Chevrolet Volt to be Featured in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Toys.

For Hasbro, Transformers fiction largely exists to sell toys.

I just scanned through this thread, and it seems very few people brought up toys. Did some of you forget that very important little function of Transformers fiction? Most of it exists to sell toys or to promote the toy brand in some manner.

Sure, you can be like Fast and Furious and spend several million dollars on various second-hand cars, but would the companies behind those let Hasbro make toys out of them?

We know from Alternators that such negotiations are complicated, with the car company having most of the say (its their cars, after all). We know Honda USA doesn't like the idea of 'their' toys being armed with guns. GM (ironically) was unhappy with the big seam down the Corvette's hood. Volkswagen and Porsche refused to have anything to do with Transformers.

What this movie needed was:

A. A company that would offset thesome of the budget by providing the production with cars to drive and to wreck
B. Exclusive use of special cars to jointly promote each other (movie promote the company, company promote the movie)
C. Licensing allowing the creation of transforming robot toys based on those cars and trucks.

Evidently GM was the company who was willing to do all of that. To do this several manufacturers would have likely been complicated, time-consuming and expensive, and quite possibly fruitless.


EDIT: It is likely that several manufacturers would have demanded to know what their cars would be turning into, or how their cars were to be represented - but for the movie they needed the license so they could work on the car-to-robot design (or they would be wasting their time designing robots for cars whose licenses they didn't get). This essentially sounds like GM signed up on faith and didn't know what the hell it was going to look like.

If this is so, then its very important.

And after all that you really believe that money and the fact that there Cars are going to be on the big screen didnt have something to do with it ?

Come on these cars are from the same car company, did they all crash land in the Chevi factory ?

I don't really think that "what we believe" is relevant to the producers of the movie, at least as far as GM prominence. I personally would like a greater variety of cars, especially since I will never see any of the models from the first movie in the flesh, but I also concede that it would be an unlikely scenario.

Bay has established a pretty nice relationship with GM, and is unlikely to want to break ties. GM also seems to like the arrangement, and won't drop the opportunity to promote to such a large scale audience. I suspect this dealing will continue to follow Bay long after he leaves the TF franchise. This is Hollywood after all, not democracy at work.

Could not agree with you more, i also would like to see actual cars that we see on a day to day basis as assposed to concepts here there and everywhere.

You know I've often wondered what it would take for Hasbro to make a Transformers cartoon pitched at about the same level as Justice League that had no intention of selling toys and the sole purpose of which is to tell the story of the Transformers.

A rip in the fabric of space and time so far has been the minimum I've come up with.

DC is an comic company trying to morph into an Entertainment franchise.

Hasbro is a Toy Company trying to morph into an Entertainment franchise.

DC making a movie/show not based on and supported by comic books makes no sense, why would Hasbro make a movie/show without being supported by toys? They are a toy company, that is what they do.

You do realize that every cartoon animation DC has made in the past 15 years has spawned piles of comic books. Harley Quinn is a perfect example as she was invented and spawned from Batman:TAS.

They shouldn't even attempt to make a TF series without a toyline. It makes no sense for them because TEEVEE shows don't make money on their own and cartoons are not the juggernaut of advertisement or sponsoring like other series.

I'd like to see other car companys involved but GM would likley oppose any other entrants and then pull all their vehicles out in protest, leaving the movie with less rather then more.

For better or worse GM are the only company with a wide enough range of vehicles to make it work that stepped forward to start with. This is their turf now and I imagine it'll stay that way.

With due respect with the sheer amount of money they seem to make and I foresee them making in the near future, I see no reason why they can't do what I suggested.

So congratulations for pointing out the painfully fucking obvious reasons why the won't, hence the comment requiring a rip in yadda yadda for it to happen.

chev volt be stuntcon

Sweet car, I'll be looking forward to seeing what bot that turns out to be.

Thats exactly my question. You just assume that Hasbro went around to each car company asking for permission to use their cars in the movie. Does that mean EVERY movie has to go around asking EVERY car company when their cars are used? Their cars are just props. If a person is eating a bag of Doritos in a scene - does the movie have to go to Doritos to ask for licensing issues?

In another post, some people thought it was GM who PAID Hasbro to be involved in the movie. I see that as a possilbe scenario as GM is basically paying for "air time" of their product.

Anyone really know the details of the agreement without just assuming things? Who paid who for how much and for what reason?

I think a lot of people are making assumptions, and no one knows anything. It's what forums are for.

Why not?

That's the carrot for GM.

Let me reiterate: the Transformers franchise exists to sell toys. Older fans like to imagine their comics and cartoons exist to entertain and to tell stories. Nah, they exist because they're commercials for whatever toys are currently on shelves or to promote brand awareness. Hasbro are (partly) in this to sell toys of *their* characters in *their* franchise*. If they can't make toys based upon movie characters with X manufacturer, then they'll have the production talk to somebody else.

Paramount owns the movie, but Hasbro owns Transformers. Why let somebody make a movie of your toy franchise if you can't even merchandise it?

There's that GI Joe Resolute series Hasbro is making. They said if its successful, they might do one for TF.

It's made to promote the brand, not sell toys.

Yeah, he kinda missed the point of what you were asking, since your situation was largely hypothetical. On the other hand, there's this (also hypothetical) PG-13 Transformers show that's rumored if the GI Joe PG-13 kickass goes well.

EDIT^^^ Beat me to it.

But in the end, it's all a vicious cycle because even if they did make a series that was not made to sell toys and not linked to any toyline or series in particular, fans would still WANT to buy toys of the characters. Is selling toys at every opportunity all that Habro cares about, or are they just giving us what we want?

Look how many people wanted toys for War Within or Hearts of Steel. Those series were made without any toylines but toys still got made (for WW anyway) because fans wanted them.

Also, this is a great thread, some really good, profound discussion about the franchise here.

Gijoe:Resolute is gonna have figures or some product in some way.

I mean they are following the 'clone wars' formula CN for star wars. And they are getting a full length feature film out of that cartoon network minisodes.

Hasbro = make toys. That is what they do. They are like if Dairy Queen tried to sell books. While they probably could, it better god damn well increase ice cream sales or else there is no point to it.

The point is with those stories (and eventually with Resolute), the story came before the toys. The toys were made after the fact.

Most Transformers fiction accompanying toys (cartoons), the toys are made before the fiction, and so usually stories tend to be about selling the toys rather than just telling a story (gimmick sequences, new characters being badass in their debut). For the 2007/2009 Movies and Animated, the toys were made concurrently with the production.

Well aside from it being hugely tacky and unashamed bit of product placement (which is all part and parcel in a movie like this I know, but some subtlety please) a car dealership tends to be in a central business hub, lots of people.

Although the easy out is a night landing ala the first film. Though massive impact damage and noise caused by a multitude of large Alien life forms is going to grab attention any which way.

I was going to get in to it but it seems Fit For Natalie pretty much said what I wanted to say. Basically, this isn't just product placement in a movie. It extends way beyond that to the cars likeness in books, video games, and especially toys. I'm pretty sure that the fast and the furious didn't have similar arrangements to TF.

Also, brands may not be *featured* without approval. Basically, it's just like the laws about filming people. You can film people without their consent if they are background and not featured.

It would be illegal use of branding if, say, the new Knight Rider show did not get Ford's permission because the specific brand is highlighted.

The way studios get around this a lot of the time is by removing branding from vehicles. If you pay attention you will notice this all the time in TV shows and movies.

No, I don't. Hasbro did no such thing. It was stated quite literally several times by Bay himself that he and GM worked out a deal where GM essentially sponsored the movie and pumped not only vehicles, but also money into it up front for the advertising rights. Remember the huge string of Transformers based GM commercials that centered on the movie's release? This wasn't Hasbro's baby. This was Bay's and the movie company's. Hasbro worked with them, not above them.

Long term memory doesn't seem to be a strong suit in this fandom.

Especially when proven, documented fact contradicts people in the fandom's personal agendas.

We get this information every year at BOTCON. Can't get more official than that but yet people seem to forget and ignore it.

Let me make the following clear:
1)I'm not bashing GM - Both my Father and I have been in awe of Camaros and Corvettes specifically for years; I just wish that there were a VARIETY of car brands in the film, as that would be more realistic;
2)I'm not bashing Bay - I just don't agree with everything he does, and I, like anyone else HAS THE RIGHT TO DISAGREE;
3)I'm not bashing concept cars - yes, they look cool, and make cool transformers, HOWEVER, let's be real. (The scene where Jazz just happens to land near the Pontiac dealer is pretty convenient writing; I like the Solstice, but, I don't know how much disbelief I can suspend in that particular scene);
4)Even though I have some issues with the films, I still went to see them and still ENJOY them.

Ok.

For the record, there are a number of vehicle "Brands" in the film.

Chevrolet
Hummer
Pontiac
GMC
Ford
Peterbilt

Yes, some of those brands fall under one umbrella but they are very different and distinct brands.

That is unrealistic because 100% of the movie-going public clearly knows those are all GM models and that the fact that everyone who saw it noticed no japanese cars made people unable to believe the movie when it presented giant transforming robots from space. It was the number one issue in every movie review and the first thing said when walking out of the movie was how the lack of variety of manufacturers made the film totally unbelievable.

it does actually look very similar imo. good choice for a TF.

i think that's just silly, that someone would let such a small detail such as automobile manufacturers ruin a movie for them. it's unrealistic? i'll tell you what's unrealistic: giant transforming robots from space. i just sorta forgot about the whole GM thing and enjoyed the totally awesome cars, just like a forgot that there are no giant transforming robots from space invading earth. i find that a lot of people give bad reviews to movies that i really enjoy because (and it's NOT because i'm retarded and think they're "good quality" or "oscar worthy" or whatever...) i just know when to switch my brain off and just enjoy a movie. like Wanted for example.

I'm just going to humbly raise my hand and note that I did not know this. In fact, I'm also going to go out on a limb and assume that not everyone knows this, either.

I thought Ford and Peterbuilt were separate companies.

I left off my sarcasm tags. Basically no one realized or cared and the perceived lack of variety by a very tiny statistically insignificant few did not impact the believability or enjoyment for the masses.

pretty slick~

to anyone who doubts that it is possible to make a heavily merchandised movie that features multiple car brands, look no further than Pixar's Cars.

Note on this page how many of the characters are actually identified as specific brands and models of cars, rather than merely resembling them.

Identifying brands as diverse as Porshe, Fiat, Volkswagon, Chevrolet, Ford, Mazda among others.

They did it. They didn't sell out their options for some tacky promotion. All of those were produced as toys, many of which list the brand. The characters were included in books, games, all manner of merchandising. What's the problem with that?

Because Porshe and Volkswagon don't want their brands linked with war or violence.

And Pixar is a world know 'good thing' for car companies to be associated with, no 'role' makes you the evil character which potentially hurts your brand and you are not MODIFYING their cars like 'damaging' the hood of the corvette in alt tracks.

It is apples and oranges. If you can't understand why car companies would want to be in Pixar's Cars but have resistance to Paramounts Transformers and the significant differences and issues related to them, I don't know what to tell you.

And every car in Pixar's Cars needed to be explicitly approved by the car makers.

Also there was nothing physical that the companies had to provide. Just sign of on their visage. They didn't have to provide actual cars for use on set.

I do understand your point, just not sure it's comparable.

my answer to this is that Disney has money up the ying-yang. they probably heat all their buildings with an oven that burns $100 bills exclusively.

Just for the record: Barricade in the movie is not a Ford, he's a Saleen Mustang.
Ford did not want their car to be depicted as a "bad guy". Hence Barricade is a custom-built Mustang by aleen and sports no Ford logos.

Also, Optimus Prime's vehicle mode was very genericized so toys could be made without paying licenses to Peterbilt. He also doesn't sport manufacturer logos in the movie.

disney has so much money they had to buy pixar.

...lol at that

... only after their own animated films were loosing massive amounts of money. Around the turn of the millenium they were having massive layoffs every year.

Honestly, I don't think the whole Disney has megabucks, and Paramount is in the poorhouse argument is up to much. Paramount is part of the massive Viacom corporation, and I don't think any movie with Spielberg's name attached ever has all that much trouble attracting finance.

That's very interesting, I hadn't realised that about Barricade. But it does go to demonstrate that there are ways of getting around and appeasing the demands of automakers.

It's not totally comparable, but combine it with the other example of that Fast and the Furious movie, and I think you can make a fair case for the feasibility of having multiple brands involved. Probably never get VW and Porshe onboard, but you can still have variety.

But you're right, in a movie that involves explosion and car chases, it's clearly an advantage to have a good source for multiple cars. There's clear advantages and disadvantages either way. It depends on your point of view whether that makes it a worthwhile trade-off.

If you were to have been asked the question: "If the TFs ALL chose only one car brand as their ALT modes, would you find that believable?" The answer would be no. It requires you to suspend your disbelief to watch the movie. Can it be done. Sure. Can it be done easily? I would say it can depending on how much you noticed the said fact.

But I don't think anyone can argue the fact that having only one car brand is realistic as far as story telling goes.

All it does is point out the fact that some people just don't want to be bombarded with advertisements constantly. And there are people out there who don't like that and won't put up with it. I don't like to be bombarded with pop-up ads when I surf the web. I don't want Facebook to plaster ads all over their webpage. Ask people and they prefer a webpage free of cluttered ads.

Its the same with TF being one huge giant commercial. Its just taking it to an even more extreme. To some of you, it doesn't matter. To others, it does. Its just a matter of where you draw the line.

that;s wat i was saying, disney's movies would be non-existant if pixar didn't save their butts.

Yeah, I think they made the right decision there.

We'll just have to agree to disagree: when it comes to movies, especially science fiction movies, suspension of disbelief is a required and common characteristic.

As far as arguing the fact about having or not having one or more car brands as realistic or unrealistic, personally, I feel that since we moviegoers work really hard for our money, (though, ironically, it isn't our money that greenlights, funds, produces, directs and edits the movies), then we can and should expect a reasonably sound, logical, faithful, sensible and humourus filmic presentation manifested on celluloid after we've paid our 7 or more dollars for tickets and popcorn to see the movie. That's just my personal sentiment, especially since I am an active media watcher and consumer - I guess my background working in community access television with an emphasis on media literacy has greatly influenced that sentiment and temperament.

In closing, I'll say this:
A)There are alot of cool cars in TF1 and some cool ones in TF2 - still wish for more variety, and I can still wish for that;
B)I liked TF1 as well as G1 and some of the other incarnations, but not without a critical eye and not without seeing what I feel are flaws;
C)I'm looking forward to TF2, but looking forward to it cautiously. Will TF2 blow me away? I'm sure it will. Am I looking forward to the teasers and leaked footage and designs? Yes, but cautiously. Do I have some respect for Bay, Spielberg, Orci, Kurtzman, Kreugher, as well as Dreamworks, Paramount and Co., ILM, Digital Domain and everyone involved? YES - tons, as making movies like this are a big-ass amount of work - even though again, I can still disagree with some of their choices. I'm not going to go off like that guy who was an extra and disrupted the set - that was just plain imbecilic and assinine. If Bay ever decides to shoot any footage in Cincinnati or North Carolina for TF2 or TF3, I'd be more than happy to be an extra, to get his autograph, and to give him and co. their props.

Perhaps his name will be Volt!!

nope, which is why it's good that they're all from different brands.

Regarding Pixar:

Say what you want about George Lucas, but he and his companies have invented or pioneered like 60% of the technology in modern Hollywood. Staggering.

Wishing no offence to ILM, for they are gods of their domain, who did the other 40%?

The Saab makes a way better Wheeljack, this Volt has to be another character.

Actually, I'm trying to think of WHAT the other 40% is. Hmm. What effects didn't Lucasfilm Ltd. pioneer?

Big-budget indie filmmaking? Nope, ESB.
Digital editing? Nope, EditDroid.
Computer animation? The PIXAR computer.
CGI? Please.
Start-motion photography? ILM again.
Motion capture? Yep, ILM.
Surround sound? Digital projection? Lucas again.
Animatics and storyboarding? Lucasfilm rewrote the book.
Sound design? They do about half of Hollywood's.
Digital photography? Invented, built the cameras, and used for the first time.

I give up. Maybe I should have said 99%. It's nice to think that someone else would have come up with this stuff eventually, but the truth is we'd still probably be using stilted stop-motion and mono.

Does excellent dialogue and writing anytime after 1989 count? 'Cause Lucas does great on everyone ELSE's properties.

PS- Don't tell Michael Bay about this. He thinks he invented all this stuff himself. ^^^

Yeah, bet he wishes he hadn't sold Pixar so cheap.