[ta2112]

I've noticed this with movies. If a movie is being advertised a lot, it's usually a bad movie. Why else are they trying so hard?

The opposite happened with the Matrix. I think I saw 1 bus stop poster for it, and didn't know what it was until multiple people at work said, "you have to see it!" Too bad they never made a sequel.

[joegibbs]

You might just not like big-budget movies - there's definitely a correlation between the size of the budget and a lack of novelty. Take a look at Wikipedia's list of most expensive films, almost every single one on there is a big franchise film - often late in the franchise too. I think the first one on there that isn't based on previous material is Avatar at #41 and I think the only other is Tenet at #62.

This makes sense - if you're funding a movie you want a return on your investment. You could make 20 risky $10m movies or one that's $200m which has to succeed or else. When you put your money into the $200m movie you want to make sure it's as inoffensive as possible and appeals to as wide an audience as possible, so you want a franchise that's proven to pump out hits in the past (or a director who does the same, like Cameron for Avatar and Nolan for Tenet).

[paulryanrogers]

> Too bad they never made a sequel.

Sarcasm?

[cpfohl]

https://xkcd.com/566/

Language warning if you have kids around or don’t like that.

[GianFabien]

from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix_(franchise) sequels:

   The Matrix Reloaded

   The Matrix Revolutions

   The Matrix Resurrections

[Terr_]

I'm sure the parent-poster is making a joke about the other movies being bad, as opposed to being bizarrely unaware of them.

[phoronixrly]

It's an xkcd reference