At what point do you think if a movie is going to be bad before it releases?

[smallville fan]

What the title says.

Over here we tend to track the production of movies right down to every rumour and scoop whether it's a comic book movie or not. What's the point where you think it's going to suck?

Would it be things like Drew McWeeny's BvS rumours? Set drama rumours involving Josh Trank in Fan4stic? Heavy studio interference like in Suicide Squad?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Depending on who the director is, when they are hired. I have of course been wrong, but that has held up pretty well.

 

[Kyle]

You won't get a solid answer out of this, because every case is different as you even pointed out in your post. Sometimes it's warranted. Other times, like BvS and Suicide Squad for me it wasn't. No movie has the same journey to the silver screen, thus I doubt there will or ever could be a singular answer to the question you're seeking because every movie acts differently.

I would say outside of that, for once I actually agree with Darth - director and writer can usually tell me if I'll be interested or if I won't be interested. But from hype to worry - which is what I took your question to further mean from your examples - each is gonna behave generally differently.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It varies. Sometimes you can smell the stink a mile away (ex. Fant4stic, Catwoman) and sometimes you don't know until you are sitting in the theater.

It could be a number of things that set off alarms too. Studio hires a director with a poor track record, rumors of set problems, bad trailers, the concept sounds stupid, etc. Any of those types of things are going to raise eyebrows and if the same film has several of them that's really going to make it look like a disaster in the making. Sure some films can overcome that and become a classic (ex. Jaws), but most of the time where there's smoke, there's fire.

The director for me is the big one. The director is the king and a bad one can cause me to lose interest immediately once they are hired. The chances of me ever getting hyped again for another film from the likes of Paul WS Anderson, Brett Ratner, McG, Michael Bay, Zack Snyder, etc. is very low.

 

[MadVillainy]

Depending on who the director is, when they are hired. I have of course been wrong, but that has held up pretty well.

This.

Also just the story. If I read the synopsis and it sounds bad I'll think it'll be bad. But Ive been wrong

 

[smallville fan]

You won't get a solid answer out of this, because every case is different as you even pointed out in your post.

Wasn't expecting one. Just interested in the range of responses.

Other times, like BvS and Suicide Squad for me it wasn't. No movie has the same journey to the silver screen, thus I doubt there will or ever could be a singular answer to the question you're seeking because every movie acts differently.

I would say outside of that, for once I actually agree with Darth - director and writer can usually tell me if I'll be interested or if I won't be interested. But from hype to worry - which is what I took your question to further mean from your examples - each is gonna behave generally differently.

Depending on who the director is, when they are hired. I have of course been wrong, but that has held up pretty well.

Yes, a director's track record does show that sometimes but as I've seen with a good chunk of the Marvel directors, didn't they have a string of stinkers before they got hired by Feige?

As I've seen at times, doesn't cast chemistry off-set and in interviews and press outings often point to how good a movie turns out? How much does that matter? I mean looking back on Fan4stic interviews and panels on YouTube, they seem pretty bland and non-talkative then you see interviews with the upcoming Power Rangers movie cast who pretty much embody #FriendGoals or #SquadGoals and you want to hang out with them. The enthusiasm just oozes from them it's crazy. I've seen this also with other casts and most of the time if I recall, the movie turns out great.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Yes, a director's track record does show that sometimes but as I've seen with a good chunk of the Marvel directors, didn't they have a string of stinkers before they got hired by Feige?

Marvel's something of an exception because it is a very producer heavy studio. As long as Feige is around I'm going to have faith in them barring a string of failures.

Also, there is a big difference between guys like James Gunn and Peyton Reed with tiny feature filmographies and guys like M. Night Shyamalan with a long track record of disasters. Yeah, there was nothing in James Gunn's past to suggest that he could make a big hit like GOTG, but we didn't have a ton of evidence that he couldn't either.

Now there are a couple of guys (Louis Leterrier and Alan Taylor) that Marvel has hired that would give me pause if they were to be hired for another blockbuster, but that wasn't the case at the time and even now neither is in the Michael Bay Zone where I avoid them like the plague (although Taylor might get there if he makes another movie the quality of Terminator Genisys).

Finally, if any director on my avoid list manages to somehow turn their career around and makes a great film or two or three, I'm more than willing to change my mind about them.

 

[Flint Marko]

FFINO was loudly announcing months before release that it would suck, but often times it's more subtle. Suicide Squad's complete tonal shift from teaser to first trailer was what keyed me off, even though both were fantastic on their own. More often than not, it's just a **** trailer - if a studio can't cobble together an interesting teaser from all of the footage they just spent months and millions on shooting, it probably won't be a good movie.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The reviews for Suicide Squad caught me totally by surprise. BvS I saw coming.

Generally speaking, I feel the same way as Flint Marko about bad trailers. Once in a while a studio just has no clue what type of film they have or try to market it to the wrong demographic, but most of the time if there isn't enough material to make a good trailer, that's a problem. It is one of the reasons I'm extremely pessimistic about Assassin's Creed, for example.

 

[Fallen Angel]

Trailers are usually cut by a third party and not the studios. And I've seen awesome trailers that turn out bad movies and bad trailers that turn out to be good movies.

So that point doesn't wash.

 

[jmc]

This is a question that really has no definitive answer. Sometimes it's nothing more than a feeling, usually due to a combination of cast, director and marketing. I think the ones that are red flags to me are the trailers that look like they are trying too hard to look awesome. That to me is usually the first sign the story isn't all that strong. I look at the Logan trailer as an example of something that is trying to do the opposite, it looks like it's trying to tell a story over a spectacle.

 

[Octoberist]

Often I'm pretty intuitive when it comes to a film'a quality prior to the campaign. It's almost like a six sense.

There are times when I was wrong, or when it's not totally clear to me. Suicide Squad would be an example of that.

Fantastic Beasts is another.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Trailers are usually cut by a third party and not the studios. And I've seen awesome trailers that turn out bad movies and bad trailers that turn out to be good movies.

So that point doesn't wash.

I think that's only half right. Bad movies have great trailers all the time. Great movies with lousy trailers are far less common.

 

[Octoberist]

Well two Fox movies have two very different ad campaigns: Logan had a great teaser, while Assassin's Creed' has been a weird mixed bag. Obviously they were cut by two different trailer houses, but I'm having a hard time thinking AC will end up being good.

 

[Lantern Venom]

If it's a parody film. Those are usually underwritten, poorly-planned cash grabs that rarely have anything substantive to offer.

If there are key changes in stars, tone, or a new director to an established franchise.

If the words "Topher Grace" are, in any way, associated with the film.

 

[spiderman2]

First I have to say I have a unpopular opinion on movies has there are a lot of movies I like or love that people think are ok or bad and a lot of movies I hate or don't like consider good or great. But to answer your question trailers trailers trailers. I can normal tell if I am going to like a movie based of a trailer. Yes there are some movie where I ended up likely the movie more then I though I would or less then I though I would but it is rare that a movie looks good from trailers and I end up not likely it at least a little and rare that a movie looks bad and I end up likely it. I would say like 98% of the time I can tell I am going to like a movie from the trailer. About the only movies I can think of that I thought looked great or even good and ended up not like the movie or even hatting the movie is star wars 1,2 and Godzilla, good dinasore.

 

[Wildcard]

It varies. Sometimes you can smell the stink a mile away (ex. Fant4stic, Catwoman) and sometimes you don't know until you are sitting in the theater.

It could be a number of things that set off alarms too. Studio hires a director with a poor track record, rumors of set problems, bad trailers, the concept sounds stupid, etc. Any of those types of things are going to raise eyebrows and if the same film has several of them that's really going to make it look like a disaster in the making. Sure some films can overcome that and become a classic (ex. Jaws), but most of the time where there's smoke, there's fire.

The director for me is the big one. The director is the king and a bad one can cause me to lose interest immediately once they are hired. The chances of me ever getting hyped again for another film from the likes of Paul WS Anderson, Brett Ratner, McG, Michael Bay, Zack Snyder, etc. is very low.

Pretty much everything I was going to say. And if those red flags are set off, I can't even be all too optimistic in waiting for a trailer. Because there have been a lot of times where trailers were able to hide, or at least partially hide, how awful the film truly was.

I typically go by director, casting and what concept they're going with. If at least one of those doesn't sync up for me, I don't even bother.

If it's a parody film. Those are usually underwritten, poorly-planned cash grabs that rarely have anything substantive to offer.

This as well. You won't ever catch me wasting money on parody films. They're lame, unoriginal and flat out a waste of time.

 

[batdude]

The last Fantastic Four I saw coming a mile away. the funny thing is this site had it pegged wrong. It really wasn't Michael B Jordan's fault it was just a cheap production.
Suicide Squad? It was basically Batman vs Will Smith and Margot Robbie's awesome Harley Quinn that saved it. Most times you can tell from the trailers though.

 

[lime]

Depending on may aspects. Cast, director, trailer.

I can tell you right now that Power Rangers will suck. Just as I needed one trailer to know Max Steel will suck.

With pure dramas it is harder. Mat Damon's ''The Great Wall'' will be a disaster. One trailer is enough to know that.

 

[Zant]

Often I'm pretty intuitive when it comes to a film'a quality prior to the campaign. It's almost like a six sense.

There are times when I was wrong, or when it's not totally clear to me. Suicide Squad would be an example of that.

Fantastic Beasts is another.

Rogue One is another. Never a good sign when a director gets kicked off his own film.

 

[Octoberist]

Rogue One is another. Never a good sign when a director gets kicked off his own film.

I think Disney is underplaying what really went down. The trailers have been pretty amazing though, and it's pretty to look at.

On the positive side, SW always had troubled productions - There's of course A New Hope, then Lucas butting heads with Irvin on Empire, the last minute rewrites and Lucas micro-managing on Jedi.

Then you had the Ford accident on The Force Awakens.

Disney has been pretty good with their pick-ups and reshoots, with their only blunder being Thor 2.

I hope the movie is good, and it's nice to see the return of Vader (with Jones doing the voice). I'm on the positive side, but we'll see.

Fantastic Beasts sorta suffered from David Yates juggling that and Tarzan at the same time. He literally was shooting FB, and then checked up on the post-production on Tarzan on the weekends.

 

[LoganGambit87]

- its very hard to tell since i have seen great marketing and trailers gives us average movies like suicide squad

- but i have also seen poor marketing give us good movies like edge of tomorrow

- have seen acclaimed directors gives us poor movies like ang lee he did Hulk after broke back mountain and crouching tiger hidden dragon, and now his new film is getting poor reviews after making life of pi

- have also seen average directors hit it out of the park like peyton reed with antman after making such films like bring it on and the yes man

 

[-JKR-]

For me it's mostly gut feeling, based on what I know and on what I 'sense' from the trailers.

 

[smallville fan]

So Flash losing its director twice is a textbook sign?

 

[dude stannis]

In terms of the question posed, I really do try to give films the benefit of the doubt. If a movie turns out to match the preconcieved expectations like Tranktastic Four and the theatrical cut of BvS, I end up simply forgetting about them. In other cases, like Suicide Squad and X-Men Apocalypse, I end up enjoying them and being glad I gave them the chance.

In fact more often than not, it turns out to be the ones I'm positive are going to be great that **** the bed for me and I end up despising. I.E. Age of Ultron, Jurassic World, Force Awakens and Avatar.