No offense, but I think it's too far fetched to call Endgame a masterpiece in storytelling.

A lot of people are still excited by loud noises and likable actors falling down or whatever. Aquaman just made all the money. But I do think (hope?) that's on the decline even if we do get a million more superhero movies and franchise properties. Maybe the whole city/galaxy/planet doesn't need to be in peril and we can invest in some people who can actually write a joke for a while

 

I think the problem with TF movies are, they failed to "follow-up". 2007 is big in anyone's memory because it's the first time we see TF in 3D CGI live action movie, but Paramount? failed to do any follow-up beyond "BIG ROBOTS, COOL SCENES, ADD MORE HUMANS"

As much as people loves to badtalk MCU, they've successed at making people care about the character's interpretation on big screen (I for one, loves Holland as Spidey, kid got the awkward and nerdiness right on point for me). And while there are slip-up in some timeline, overall MCU is still one big coherent universe, as compared to Bayformer's "roughly movies with giant robots and cool scenes and named Transformers" series of CGI and human running around.

 

Actually you know what, I'm not going to dispute that. But on a comparative level; I would put Endgame above.

As a Spider-Man fan; I for one, have so many problems with Holland's Spider-Man.

 

I'm a Spidey fan too! <3 and I love Holland's version of Spider-man too. It's not for everyone, obviously (applied to everything), but I love all version of live action Spidey  

 

Because no matter what you think of a movie afterwards (or during), you have already paid to see. You can't get a refund just because you were promised a better story and more Grimlock each time.

 

Because a lot of folks who saw them got played like a fiddle. . .While Rome was burning. . .

 

Or maybe they actually enjoyed them.

 

I said what I said and I stand by what I said to the trillionth power-the fact that they made gradual diminishing returns AND damn near put Paramount in the poor house (which has been proven ad infinitum, mind you) says otherwise. . .As well as the initial lukewarm reception to Bumblebee (because the bayverse stench was and still IS fresh in the air). . .

 

You're still wrong. The only movie you could make that argument about would be TLK. But there were a lot of other flops that contributed to Paramount's financial situation.

 

Come again???!!!!    Read the graph below quoted from boxofficemojo.com (especially from Dark Of The Moon onwards):


Going from a $1.2 billion worldwide gross down to $605.4 million, including that the price tag for TLK was $217 million  , which, in simple obvious mathematic terms, clearly proves and ILLUSTRATES what I've said about the bayverse tf film's diminishing returns, as well as what Autobot Burnout has shown and proved, several times over. Oh, and there's also:
1)Could Paramount end up like MGM/go bankrupt?/Is this Paramount's worst box office year? (I hope not...) : boxoffice
2)The statement released by the guy who took over Paramount a little over a year ago-and NOTICE the word, "STRUGGLING" in the title: Paramount Pictures CEO says struggling studio is 'poised for a renaissance.' Inside Jim Gianopulos' first year
3)Notice the TIMING of events in the previous point: it says the new guy had only been at Paramount for his first year. The Last Knight had come out the year before;
4)And as much as I like the BB film, and even though it had amazing success, (somewhat notwithstanding the DUMBASS af idea to release it the same time as Aquaman and the Spiderverse film-can we say, "premeditated murder for $500, Alex???)there was also this:
Why Didn't 'Bumblebee' Get Box Office Buzz Despite Series' Best Reviews?.

Paramount still has a ways to go financially, and the TF cinematic franchise, IF there will even be more of one, is not promised-at all-and even if it is, there are still people now who think that Bumblebee is a bayverse film, which automatically=gold-plated turd in their minds.

And the question posed by the thread starter specifically mentioned the bayverse-not the other paramount films that bombed-surely, they added to it, however the last FAILURE was the undertaker who was preparing a fresh coffin and burial plot for paramount . .until the paramedics came and hooked paramount up to life support. . .And we don't know if a DNR order was signed. . .

Now, if YOU want to keep refuting what is in front of your eyes, that's your choice. I stand by what I said, and nothing, not even the gravitational pull of a black hole, is gonna pull me from what I said, and more importantly pull me from what I have shown and proven. . .Study up and see for yourself. . .

 

I already granted you TLK. But to say that people were just fooled into watching the movies and that the Transformers franchise had been gradually declining and nearly put Paramount in the "poor house" is wholly dishonest. The actually increased in box office up until AoE, which was a slight decline from DoTM, but was still the highest grossing box office for that year.

 

No. Continuing to think that rain is rain, when it has been proven several times to be urine mixed with feces, is dishonest. Thinking that the $ made with a single bayverse film's box office is significant to the whole picture (pun intended, LMMFAO!!!) when said single gross did not even significantly turn around paramount's financial woes with the composite diminishing grosses of the other remaining bayverse films (and even after including Travis Bay's/Christina Hodson's entry, which was set up to fail by the dumbass release schedule) is dishonest. Denying the fact that several people I (and others who've stated this on this website) even run into TODAY, STILL think that BB is a bayverse film, and the fact they, too, still smell the bayverse's still-pungent stench, is dishonest. Denying that Paramount was damn near in the poor house, even after a statement by the new top dog, and the timing of that new top dog coming in right after tlk came out and did its damage, is not only dishonest, it is clearly worse than dishonest: it's delusional . .I'm done discussing this with you, and am stopping before the train derails, and plummets into the abyss below. . .

 

Why do you think a single Transformers movie not turning around Paramount's financial situation is proof that people were duped into seeing the movies? You are just incoherently rambling now.

 

*** [sigh. . .]***  

To paraphrase the late great singer Bobby Womack, "If you don't know it by now, YOU'll NEVER ever know it" . . .And there were folks not feeling the bayverse long before TLK. . .How about I stop holding your hand, and YOU do the research yourself????!!!! Wow! What a concept!!!! . . .

 

Yeah, it is a concept. If you make a claim you can't really be held responsible to back up said claim.

 

Dude, I just used links and graphics to back up what I said. Somethings are actually inferred from the evidence I showed. When you LEARN how to research something, then maybe you can holla back. If not, fall back and miss me with your yapping. . .The evidence proves its damn self. . .Even Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles could comprehend it. . .

 

Ok, just posting some links saying that Paramount was in financial trouble, and TLK flopping does not prove that people only watched the movies because they were duped into it.

 

Non sequitur.

 

BULL$#@!:

Hold your own hand from now on. .And this concept is known as connecting the dots. . .GOT IT???!!!!!!