Or you could say from the writer of Beautiful Mind, Time To Kill, Cinderella Man, I Robot. He has some bad films on his resume but he has some great films as well.

I could go either way, but I'll be optimistic.

 

DOTM's budget was $195 million.

AoE's budget was $210 million.

That's a difference of $15 million.

AoE made $32 million less in raw revenue total than DOTM. It's not a good sign when the sequel has more money put into it and it made less money.

Just to put that in perspective? The budget for Slumdog Millionare, one of the most critically claimed movies of 2010, was exactly $15 million. Its current worldwide total is $377 million, virtually 25 times as much money coming out of it then went into it.

AoE's "Billion+" is only roughly 4.4 times its budget. DOTM? 5.8 times as profitable with half as much coming in from China but almost double the domestic that AoE got.

Given how hard the film pandered to the most populated country on the planet? The inclusion of the big name Chinese actors specifically was to draw in more people - they probably saw the film for them more than the actual robot stuff.

If the Chinese market had only made one million then Parmount would only have gotten $250,000. That's less than the price tag of Lockdown's alt. mode prop vehicle.

I never said that - the worldwide gross ensured the film would be profitable to some degree.

Those same experts say the film only made a net profit of $250 million.

Not to mention the toyline was an unquestionable disaster. Just look at the profit numbers - the toyline performed under expectations even after Hasbro admitted those expectations were significantly lower than for the previous three movie toylines.

Sure, the film essentially made twice as much money that had been sunk into it, but the falling domestic box office can not be ignored. One dollar made in the domestic is one dollar in Paramount's pocket. The equivalent of one USD $1 in the Chinese box office is 25 cents to Paramount's pocket.

Or, more bluntly, one dollar domestically is worth four times the amount of a foreign dollar when it comes to AoE's revenue breakdown.

Because you aren't looking at what Paramount did to try and get the movie made in its pandering to China.

There also were just more bad guys period in Avengers that actually proved to have a shot at defeating/killing the good guys.

Lockdown's hands were tied the second he explained his mission was to take Optimus alive.

Still doesn't explain the dinbots existing.

Wrong.

The Tesseract isn't a McGuffin like those in the TF films where it's one-and-done. Sure, it was basically the McGuffin in Captain America, but its existence is a constant element in the MCU, for later Fury shows it to the scientist guy in Thor's stinger along with Loki's survival and obvious scheming. But then it's used as part of the larger, ongoing plot because it's also one of the Infinity Gems, stones of horrifying power (as exposized by The Collector in GotG when the third one is revealed to be inside the orb - not to mention that Thor 2 literally just gives him the second gem because the Asgardians still have the Tesseract and they explicitly say "these things really should not ever be reunited again"). Thanos also is around and with three gems already in play, the great overarching plot is blatantly leading into Thanos getting his hands on all six and the Infinity Gauntlet which will allow him to control reality himself.

How that differs from "all this old shit is on Earth" of the TF films is that, progressively, the gems have been revealed to be a major part of the MCU's own wide-spanning backstory - the things that ARE the gems actually don't match up to the comics, but in concept they're the same so when the next gem is revealed, it's kind of a major deal because so many characters will eventually want to go after them for their own ends.

Oh, yeah, and technically Loki still won at the end of Avengers because he's masquarding around as Odin and he achieved his true goal of becoming the top dog of Asgard. It took another movie, granted, but he's actually scott free now, given the Chitari are kind of leaderless after GotG saw their leader get killed by Ronan having a bad day. Have the bad guys ever actually won at the end of any TF film?

Point is, the MCU works because people know what to expect. Yes, Thanos existing alongside the Infinity Gems means he's going to eventually get them, but because it's known that's going to happen, it's what makes the MCU so good - the overarching question of how every subsequent film will tie into the major plots; either the reveal of the Infinity Gems or the more front and center plot of the impending Civil War storyline where pretty much all the superheroes are going to converge and beat the shit out of each other because politics in the fallout of SHIELD falling.

The TF Films have no continuity like that. Even the "Creators" are proof of this, as they are more a concept than a group or whathave you. The What, Who, and Why are not explained in the slightest, much less why anybody should care about them. Thanos merely smiling at the end of Avengers was metric boatloads of "oh shit!" because people know exactly who he is and it is always a big deal if he's even relevant in the slightest way to anything. Because when he does come into play, he is going to fuck some shit up big time. And people can't wait to see just how he goes about doing that.

In motion, it's actually really hard to distinguish Prime from Grimlock's head. Sure, it's easier on your computer monitor, but this is several dozen feet away from the audience in the theater - you think they're going to see those tiny blue specs in the upper right of the screen when their focus is supposed to be on the middle of the T-rex robot?

You do realize there's more to these films than just the end battle, right? Something has to happen in the two/three hours getting to that point to keep people interested and not walking out the door demanding their money back.

During which more than just mindless punching and slaughter goes on. There's a reason people say The Hulk is the best character of the film - it's because he has by far the most memorable moments of the film during the "big climatic battle."

And neither of them happen with Chituari in the shot.

I think you're forgetting a major detail about Drift when you specify only Autobots are being treated as characters...you know, that whole bit about how he's ex-Decepticon? You make it sound like being a Bot or a con is suddenly the difference between unredeemable monster and actual character with depth.

So...Hound running out of ammo (even though he's perfectly capable of, oh I don't know, punching the enemy in the face with his massive girth) is somehow the same as Iron Man's near-fatal maneuver of nuking the chitari, which had been progressively built up through the whole film I might add?

I can't decide if this either is bringing up why people moaning about Ratchet getting offed is annoying because somehow this makes up for the fact he kind of did literally nothing in the past films, or in fact proving why people moaning about ratchet getting offed is annoying because he did literally nothing in the past films.

Oh no, Iron Man gets his ass kicked repeatedly and needs Mrs. Potts to save his ass from...exploding botox people.
That's totally in line with seeing Optimus Prime - whose death in 1986 traumatized children who had seen him as one of their biggest fictional heroes - become a borderline Hannibal Lecter when he rips off The Fallen's face for no apparent reason.

Or, y'know, Jazz getting ripped in half in the first TF film. It's not like he's not one of the most popular Autobots from the G1 days or anything.

Because the MCU wasn't established directly after IM3? The MCU was already well underway after the first IM film, one bad film wasn't going to sink that ship when it was even expected due to the MCU not having one sub-par film by that point since the high times couldn't last forever.

The TF films are linear, plus AoE is a terrible film to try and pull a multi-film angle on because there's only one active plot thread with The Creators. The MCU's been doing multiple storylines since the beginning with the introduction of Agent Coulson back in IM as a running joke character (because he keeps trying to say the full name of SHIELD every time he introduces himself) and then at the end of Hulk when Tony shows up in the stinger and indirectly confirms the existence of the Avengers initiative.

Ok, then, let's see your side of the argument about the economic situation. Where's your proof?

 

not at all, theirs plenty of material and even ground work to expand upon

ROTF Maybe, Maybe

DOTM?

 

No, it doesn't. The term "cinematic universe" didn't even exist before Marvel's movies, so how can you claim it applies to Star Trek?

 

And yet it was still the most valuable film of 2014. So what does that tell you? It should tell you what everyone from industry experts to fans with a casual interest in films picked up on. 2014 was a down year for films, across the board. Everything under-performed, save for Guardians of the Galaxy. And that's only because no one knew what to expect from a D-list Marvel title. It did better then expected, but given how well it was received in general? It probably would have done even better in any other year prior.

It's not yet blockbuster season, so who knows if 2015 will see things pick up. If I had to guess as to why 2014 was so low? Well the economy still isn't in the best place, and luxuries like movie tickets are going to be among the first expenses cut. Especially when your tech-savvy audience member can find a torrent of the thing online for free.

My point is that even when the industry as a whole was in a decline, AoE still topped the charts.

 

I can't believe I'm saying this but I don't think I want there to be a Transformers cinematic universe.
I didn't used to be a movie hater, but honestly, I can't take anymore.

Are we just going to have more movies with unlikable humans running around acting like idiots while the robots remain glorified sentient props?

Over the course of four Transformers live action films has there been a single likable character?

 

Well I'd argue that the Autobots were actual characters and not props in AoE. I'd also argue that, even if they were, it wouldn't matter. Don't like the movies? Don't see them. Meanwhile their financial success brings more money into Hasbro, which means the Transformers brand as a whole benefits.

So as a Transforers fan? You should want there to be as many financially successful Transformers films as possible.

 

Sam, Bumblebee, Optimus, Epps, Lenox, Cade, Hound, Crosshairs, Brains, Drift, Sideswipe, Ironhide, I know allot or people liked mikeala.

 

Except series like in IDW and RID15 has shown you can indeed have stores that don't involve Optimus,Megatron and other well known names with good enough writing. The movies will be a tougher challenge but who knows? they could pull it off. Like they can do a movie that's centered on the Dinobots and Drift who's going against the DJD for leaving the Decepticons.

 

The underlined really does not help your case of making AoE sound like it actually would have done well in a good movie year.

This comes out in two weeks y'know.

And yet the Chinese box office was so substantial...

Again, you're implying this wouldn't have happened if a stronger film had come out that year.

AoE's toyline failed.

Y'know, the thing the movie was supposed to be one big advertisement for? Shortest mainline in TF history, really.

Only two of those characters have been in all four films, y'know...

If this was the case, then Megatron should not have been brought back simply to be handed his own ass by Optimus again.

 

Troy Baker as Optimus Prime....sure why the fuck not?

I know right....years went slowly as a kid...now it's just crazy how much things keep changing in a short time.

 

You're missing the point entirely. More on that later.

And? In two weeks we'll see if it under-performs or not. Not that it matters. How good Avengers 2 does doesn't change the fact that blockbusters across the board under-performed in 2014.

I'm not sure what the habits of the Chinese movie-going public have to do with the habits of the American movie-going public. Or what the economic situation in China has to do with the economic situation in America.

And we're back to you missing the point.
Blockbusters, across the board, under-performed in 2014. They all did. AoE grossed $1.091 billion in that down year. That doesn't mean it would have only drawn that much in a better year. If it were, it would have made more. 2014 was just a low year. TA Spider-Man 2, Captain America 2. AoE. All pulled under what was projected. This ties in with a point later on by the way.
Doesn't change the fact that AoE was the most valuable film. You don't seem to understand this. Of all the films that were released in 2014 it was the most financially viable.
You want to rag on the fact that Paramount only made $250 million off of it. Yet you're conveniently ignoring the fact that it's more then any other studio made off any other film that year.

Go back and take a look at 2014. Not only did blockbusters see a dip in ticket sales across the board but toylines for those movies were all down. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 line and the Captain America: Winter Soldier line were all busts.
In short? The entire industry took a beating. Not just the Transformers AoE line. Economic realities are going to force toy companies to re-evaluate how they handle movie tie-in lines. 2014 was a case of growing pains all around.

Don't like the movies? Fine. Like or don't like whatever you want. I don't care. It's the level of arrogance that says "well I don't like it, therefore it must be a failure" that bugs me about movie detractors.
I mean take a step back from your position and really examine what you're saying. You're saying that the most financially valuable film of 2014 was a flop.
It's really amazing just how far down the "Michael Bay sucks!" rabbit hole some people are willing to go.

Anyway I'm done. There's nothing more that's going to happen here besides us condescending at each other, and I'm not interested in that. Peace

 

And Fast and Furious 7 having already become the seventh highest grossing film of all time at $1.152 Billion doesn't count because...?

Besides, you'd be insane to think Avengers 2 isn't going to break a billion - if AoE can have a terrible plot and break a billion, a film with a good plot is going to hit it out of the park.

Your blanket statement, of course.

Because I'm fairly certain AoE was not the only film released in China that year.

Actually, AoE is the outlier, and only because of how heavily it pandered to China by taking place in China, the elevator scene, and all the heavy promotional contracts with the government.

Looking at a list of the top ten grossing films, they all average out to about $750 million. 2014 also currently holds the record for the most movies to make over $500 million in one year - 15. So really, 2014 wasn't a "down" year for movies, it was actually on average more profitable all around.

To who? China?

Yes, because American Sniper only making $243 million in net profit is such a low point for second place. Because Paramount made $245 million off of AoE.

Also, American Sniper made more in the domestic box office (like, $337 million) than AoE did in any single country including the big China money fountain. Which, given American Sniper only had slightly under $60 million in budget, makes it more profitable in terms of the return on the investment.

You do realize that movie toylines are normally not that successful to begin with, right? Only reason the TF toylines were so big was because they were the same kind of TF product but branded for a feature film.

Also, you can not tell me LEGO did not do well with toy sales after what was literally a giant LEGO commercial has spawned two confirmed sequels and virtually a whole new IP, too, in addition to the whole LEGO sub-line of movie branded product.

Yes, I'm sure Hasbro's girl toylines were devastated by the comparatively successful release of the second Equestria Girls film to the point of once again outstriping the profitability of boys toys for the summer quarterly reports.

If you judge film quality purely on nothing but the raw worldwide box office, then you're kind of saying that 50 Shades of Gray is a high quality film because right now it's the second highest grossing film of 2015 (F7 literally is ahead by a magnitude of one million) and was the #1 movie in America for two weeks...just like AoE.

Nobody's even mentioned Bay's involvement as being part of this - you're the one somehow arguing that by looking at numbers other than that big $1.091 billion total box office revenue and seeing the movie barely returned double the investment - along with doing abysmally in the domestic box office which is more lucrative than China due to those contracts Paramount signed - it's an unfair evaluation of a film that's honestly not that good.

Hell, Paramount had to bribe Bay with a cool $10 million simply to have him agree to direct AoE. That was outside of the film's total costs, but factoring it in? American Sniper made more money as a 2014 release film.

Well, if you do come back, please have some evidence supporting your claims. I still don't get what's so special about AoE being the most expensive film of 2014 (because that's what "most valuable film" seems to imply)

 

Transmorphers says hi

 

He does nothing but troll the movies, so it best to just leave him alone. The ignore list is always a great idea.

 

So reading through the thread, i see the same bull that is repeated through most other movie threads. *Sigh*

Does it matter if Aoe was a flop or not guys? According to Paramount, No. It clearly made enough to warrant a Sequel (planned or not, if AoE was a total flop im assuming they wouldn't be calling this film TF5) and allow for Spin off films to be in the works.

Aoe has served as the stepping stone for even more Live action TF films. Success or not. Fact.

Now please, can we have a nice discussion? About, i don't know, what could potentially happen in TF5 or said spin offs??

Also

Thanks for the tip xD

 

Wow. This is like TLDR:The Thread

 

I'm going to have to disagree with the theory that the domestic box office was down due to the economy.

Domestically American Sniper beat Age of Extinction by $102 million. Hunger Games Mockingjay part 1 beat Age of Extinction by $92 million. The top three domestic films all had a box office in excess of $300 million. So I don't think that it was not that Americans and Canadians didn't have any money to spend at the theaters but rather that people didn't like the offering Hollywood put out in 2014.

I think it really says something about how far the domestic appeal of Transformers has dropped to only come in at 7th place domestically in a year when the competition at the box office wasn't that strong. If the Transformers films were the unstoppable juggernaut some people claim then it should have wiped the floor with the other films of 2014 instead of only finishing $4 million ahead of Maleficent.

When you get into the nuts and bolts of just how studios make money then losing domestic appeal is really bad for the revenue stream.

 

Hahaha.

The room, Dragon ball evolution, legend of chun li, Big mama's house 2, grown ups, grown ups 2, Battlefield LA, Battleship, Devil, the happening, Both Gi joes, man of steel, green lantern, tammy, the lone ranger, any thing by tyler perry

and thats just of the top of my head.

 

Oh come on.

That's "so bad it's hilarious" material right there.