Godzilla is more popular then transformers marvel and DC combined

 

You bring up fine points. Transformers are transforming cars. People tend to prefer to see humans or cute/friendly animals, not aliens/robots. It's much easier for people to relate to other organic, human-like beings (Avatar, Pixar films, Star Wars) than inorganic robots. This is the roadblock Paramount/Hasbro has to deal with firsthand, which gives Marvel or any other superhero movie a headstart. They need to make destructive robots appealing to the casual moviegoer, especially for the female demographic who I presume is more likely to prefer watching romance/comedy, fantasy or until recently, superhero movies (which were once seen as a niche geek culture).

Marvel's genre is also more family-friendly and diverse, from good-natured comedy, action, lighthearted heroism, camaraderie, overcoming humanistic obstacles. It is overall a more charming franchise to the general populace than Transformers.

Transformers (Bay) on the otherhand is categorized as action, sci-fi, war, military, alien. A movie geared more for the male viewership. Pacific Rim could have been a successful franchise had they not ruined the sequel with its plot and disrespect to fan-favorite characters established in the first; the same goes for Ghost Busters and Jurrasic Park. Yet Transformers does have more style and memorability as a brand than these, and is somehow more successful, which is how it was able to go on for as long as it did and continues to do so.

 

Comparing End Game to Lord of the Rings as big moments in film it kind of strikes me that Transformers doesn't do the small well. You can connect to Frodo and Sam because you get to know them in the times when big effects battles aren't going on. You know the characters that will be fighting in End Game because the MCU has effectively used the slow down moments of the other films to build them up into fleshed out characters. But Transformers never seemed to grow beyond whatever stereotype they were using to fill in for a lack of character.

Doesn't seem like like Paramount can catch up by just throwing bigger and bigger battles if the characters never get beyond things like the angry one, the puppy dog, the wacky inventor, or the nameless fodder just showing up for the heroes to kill.

 

Yep.

Just look at the MCU movies. Star Wars. Harry Potter. Hell, Twilight even.

That said, The first movie was successful because of a couple of factors: nostalgia and a decent enough story. Above all, it had that Jurassic-park effect going. It was something fresh and new. When I first saw the photo-realistic transformations of Blackout and Barricade, Optimus and Bumblebee, etc., they all blew my mind.

The action scenes were pretty as well, most notable the highway chase scene in the 2007 movie and the forest fight in RoTF.

But to be honest, I thought by the time that RoTF and DoTM rolled in, I hoped bay and company would discover the wonders and advantages of motion capture and start using the frames of actual actors and actresses. After all, as I keep mentioning, it had already been done in movies like Avatar and Planet of the Apes remakes.

Hell I was on this site, maybe about the time before they started production on RoTF or DoTM and was hoping they’d cast Emma Stone as Slipstream. If you look at Emma Stone’s face, she gives off that Slipstream femme fatale vibe that would’ve most likely been awesome to motion capture and translate into its metallic Cybertronian form (if done right).

For now Optimus as a fully animated character that is voiced by Peter Cullen is good and he’s always going to be the first and definitive Optimus Prime. But in the future, I’d be interested to see someone like a Liam Neeson motion capture Optimus and provide the voice for him.

I’d love Ryan Reynolds to be cast as Sideswipe or Prowl. Josh Brolin would be an interesting choice for Megatron in the reboots.

Hell even Ryan Reynolds had motion-captured Pikachu in the upcoming detective Pikachu movie, as per that interview I saw of him a few days ago when he mentioned they took some of his facial expressions and transplanted it into the character in the movie.

Hell, look at Josh Brolin’s Thanos.

There has to be that element that the audience can connect to again to the main characters.

It can work if done right.

That’s what I meant when I say positive gimmicks such as getting actual actors and actresses to play Cybertronians can keep the franchise relevant, along with a solid and good story that pays attention to details and minimizes plotholes and inconsistencies, and I’m perplexed why they still haven’t done so because so far the Transformer live action characters had been fully animated.

For all indications, motion capture is cheaper than rendering a fully animated CGI character.

 

I couldn't agree more. Think the problem is that there cgi and every move they cost a lot of money so itsi very hard to get these characters fleshed out without spending too much money

 

Using motion capture significantly lessens the work of the animator, true. To be fair, I'm not sure if ILM used motion capture for the Transformers or not. Perhaps they opted not to since they had to translate the Bots in relation/rotoscope to Bay's cinematic shots. So doing the animation from scratch might have been an easier method than motioncapturing an actor while getting the motioncapture camera's angles to match Bay's angle shots. And whether or not they use motion capture, ILM still has to render these ultra-detailed character models on the actor's movemets, especially with their with various reflective planes using Bay designs (making for a longer render time as the global illumination & lighting would need to be calculated on each of the character's intricate details per movement, per frame).

They could instead opt for simpler robot mode designs like they did with Knight's Bee, while, as you suggested, use popular actors with voice and motion quirks. Take Ryan Reynolds perfecting Deadpool's hop-step and sing-song voice. Emma Stone, Liam Neeson, Ryan Reynolds, these actors have a specific look and charm that could translate well into motioncapture, facial animation and voice acting to make these characters pop, if done right.

With this in mind, what was missing when they cast John Goodman as Hound or Ken Watanabe as Drift? Both had fitting voice actors with their character. Were they not memorable or human enough despite having humanistic faces & nostrils, compared to say, Hot Rod or Cogman? Which, in my opinion, were characters that were immediately unique and memorable compared to the previous cast, even if they didn't have humanistic faces. Was it their exagerrated motions or voices that gave them personality? The same could be said for Knight's Bumblebee, although dumbed down a character.

What would also greatly widen the appeal for the Transformers movie franchise is if Hasbro/Paramount changed the genre to something along the lines of Detective Pikachu, Spiderverse, Deadpool and Transformers Animated. Even Knight's Transformers I'd still consider too serious, compared to those movies or Marvel's.

Think of it, a setting where seeing friendly Transformers is normal (like how having Pokemon among humans are considered normal) or where Autobot Transformers have been on Earth, non-threatening but in disguise & elusive for a few decades. A premise where humans have begun to accept these alien car robots and don't want to kill them/send the army for just the slightest screw up. Seriously, the humans in the Bay movies were very aggressive.

If the producers approach the franchise with the same genre, style, lightheartedness and uniqueness of Spiderverse and Detective Pikachu, they could make Transformers appeal to everyone, not just fans of robots, 3D photorealism, sci-fi or military.

 

Well, maybe if they didn't waste their efforts and budget animating transformer testicles or robo-humping or robo-peeing, these moments could have been used to flesh out the characters through a small and memorable dialogue exchange, or moments between characters. Incredible waste of budget in every single movie.

 

Very true. Well im glad they avoided that with bumblebee

 

Yeah, that was my favorite thing about Bumblebee.

 

I wonder if it wasn't also a waste to go overboard on number of moving parts and overboard on detail. For a while it seemed like Hollywood was going crazy on detail as the way to stand out from both TV and overseas movies. But that trend seems to have died as costumers seem to be more about other factors when picking a movie. A lot of films now have less than perfect effects but it doesn't seem to have slowed down the box office for the mega films.

 

That is true. Jurassic world, and Jurassic world fallen kingdom have some bad CGI compared to the originals

 

In my opinion, detail and moving parts are great, as long as they serve the story. If the story's not there, then it's empty spectacle for me. In the Bay movies especially, the fact that the designs and animation are so impressively detailed and photorealistic, awkwardly contrasts the lack of realistic aesthetic that is displayed by the tone and feel of everything else, which is extremely over the top and more than cartoonishly exaggerated. By contrast, mediocre CGI can be forgiven if the story and performances are captivating enough to hold your disbelief suspended and keep you invested. I wouldn't attribute that to a trend, but instead, somewhat of a universal truth about how most people perceive entertainment.

 

With a right director, yes.

 

If Batman can come back from Batman and Robin, I'm sure Transformers can come back from the Bay movies, and I feel Bumblebee is the step in the right direction.

 

We may need a Nolan-quality series of movies!

 

Ooooooh boils down to Bay and Lorenzo and accidental temporary success.

 

I guess the biggest question is "How many Bumblebee-esque movies can the Transformers franchise sustain?"

Can you do a Hound movie without the same plot?

Transformers is unique in that there are as many viable villain characters as there are heroes...normally it's one or two heroes versus a rogues gallery. Would casual fans go to see a Soundwave movie?

Until you can answer these questions, Transformers just can't sustain a Marvel-style franchise and popularity level. Because it's not a comic-book franchise that works well as part of a comic-book style universe. It's fairly apples/oranges and a tad unfair to compare.

BUT, I do think Transformers will go down in history as being one of the top pop cultural phenomenons in the way that other 1980's toys franchises have not.

Consider the fate of GIJoe, Thundercats, Heman, etc...

 

The issue I see is Transformers 'Iron Man' character is a giant robot that's mute. Bumblebee has no quotes to make him memorable. IMO, they wasted Bee by keeping him mute, so all he ever was, was a cool looking robot.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was never a great actor, but his one liners are perhaps the most epic in movie history.

I wish Marvel was still doing Transformers comics, because seeing Optimus Prime team up with Iron Man would have been amazing.

 

Yeah, I hope that now the Knight universe is separated from the Bay universe they give Bee his speech back.

 

Ahh i dont think that will be cool