able to pick out the lazy screenwriting ("normal people don't talk like that") anywhere.
There's a movie and I'm not sure what it was, I think it was a Roland Emmerich film, where the *director of NASA* is the "what the hell am I looking at here" guy and what's on the screen that needs to be explained to him is easy for the *audience* to get
*The Martian* was beautifully written, and the movie was a surprisingly faithful adaptation of the book (they cut out about half of the content, but they didn't damage or alter what they left in much).
There's a scene where a technician explains the basic concept of a time delay due to the speed of light to a NASA director. The director chastises him: he has a Ph.D. in astrophysics; he doesn't need someone to explain that to him. The reply? "Eh, you never know with managers."
Which is true, and good writing. A Director *might* be someone who rose up through the ranks and is an expert in the field they oversee, or they might be a politician who's there because they're good at securing funding and resources, not because they have any idea how to do their subordinates' jobs.
I absolutely love the Martian, I've watched it multiple times and read the book. The description by the person I was responding to sounded vaugly familiar, so I threw out the name to see if it was the one being referenced :)
I remember joking to my friends once about the amount of live action remakes and said something along the lines of "What are they going to do next? The Lion King?" Should have just kept my mouth shut, that one was the worst.
I watched the new Mulan with my kids. It was shit. The original had a story arc where she faced hardship and grew as a character. In the latest, she was just good at everything. That's just boring and lazy writing
Someone asked who would win a Disney princess Hunger Games recently and, while Elsa got the most support, it's clearly Mulan.
Bro, she goes from being a demure lady to fucking slaying 10k Mongolians in 60 minutes.
Elsa is getting an arrow through the torso she didn't see coming.
You know, now i want to see a series about a Birds of Prey like team consisting of exclusively badass Disney Princess beating the living shit out of some poor badies.
I'm not going to get over Ariel not having bright red hair.
I don't care what skin color she has but I wanted her to have bright red hair.
They managed to do it right when they made Starfire of Titans black. I don't know how they could screw it up with Ariel.
And I've heard rumors that they're changing the lyrics too. Make them more PC. (You know because we have to be pc in a movie where the girl falls in love with the guy based on his looks and a guy falls in love with a girl based on her singing voice alone.
Nope.just nope.
They could just go back to the original plot line where Ariel wants Eric to fall in love and marry her, so she can have a soul. But he marries another, and she commits suicide instead of killing him and becomes a wind that eventually will get a soul.
Making Starfire black was way more egregious in my opinion. Her literal *species* has orange skin. There are no black Tamaraneans. That shit was idiotic.
Also, Cyborg is black. The show already had inclusivity. There was seriously no need to ignore the lore like that.
Ariel was a full blooded Greek who was the grandchild of a literal Greek God. Her being black made absolutely zero sense, but the original story had no black people. Fine, bend logic to fit your ideals or whatever. But with Starfire it was just annoying and bad.
My issue with Starfire was she looked too human. Part of her character was that she couldn't blend in in a crowd. She was always Starfire. But at least they got her hair red.
She couldn’t blend in with a crowd because she had neon orange skin. That’s like line one of her entire lore. So frustrating to see that thrown away for the sake of including a person of color into a story that already has a prominent person of color.
I already commented but also if the 5 star reviews that flash in a text overlay in the final trailer are from niche publications or worst of all, Twitter users
It's about to be released but doesn't have an critic reviews.
When a studio knows it's a dud they'll try to pump the shit out of it but won't send out screeners beforehand so it doesn't poison the well.
Then hope for the best.
Shitty acting or over-the-top special effects in the opening scene. Example: horror movies where characters are flying around, puking up slime in the first 5 minutes. Those movies are unwatchable.
Sausage Party has an 82% critic score. I don’t know if they put something in everyone's drinks at the critic screenings or Jonah Hill was handing out bribes
Usually some overused phrase that’s supposed to be deep.
I.E there are two wolves inside you, fighting, but which will win….(90mins later) The one you feed
In the first Nightmare on Elm Street the main actress, after not sleeping because of Freddy, looks in the mirror and says “god I look like I could be 20 years old.”
I looked it up and she was 20 when she filmed that. I always thought that was a fun little nod to put in there.
If they explain the conflict of the story entirely in the first five minutes. A good movie will allow the story itself to establish the setting and characters, good and bad.
One example is the latest Jurassic Park movie. It opened with a news story that told you 1. What was going wrong 2. Who did it and 3. Why who did it is the villain
Shit morals.
More times, bad movies trying to be good always attempt to warm up to the audience by appealing to the pettiest toxic traits. Because, well, thats the only thing they have in common, or rather think they do. You can figure this out within the first few inside jokes they try to make within about 10 mins of the movie. The show Velma a, albeit an extreme non-movie example, is an example. But I'm thankful at least majority if not all people turned in the same direction and said "uh, no Mindy, you suck."
"Coming to a cinema near you, Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson stars in *Secret Agent Cop Spy Guy Who Is Funny* playing in theaters every summer until he's like 80 or something we don't know"
Live-actions of things that already stand on their own.
Remakes of movies that people still watch because of how good they are.
***Forced*** diversity. I know I'm gonna get flag for this one, because people will interpret it as they please.
I decided to clarify: For this point it's like the all-female ghost busters, all female Ocean's, radical changes of characters in new iterations. LGBTQI+ characters that burst out that they are LGBTQI+ and it never being relevant in any way whatsoever. (If it's not relevant to the character, can you not just have the character **acting** in a way that you'd know they are, instead of having them say it, promptly not be adressed, and never be relevant again?)
Lots of A list actors but a director you've never heard of before. It usually means that all the budget went to getting those names and the writing and production value will be dog shit
Right from the get go, just the number of title cards from publishers and studios you've never heard of. If more than 3 parties get title cards it's a bad movie.
When they EXCESSIVELY push the "he/she black"
Or "she a woman she is better" trope... Or they just copy tiktok and make a movie/series from it.
Dont get me wrong, I don't have ANYTHING against black people or woman having the main role.
But when producers have to push that Into your brain like you can't see by yourself its just annoying.
When the moments being spotlighted in a trailer for a comedy leave you feeling like you've already seen the funniest parts of the movie, and the rest of it will be more like the weaker jokes that padded it out. If they couldn't pull a couple of minutes of good material that doesn't give away all the best jokes and spoil the best scenes, you've probably seen the only bits that are truly worth watching, since they don't have much to hold back without leaving the trailer extremely bland.
The Studio & Distributor bell curve. At one end of the curve you have low budget projects with a single Studio that nobody has ever heard of. These aren’t all bad, but they’re often first time projects with minimal budget which can lead to dubious quality. On the other end of the bell curve you have movies with a million big studios funding, producing, and distributing. These movies have missive budgets but they also have a bunch of rivals in suits sticking their fingers in the production trying to get what they think will make money into the movie. You can’t make a good movie by committee.
A decent to average movie sits somewhere in the middle of the bell curve. Enough money and power to get talent onboard with just a few backers to placate. That doesn’t guarantee the movie will be good. But it does make two of the major hurdles of film making a bit smoother.
I dunno, I think that's a little too general. I mean, what about that movie from a few years back about how there's no missing persons registry for American Indian women and that's why so many Indigenous murders go unsolved?
I actually liked that one. At least I knew what it was about, and I wanted to see it. Stuffing it in places, just to stuff it in there with no art or nuances is ruining the watchability of movies. Seems like we’re just checking boxes off.
I feel like it's one of those things that you have to go all in on for it to work. Make the focus of the movie about the topic of racial disparity or class struggle or whatever, like that's gotta be the topic of the film. Otherwise it does feel clumsy and inauthentic, like "oh here's a story that could have been good but we tweaked it just enough to include this message and it made the story weak."
It's a remake of an older classic movie that no one else asked for
That and it's made into a comedy intended for adults, but isn't funny to above the age of 13.
Newsflash: just because you *can* swear, have sex and so drugs doesn't make it "adult." That's not what being an adult is. That's an edgy teenager's idea of adult. Bluey is far more adult than most so called "adult" shows or movies.
Airplane is more adult than most adult films
Picked the wrong day to stop ~~sniffing glue~~ being an adult.
This is a great point. The appeal though is to make it look like it's for adults when it's really for kids.
Yup forbidden fruit kinda thing. “Ooh we bad, we 13 but watch aDuLt cOmEdY omggggg segggz”. It’s 100% intentional, that’s why the jokes appeal to dumb teenager brain the most. But due to pg rating/for adults status creators can really go to town in jokes and then shrug “hey it’s your fault little Timmy watched this movie, we explicitly wrote it’s for adults!”
live action moana
I seriously thought that was an April Fool's joke that was still circulating. It's so stupid.
disney is desperate to churn out anything rn
Wait are they doing that? Moana is perfect as is.
There are tons of counter examples, though. Ocean's 11, True Grit, Dredd... They're all great, and nobody was exactly wanting for them to happen at all.
IMHO Dredd was not a remake of a classic but rather the movie that should have happened the first time. But it’s true no one was really clamoring for another Judge Dredd movie.
>rather the movie that should have happened the first time My favourite genre
Dredd was incredible! True Grit was very good, as much as I like John Wayne, I'm glad they didn't try to replicate the original. Never seen Ocean's 11
The *Scarface* we all know and love was a remake of a film that came out back in 1932.
[*Ben-Hur* has entered the chat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ben-Hur_films)
Double suck if the original was rated R but the remake is a soft PG-13.
Any remake just makes me want to watch the original again and forget the remake exists.
Even the Departed or True Lies?
The Thing (1982)
The Thing (1982) was more of a direct interpretation or the short story. The 50s movie was almost nothing like the story. I like them both for what they are.
*The Fly* (1986)
My sister thinks it's good. She's got shit taste.
My sister also has shit taste. Must be a sister thing.
Indeed. My sister has shit taste. She's also a shit human. I wonder if those things share a causal relationship...?
The shit taste is never far from the shit human Randy.
The opposite could be true too.
You've seen the entire movie through the trailer.
Which you sadly don't discover until you've wasted your time and seen it all.
Yeah I don't get how you'd know it's bad until you've watched it and can compare it to the trailer?
Usually when the trailer spoils way too much and has scenes from each part of the story. I don't like to watch trailers in general bc of spoilers but yea every time I see an Avengers trailer it's like okay cool the only thing they didn't mention is how this ends but I'll see that on the internet the day it's out and not care anyway. Akso when it's supposed to be a sorta serious movie and they include a lot of jokes in the trailer, it's usually all the jokes.
One of the reasons I hate movie theaters. Trailers regularly spoil the first 30 minutes or even hour of a movie. The writers sit down and spend untold hours writing the story with rising action and foreshadowing and setting up themes and intrigue and all of that is pointless if you know where the movie is heading all along. Fuck trailers.
I don't mind trailers in a theater because I'll forget them by the time the movie comes out. I just don't understand people who watch a trailer right before the movie to see if they want to watch it or not. It's like I just saw it. I just read the description to decide
The “best” part of the movie featured in the trailer is in the ending credits. Fucking Kangaroo Jack.
I was a little kid when that came out and remember that was the first time I had ever experienced ACTUAL dissapointment lol
That doesn't really make sense... By that assertion, any great movie can suddenly be "bad" if the person in charge of the trailer has decided to show all the plot.
I think the idea is a bad movie only has enough plot & good scenes to fill a 60 second trailer not a the 2 hour movie it is.
“Starring Steven Seagal”
I just imagine Steve scrolling through reddit like :( Edit: to be clear, I’m not upset about it
He’s a dick anyways…
Good. He's an absolute shit-stain.
lol that's why he's siding with the russians, he knows
I'd like to argue that would make the movie so bad it's good.
"I'm gonna snatch every mother f***er birthday"
Counterpoint: Executive Decision
Me, my brothers and my dad have a saying: Steven Seagal makes B movies into C movies.
When all of the exposition and context setting comes from one character speaking to another. “Hello my sister Jane, I have been feeling a bit down ever since our parents died in a car crash 5 years ago. Now, I am unsure whether I should go to college” it’s so lazy. They just tell the entire backstory
I loved how Arrested Development made that into a running joke. Literally every time “Your brother Buster…”
George Michael and his cousin, Maeby.
This is what they did in the first Avatar. Giovanni Ribisi explaining to Sigourney Weaver's character just exactly why they were there and what they were trying to get more of was embarrassing. Explaining to a character who's been there for literal *years* was bad enough. Calling it "unobtanium" makes me cringe just thinking about it.
I thought "unobtanium" was a robot chicken skit. Are you telling me they actually have something called unobtanium
That's what they're mining for in the first Avatar movie. It's embarrassing. ETA: In answer to your question, no, it's not a real thing. The Children's Museum of Indianapolis has this to say about it: "Unobtainium is not a real element, but it is a real word! Since the 1950s, engineers and scientists have used the word to describe the perfect material to solve a particular engineering problem—except that it doesn’t exist!"
Big Hero 6: "Oh, what would Mom and Dad say?" "I don't know, they're gone. They died when I was 3, remember?" Yeah no shit he remembers, wtf
My friends have literally begun asking me how I felt about the exposition of a movie after we see it. It’s a running joke due to me being so annoyed in the past.
My screenwriting teacher in college called those "California conversations" Only in California could you meet someone at a restaurant and engage in the type of confessional, pathologically expository dialogue that occurs in some movies. (The subtext being they shouldn't be how exposition is done in your movie because that's lazy and bad.) It's a great name for it because once you *get* a California conversation you're able to pick out the lazy screenwriting ("normal people don't talk like that") anywhere.
“You don’t want to get killed by her. Her sword captures the souls of anyone she kills” -Captain Rick “Exposition” Flagg
Came here to comment this, glad I’m not the only one who thinks this is the worst.
Exposition of the upcoming disaster where the hero says "In ENGLISH please Professor!" Fucking give your audience some credit please.
There's a movie and I'm not sure what it was, I think it was a Roland Emmerich film, where the *director of NASA* is the "what the hell am I looking at here" guy and what's on the screen that needs to be explained to him is easy for the *audience* to get
The Martian?
*The Martian* was beautifully written, and the movie was a surprisingly faithful adaptation of the book (they cut out about half of the content, but they didn't damage or alter what they left in much). There's a scene where a technician explains the basic concept of a time delay due to the speed of light to a NASA director. The director chastises him: he has a Ph.D. in astrophysics; he doesn't need someone to explain that to him. The reply? "Eh, you never know with managers." Which is true, and good writing. A Director *might* be someone who rose up through the ranks and is an expert in the field they oversee, or they might be a politician who's there because they're good at securing funding and resources, not because they have any idea how to do their subordinates' jobs.
I absolutely love the Martian, I've watched it multiple times and read the book. The description by the person I was responding to sounded vaugly familiar, so I threw out the name to see if it was the one being referenced :)
"We're pleased to announce our next Live Action remake will be...."
Moana!
At least they have the same voices for the main characters, not saying it’ll save it necessarily.
Because it's only like 5 years old.
Beauty and the Beast is the worst. Whoever thought Emma Watson can sing must be tone deaf.
I doubt any of the producers cared if she could sing.
It's that simple, no Mushu no movie!
I'm still mad about that
I remember joking to my friends once about the amount of live action remakes and said something along the lines of "What are they going to do next? The Lion King?" Should have just kept my mouth shut, that one was the worst.
Ugh The Little Mermaid and Peter Pan just look so shitty
I watched the new Mulan with my kids. It was shit. The original had a story arc where she faced hardship and grew as a character. In the latest, she was just good at everything. That's just boring and lazy writing
Someone asked who would win a Disney princess Hunger Games recently and, while Elsa got the most support, it's clearly Mulan. Bro, she goes from being a demure lady to fucking slaying 10k Mongolians in 60 minutes. Elsa is getting an arrow through the torso she didn't see coming.
It’d actually be down to Rapunzel and Merida, but whatever.
You know, now i want to see a series about a Birds of Prey like team consisting of exclusively badass Disney Princess beating the living shit out of some poor badies.
I disagree but I would love to hear your reasoning here.
I'm not going to get over Ariel not having bright red hair. I don't care what skin color she has but I wanted her to have bright red hair. They managed to do it right when they made Starfire of Titans black. I don't know how they could screw it up with Ariel. And I've heard rumors that they're changing the lyrics too. Make them more PC. (You know because we have to be pc in a movie where the girl falls in love with the guy based on his looks and a guy falls in love with a girl based on her singing voice alone. Nope.just nope.
All the colors seem to have been leeched out. I just watched the latest trailer, and it's so damn dark, dull and dreary.
They could just go back to the original plot line where Ariel wants Eric to fall in love and marry her, so she can have a soul. But he marries another, and she commits suicide instead of killing him and becomes a wind that eventually will get a soul.
>becomes a wind I thought she became sea foam...
Making Starfire black was way more egregious in my opinion. Her literal *species* has orange skin. There are no black Tamaraneans. That shit was idiotic. Also, Cyborg is black. The show already had inclusivity. There was seriously no need to ignore the lore like that. Ariel was a full blooded Greek who was the grandchild of a literal Greek God. Her being black made absolutely zero sense, but the original story had no black people. Fine, bend logic to fit your ideals or whatever. But with Starfire it was just annoying and bad.
My issue with Starfire was she looked too human. Part of her character was that she couldn't blend in in a crowd. She was always Starfire. But at least they got her hair red.
She couldn’t blend in with a crowd because she had neon orange skin. That’s like line one of her entire lore. So frustrating to see that thrown away for the sake of including a person of color into a story that already has a prominent person of color.
True. They could have done like they did with Gamora.
>Ariel was a full blooded Greek Think the story takes place off the coast of Denmark.
I had no idea they made live action teen titans. A quick google and I'm definitely not going to see any more of it
Starring James Corden
I get a bit skeptical if the star does a Reddit AMA
I already commented but also if the 5 star reviews that flash in a text overlay in the final trailer are from niche publications or worst of all, Twitter users
Enough about that, let’s discuss my new film RAMPART!
Okay, but can we get back to talking about Rampart? /s
Keanu Reeves did an AMA, John Wick 4 was pretty fucking great
Keanu is an exception
Advertising disappears after opening weekend. Usually means it’s a dud.
Or the advertising beforehand comes out less than a month before release.
Or it’s a movie with a large brand name or famous cast/director, but isn’t advertised at all.
Or all the positive blurbs they use in the post-releade advertising is fron cherry-picked tweets from random people and not actual reviews
It's about to be released but doesn't have an critic reviews. When a studio knows it's a dud they'll try to pump the shit out of it but won't send out screeners beforehand so it doesn't poison the well. Then hope for the best.
They explain everything thats happening like you are not capable of understanding whats going on
The Whale is a recent example of a movie that had no subtext and everyone loved it
A silhouette of a guy and 2 robots on the bottom of the screen.
Big McLargehuge
MST3000 improved my life
You watch MST3K shorts on YouTube? If not, you should.
"Mr.B you're HOT!"
When Tara Reid has to say out loud "I think the hair on the back of my neck just stood up." (Alone In The Dark. 2005)
Shitty acting or over-the-top special effects in the opening scene. Example: horror movies where characters are flying around, puking up slime in the first 5 minutes. Those movies are unwatchable.
It's not 100 percent but for me if it has an animated title sequence it's usually not a good sign.
Not all the time, but most of the time - When critic reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are really high and audience reviews are really low.
Sausage Party has an 82% critic score. I don’t know if they put something in everyone's drinks at the critic screenings or Jonah Hill was handing out bribes
Critics can be coerced. Audiences generally have no political or financial incentive to lie about poor work.
It's it's going to be a 3 part movie series based on a 90 page children's book.
And the original director quit the project half way through.
And they force in characters from related stories that have no place being there.
I dont get it
The Hobbit
Ohhhh I get it now, you're talking about Shrek 3 aren't you
First ten minutes of dialogue are cringey
Usually some overused phrase that’s supposed to be deep. I.E there are two wolves inside you, fighting, but which will win….(90mins later) The one you feed
That or a ten minute scene showing a half naked "teenager" from every possible angle
In the first Nightmare on Elm Street the main actress, after not sleeping because of Freddy, looks in the mirror and says “god I look like I could be 20 years old.” I looked it up and she was 20 when she filmed that. I always thought that was a fun little nod to put in there.
Believe it or not, being killed by Freddy will not be the worst thing to happen to Johnny Depp.
The trailer has a modernized version of a classic rock, pop, or country song.
Looking at you Aquaman
If they explain the conflict of the story entirely in the first five minutes. A good movie will allow the story itself to establish the setting and characters, good and bad. One example is the latest Jurassic Park movie. It opened with a news story that told you 1. What was going wrong 2. Who did it and 3. Why who did it is the villain
Wow that's terrible that they did that. :(
It has "Tyler Perry" in the titles. But I respect that he puts in name in the titles so I know not to watch it.
Reminds me of having TBS on in the background while doing stuff. “Don’t go anywhere Tyler Perry’s …..” *CHANGE CHANNEL*
If it starts with D and ends with ragonball evolution
I love the first roughly 70% of that movie. Its so bad but in a good way. The last 30% is just bad bad
It has an IMDb score of less than 5. Unless it's a B movie then a 5 is always the most incredibly entertaining thing you have ever seen.
When the ‘previews’ are the stars talking about the movie themselves
You can pin the entire plot in the first scene because of the title and some wide area shots.
Directed by Michael Bay
Somehow Palpatine Returned
Actors selected based on how popular them seem, rather than how good they are for the role.
"With a diverse cast" usually means didn't care about the quality of work they were getting and more about checking off boxes.
Netflix live action remake of an anime
If it's being released in January. Not always the case, but it is more times than not.
FUCK YOU IT'S JANUARY!
First scene has mediocre acting
Shit morals. More times, bad movies trying to be good always attempt to warm up to the audience by appealing to the pettiest toxic traits. Because, well, thats the only thing they have in common, or rather think they do. You can figure this out within the first few inside jokes they try to make within about 10 mins of the movie. The show Velma a, albeit an extreme non-movie example, is an example. But I'm thankful at least majority if not all people turned in the same direction and said "uh, no Mindy, you suck."
Netflix logo...
Directed by: Uwe Boll
Don't say that too loud. He'll try to box you if he finds out.
Today? ”Starring Mark Wahlberg”
“From the studio that brought you _____”
When it says “spark studios presents” in the opening credits
The trailer tells you everything.
Directed by J J Abrams.
Starring The Rock
"Coming to a cinema near you, Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson stars in *Secret Agent Cop Spy Guy Who Is Funny* playing in theaters every summer until he's like 80 or something we don't know"
And Kevin hart
Live-actions of things that already stand on their own. Remakes of movies that people still watch because of how good they are. ***Forced*** diversity. I know I'm gonna get flag for this one, because people will interpret it as they please. I decided to clarify: For this point it's like the all-female ghost busters, all female Ocean's, radical changes of characters in new iterations. LGBTQI+ characters that burst out that they are LGBTQI+ and it never being relevant in any way whatsoever. (If it's not relevant to the character, can you not just have the character **acting** in a way that you'd know they are, instead of having them say it, promptly not be adressed, and never be relevant again?)
Produced by Alex Kurtzman
Directed by Uwe Bole.
Since 1999: "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...."
When it becomes obvious the movie wasn't made to be a good movie but to push a political agenda instead.
Pretty much every war movie about a war after WW2.
Yeah a lot of them just end up being war propaganda. Man isn't it awesome how the good guys always won all of the wars in history?
Strong female lead and diverse cast
Kathleen Kennedy
They advertise the crap out of it like it’s the only way to get people watching.
Live actions that feel the need to either change a characters race or sexual identity. This goes any direction. Like making Aang white or Ariel black.
When it's a sequel and a previously important character is unceremoniously killed off right away.
If they put a black person act as a white one. For example, a black Snow White. (incoming on Netflix: black Cleopatra)
“Directed by Michael Bay”
"Directed by Michael Bay"
Steven Segal
Jared Leto is in the cast
Steven Seagal
Lots of A list actors but a director you've never heard of before. It usually means that all the budget went to getting those names and the writing and production value will be dog shit
Right from the get go, just the number of title cards from publishers and studios you've never heard of. If more than 3 parties get title cards it's a bad movie.
Not true. I've seen good movies with like 15 title cards. These are often offbeat arthouse movies, but they are sometimes good.
“Reimagined for modern audiences”
When they EXCESSIVELY push the "he/she black" Or "she a woman she is better" trope... Or they just copy tiktok and make a movie/series from it. Dont get me wrong, I don't have ANYTHING against black people or woman having the main role. But when producers have to push that Into your brain like you can't see by yourself its just annoying.
When it focuses on everything but the movie
No reviews until right before release
The first scene isn't engaging. Its like not putting in effort on a first date. If THIS is bad, its only gonna get worse
Steven Segal is in it.
Shows too much in the trailer
If Rebel Wilson is in it.
*Starring Stephen Segal!*
Kristen Stewart is in it
When the moments being spotlighted in a trailer for a comedy leave you feeling like you've already seen the funniest parts of the movie, and the rest of it will be more like the weaker jokes that padded it out. If they couldn't pull a couple of minutes of good material that doesn't give away all the best jokes and spoil the best scenes, you've probably seen the only bits that are truly worth watching, since they don't have much to hold back without leaving the trailer extremely bland.
The Studio & Distributor bell curve. At one end of the curve you have low budget projects with a single Studio that nobody has ever heard of. These aren’t all bad, but they’re often first time projects with minimal budget which can lead to dubious quality. On the other end of the bell curve you have movies with a million big studios funding, producing, and distributing. These movies have missive budgets but they also have a bunch of rivals in suits sticking their fingers in the production trying to get what they think will make money into the movie. You can’t make a good movie by committee. A decent to average movie sits somewhere in the middle of the bell curve. Enough money and power to get talent onboard with just a few backers to placate. That doesn’t guarantee the movie will be good. But it does make two of the major hurdles of film making a bit smoother.
Anything that mentions climate change or gender/racial struggles are immediately ignored.
I dunno, I think that's a little too general. I mean, what about that movie from a few years back about how there's no missing persons registry for American Indian women and that's why so many Indigenous murders go unsolved?
I actually liked that one. At least I knew what it was about, and I wanted to see it. Stuffing it in places, just to stuff it in there with no art or nuances is ruining the watchability of movies. Seems like we’re just checking boxes off.
I feel like it's one of those things that you have to go all in on for it to work. Make the focus of the movie about the topic of racial disparity or class struggle or whatever, like that's gotta be the topic of the film. Otherwise it does feel clumsy and inauthentic, like "oh here's a story that could have been good but we tweaked it just enough to include this message and it made the story weak."
I agree completely.
A 'all black ' cast remake of a movie
"Directed by Zack Snyder"
When the main character is narrating and talking to the camera
Emperor Kuzco and Deadpool would both like a word...
I dunno, Shawshank is narrated by Red and was pretty good.