movies

Unfortunately for too long now: “A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away”

Directed by:

• Uwe Boll
• Michael Bay

If you see this logo:

The company is the king of what used to be called Direct To Video. Now it is all Direct to Streaming.

Two character immediately infordumping to each other as if that’s how humans normally communicate.

“Are you ready? This is going to be a hard job. As you know, they’ve tightened security but we got a man on the inside. As long as does his job then it’s smooth sailing.”

“I was born ready. Eveeything will be fine as long as the shipment is on time. As you know, we put a tracker on the lead car and I can watch exactly where it is from this device in real-time.”

Oversaturated marketing campaign and overly bloated cast are the two big red flags for me.

Both are indicative that the budget for the movie was not put towards the actual content of the film but about trying to pull in the largest demographics of people.

Directed by JJ Abrams

Wow first one to say Jared Leto.

Unless I've missed morbin time suddenly becoming popular?

Jared Leto

If it's a comedy: the first joke.

But there's always exceptions to any rule. I recently watched Spaceballs (yes, first time) and it would normally fall under "suck", but it got increasingly better as it went along.

• Camera cuts

It sucks for me because once they start with the unnecessary cuts it pulls me right out and I'll probably stop watching.

these logo's:

Though i will say the production value on the latest daily wire show was really high, probably the absolute fuck-tonne of money they spent on it.

Starring Mark Wahlberg.

The only exception is The Other Guys.

• Netflix lighting
• Generic, Zimmer-stolen OST
• Franchises
• Standard blocking
• Overexposition
• Whedonisms
• More broadly, anything that's been big budget Hollywood for the last 30 years or so.

When the trailer is just a highlights reel of the entire plot. If the movie was worth watching they would let it speak for itself.

This is a very lazy observation, but for a US production, if it’s released in the US first it’s often a sign they’re trying to get the opening weekend without many reviews available to dissuade attendance.

If it’s actually a good film, it’ll open in a foreign region a week or two before the US so they can use those reviews in promotion.

Pacing that feels more like an Instagram reel than a feature film.

Excessive use of poor effects or artificial camera shake.

A lot of directors and actors/actresses are massive red flags based on the projects that they take on. If they are also working with a star studded cast then it is going to suck so much. The Rock and Chris Pratt have earned their current association with bland movies that suck for example. I still like some older Rock movies from before he became bland action hero who can't show weakness for any reason. Pratt is fun as Starlord, but his other roles are mediocre.

Bland marketing is often a bad sign, where it is hard to tell the thing is different than a bunch of other similar movies. Bland action movies are a great example of this, if they can't pull of a unique impression from the trailers it is most likely going to suck.

Typically things I look for are a movie that's pushed like its a big budget film but doesn't have any actors I've ever heard of.

Too much expositional dialogue at the beginning of the movie especially when its so foreign to the way people talk in real life.

In the new Star Wars movie, the "can you hear me now?" "joke" in the first 5 minutes.

Unnecessary sequels to a completed story.

I'm sure there are others but my break is over and this is all I could think of.

More than five 'executive producers.'

Voiceover

Movies funded by Germany.

It's always the same type of movie. Either we get some boomer vs. youth plot, a family (+child) with relationship problems or something about the second world war. It's the most boring slop for our aging population you can imagine.

Opening exposition that involves silly names for things ...

There's examples if good exposition (see: the start of Mad Max 2) but anything that starts with shit like

"They came from the skies, mysteriously, the monsters we now call the Xergifaltuns. With their Spiglyzarfix weapons we didn't stand a chance ..."

Yeah, it's going to be rubbish.

When you can't escape the ads for it.

If it's desperate to give me the whole plot in the trailer to try to hook me into watching it.

Promoted in media, then suddenly disappears and not heard of again for 4-8 months.

It went horribly with test audiences, then got sent for a focus-group-based reworking. Always trash.

exposition in the form of character monologue at a length longer than 30 seconds that is required for the rest of the movie to make sense.

For comedies, none of the jokes in the trailer are that funny or make you laugh.

Detailed CGI in sci fi that's been lense or motioned blurred into oblivion.

Doesn't even matter if the CGI was subpar because now the whole thing looks like RGB vommit.

It's especially painful coming from gaming where you get to see crisp visual quality at every angle even on games as old as Halo CE.

Typically the impression I get from the trailer. I have seen so many trailers and so many movies I usually can't even tell you why anymore.

Directed by: Uwe Boll

Anything where the poster/promo has a man and woman apart but kinda the same each other (grumpy or lustfully). Relationship waffle made into movies is the most boring looking crap. It usually has a 3-5 word little like ‘you said forever’ or ‘beneath the elderflower moon’

In a world...