Titanic being the exception, the others are every bit the fantasy that Transformers are.

The real difference between the ones I listed and Transformers is the quality of filmmaking; and AoE's was not that good I'm sorry to say.

 

Lord of the Rings and Transformers certainly have different target audiences. I mean, I shouldn't really have to point that out.

That being said, I'm not pointing the finger at movie runtime as the sole or even the major factor in declining box office numbers for the TF film franchise. But at 2 hours and 45 minutes, I do think the runtime of AOE was a factor in it's lower BO total.

 

Transformers was based off something plenty of people grew up with. You can't compare that to 13 Hours. I'm sure people would rather see transforming cars and not how human warfare unfolded.

 

I would like for you too.
What's the difference between Orcs and Decepticons? I'd be willing to bet not much, according to the average non-nerd Joe Schmoe.

 

So you're saying I just imagined the heavy presence of the US Armed Forces in each film?

I mean, it's not like they deployed a fighter squadron to attack hostiles in a US city...oh, right.

Well, they certainly didn't have anything to do with Egypt...except somehow get landing craft to Egypt's non-existent shoreline near the pyramids and do more damage to Devestator with one shot than the entirety of the Autobots combined and fly bombers over everything...

No, wait, they totally were not involved with DOTM...until the end when suddenly there's soldiers literally dropping out of the sky and taking out Decepticons left and right.

AoE doesn't even get the chance to be excused because humans were the bad guys. After all, who were those dumb KSI bots being marketed to?

 

I don't see why they can't have the same target audience. Transformers can have an smart, epic story if the filmmakers wish it so.

 

I'm not saying they can't, I'm saying they don't. LOTR wasn't spawned as a saturday morning cartoon about alien robots to appeal to little kids.

 

The key detail being "if the filmmakers wish it so."

And they haven't since the films can't even keep its own terminology straight I.E. a "spacebridge" in ROTF is completely different from DOTM's spacebridge.

 

I think the target audience demographic is about the same, but the pre installed hardcore audience is probably quite different.

 

I think it's more of what a studio wants. Kind of hard to make a very long list of recent Paramount films that could be described as smart epic stories. It's not something that has seemed important to the studio so the GI Joe films also suffer from the same faults you find with the Transformers films.

 

I have seen little kids watching LOTR in the cinemas as well. I even remember some kids laughing then that Uruk-hai let that sword impale him.
So it seems that if it's fantasy, the target audience are kids according to studios and some other people.

Anyway, this is about TF movies and 13 hours.  

Well, I don't think that what happens to 13 hours would make Paramount think twice about Bay.

It does seem Bay is the only one cheap enough and willingly enough for Paramount to use. Or they think that changing a director would destroy the franchise.

 

Doesn't he clear about 50-75 million from each of these movies? Willing, sure... but he absolutely does not come cheap.

 

He may be cheaper to others due to the fact that he uses more practical effects and less CGI for his filming.

 

That's Guiermo del Toro's big thing, not Bay. There's less CGI in Pacific Rim than there is in Age of Extinction.

 

not really, it is a january film. january is usually the garbage movies of the year. if they thought it had any actual commercial value, they would of put it out in summer.

 

I don't think the mass public had any clue what Lord of the Rings was before the movie, I think more people knew what Transformers was before.

Even though Tolkien had been around much longer more people could probably tell you about Optimus Prime and Bumblebee prior to either movie coming out.

 

Uh...the live action LOTR films were not the first LOTR films. Animated versions of The Hobbit and the 1978 animated adaption of the first book:


Furthermore, even if it wasn't commonly known enough to be associated with Tolkien, the LOTR books essentially were the cornerstone to the concept of high fantasy. Elves, dwarves, orcs, 1500's era architecture, etc. basically all stem from LOTR or lesser known works of the early 1970's.

When Transformers got its live action film, all it was beforehand was a toyline with a commercial. When LOTR got its first live action film, it had already established an entire genre of fiction.

 

Understood.   Just saying what I have heard several times online.  

 

saying the general public had no idea what lord of the rings was before the movies, is like saying they had no idea what food was before mcdonalds.

 

A lot of people wouldn't know what food was if there suddenly wasn't macdonalds!

.. not really sure how that fits into your analogy!