You clearly did not pay attention to just how horrific the failure of TLK was, or you’re ignoring the context of things. The fact that TLK came off of two billion dollar movies and barely cracked $600 million, when ten years prior, the first movie made $700 million, with cheaper ticket prices, no 3D, etc etc, is an absolutely massive failure. These movies had been making increasing amounts of money until DOTM despite abysmal critic scores, and even AOE had the genuine success from China that led to an entire sea change in the industry. But TLK bombed in China, the very place they were hoping at the least would give them money. TLK may have made more money, but it didn’t profit. $600 million for a movie of TLK’s scale, budget and status is a franchise-ender. If Bumblebee was not as far along as it was at the time, TLK would’ve killed the movies outright. Comparatively, Bumblebee had a far smaller budget to make up for, so while it wasn’t a massive success, it was still a small success and it got good reviews. There is so much more to determining theatrical success and failure than your rather tiny and black and white viewpoint. Now, I don’t know that Bumblebee still counts as underrated, because it’s not like it’s a movie that’s been forgotten and it was relatively successful for its budget and context.
I've said it in other threads, but we really need to squash this disinformation. Yes...if you look at it in a bubble, Bumblebee made less than TLK. But Bumblebee cost significantly less to make (and was also a spinoff, which generally bring in less). The people who make these movies have said themselves that TLK was a failure and Bumblebee was "solidly profitable". TLK is literally on the list of the worst film flops ever. Bumblebee isn't. TLK singlehandledly caused Paramount to abandon the direction they'd been planning since 2015 and rethink the Transformers series..to seemingly align more with Bumblebee's direction. If TLK had been a hit, we'd have had a Transformers movie last year and probably this year too. For a while I myself tried to defend TLK as a success. I kept saying the damage probably wasn't as bad as fans were making it out to be. But every single statement and decision by Paramount and Hasbro since 2017 has shown otherwise, to the point that the evidence is irrefutable at this point. You're ignoring important pieces of context in order to fit a narrative you like. Yes, I'm sure Paramount will want to increase viewership for the next movie. I don't deny that. I'm not trying to pass Bumblebee off as a giant mega-hit. But what matters for this particular debate is the amount of money each movie brought in relative to its budget. That context is important. Of the two films, only TLK was a flop. Bumblebee was "solidly profitable". Those are pure and simple facts. Anything else is either taking the data out of the proper context, or just a flat out conspiracy theory.
Yeah, I just addressed this. Are you a Paramount studio exec? No...? Then what the hell does what Bumblebee cost have to do with you? You're the one living in a bubble. Paramount making more or less profit has no bearing on anything. It's a super simple equation. The box office isn't profit. The box office is literally just ticket sales. That means you can divide the box office by the average ticket price and have a pretty close idea of the number of people who watched the movie in the theater. THE END. How much of that money theater owners keep and how much Paramount gets are completely irrelevant. It's third grade math. Simple division. An 8 year-old can do it. Box office. Divide by ticket price. Equals number of tickets sold. And I was not saying TLK was a success. I was not saying audiences loved or even liked it. But a million more people watched it in theaters than watched Bumblebee. That is a verified and easy to corroborate fact. You don't have to like it. Reality doesn't give a shit about your feelings. Again, what does "profitable" have to do with you or I or any moviegoer? What is this brain dead argument? I love how math is now a conspiracy. I'm ignoring nothing. You're bringing a bunch of irrelevant factors in as if your elaborate acrobatics can somehow will a new reality into existence. Or you're trying to convince yourself, for some unknown reason.
Nice to see that Transformers live action movies are just as divisive as ever. Anyways... My picks for most underrated include: Logan Lucky: A star studded heist movie that is ridiculously fun and went completely under the radar. Think "hillbilly" Oceans 11. When Harry Met Sally: While a big movie back in the day, this movie is a fantasist romantic comedy that still holds up to this day. Bonus is that it co-stars a post Star Wars Carrie Fisher. The Paper: A Ron Howard film staring Michael Keaton (and a bunch of other amazing actors) featuring a "day in life" of a news paper man in the 90's. Falling Down: Another great movie from the 90's that I think has been forgotten over time. I think D-Fens has been adopted as a bit of a hero for the male-rights movement, but its clear at the end that he really was the bad guy.
About this whole debate, to me, a movie is underrated if I think it's better than critics and/or fans or other viewers give it credit for. Consequently, it's much harder for a movie to be underrated if it's already rated highly. Because Bumblebee is rated so highly by critics and fans on this site, I find it impossible to be underrated. On the contrary, I would find it overrated in such circles. Ditto to the first Avengers movie, which I found wildly overrated. On the other hand, I feel like some of the Bay Transformers sequels are actually heavily underrated by fans and critics. And as flawed as The Last Knight was, I feel even it would be closer to underrated than Bumblebee is by fans and critics, because Bumblebee got praised by most of both, and The Last Knight ripped apart at every turn. Movies can also be overrated in one circle and underrated in another. For instance, I thought The Last Jedi was simultaneously nowhere near as good as critics made it out to be but nowhere near as bad as many hardcore Star Wars fans thought it was. Sometimes, I think hyperbolically praised movies by critics can get negative backlash from fans, and likewise hyperbolically derided movies can also get positive responses from a fans. On the other hand, I thought Rise of Skywalker, which was a total piece of crap in my opinion, was actually overrated by critics. If it had been a Transformers movie, critical reviews on RT would have probably been much lower than the 50ish percent range. I also think there are movies that aren't underrated, but are underseen. In my previous post, I mention The Color of Pomegranates, which is highly rated by some who have watched it and myself for its weirdness and visual creativity, but probably hadn't been seen by many people here. As for another underrated movie, I didn't think Seventh Son was anywhere near as bad as critics thought it was. Yeah, it wasn't the greatest thing I have ever seen, but I had a decent amount of fun watching it, and I was never bored; it was plenty entertaining. It was a satisfying, although certainly not groundbreaking, fantasy adventure.
The cute thing is how Bumblebee and Avatar are mentioned here, yet both are also cited over in the Most Overrated Movies thread that this same guy made. Subjectivity is a fascinating thing sometimes.
It's hard to understand how Avatar could be considered underrated when it was so ridiculously popular.
Planet of the Apes — Rise, Dawn, and War. That whole trilogy deserved (imo) far more love and attention that it got.
I actually like it a lot more than I did when it first came out. At the time there was a lot of criticism that was well earned which has become its legacy (hence being underrated), but since then, through out the slough of sequels, re-boots and live action re-makes, the idea of something new(ish) and different is somewhat enjoyable.
Yeah, I definitely raised an eyebrow when I read that as well. I get how some people can think it's maybe become underappreciated, overly or even needlessly criticized, dismissed, ridiculed, etc. etc. etc. over the years, but to say it's allegedly "underrated"? No way. Objectively, you just cannot call a movie that held the #1 worldwide box office spot for over 12 years AND was hailed as the virtual second coming of cinema when it was released AND got full blown theme parks so on & so forth as being "underrated". A movie that everyone who has seen it loves but no one ever talks about and/or never got any proper credible recognition? THAT is what underrated is - not these box office behemoths seen by billions of people that eventually get made fun a decade later. Yup, and I respect this kind of standpoint - it's makes perfect sense and is completely rational. It's an excellent counterpoint. For me, I skipped this movie on its theatrical release because A) I was a child of the 80's and remembered how shitty 3D was so I wanted nothing to do with the big comeback of it, and B) I just didn't think it looked interesting. When I eventually did see it, I personally was not a fan, but I nevertheless understood how/why it was the game changing box office monster that it was. I still do even despite being in the camp of thinking that it is very overrated.
Profit is important because it's pretty much the main thing studios look at when deciding if something was successful or not. You want more of something you like? You won't get it if it's not profitable. Despite not being a Paramount executive, I care very much about whether or not Bumblebee was profitable (and whether Paramount made a profit from it) because I want to see more movies like it. Your sentence: "Paramount making more or less profit has no bearing on anything" is legitimately baffling to me, because the profit Bumblebee made is absolutely going to have a bearing on the future of the series. The profit that TLK didn't make caused the series to scale back. Making a profit is the goal of business. I do agree with you that more people watched TLK than Bumblebee. I'm not trying to argue against that at all. I also agree with you on that being an important number. Like I said in my other post, I'm sure Paramount will try to increase the amount of people who go to see the next movie. I agree with you that Bumblebee's audience turnout wasn't ideal. But the profit the movies brought in is still a much more important number. You're doing the math correctly, but you're not considering the key thing...the profit earned. It's better to make a small profit off a small amount of people than to make a flop that reaches a larger amount of people. It would be better to run a lemonade stand that brings in $5 than to run a mega-corporation that fails and leaves you in the red.
A solid movie by Joel Schumacher. Possibly the best film in the thread so far. D-Fens always sorta has a point, but Robert Duvall's character is the refreshingly unglamorized low-key hero. That was me, that was deliberate. Reasons were given. "considered underrated when it was so ridiculously popular." The key word here is 'was'. It was massively popular, it was massively successful, people raved about it to their friends. It resonated the world over. Audiences cheered. Critics hailed it. A lot of people came out of their caves to see what the fuss was all about. They don't speak up when all the shit-shooters use it as a cheap punching bag. Maybe they're afraid they'll look stupid that they had a good time. It was so influential that the artistry and technology it pioneered have become commonplace. In the past decade we've seen numerous other bloated 3D CG spectacles that didn't become global phenomenons. It takes more than just spectacle to reach that level. Avatar delivered more than just spectacle. People take for granted everything that Cameron got right in that movie to reach the level that it did. I know some people resented that level of success. Some resent it for political reasons, some resent it for being the popular thing, some resent it because they were late to the party, some resent it because it just goes against the grain of who they are. Maybe it goes against every fibre of their being. They'll grasp at reasons and justifications for this. Any kind of stick to beat it with. How dare a successful popular movie reuse tropes that existed in previous movies and fictional works? The anti-colonial, anti-militarist sentiment might feel like a personal attack, but they'll criticize it for being a "white saviour" movie just to flip the script, as if they are offended on behalf of aboriginal populations everywhere. Or for some reason they just can't get over the word 'unobtanium'. Oh yeah, and they were blue. All of this makes it a big joke of a movie. Apparently. A very good movie can be overrated if everyone says it's a masterpiece. It can be both overrated and still be an excellent movie. The opposite is true. A quite bad movie can still be underrated if enough people say it's an utterly worthless shitstain. A well-made entertaining movie can be underrated if enough people say it's no good. A masterpiece can be underrated if everyone says it's merely a good movie. Yesterdays overlooked gem can become tomorrows unimpeachably overrated cinematic 'classic'. What was underrated ten years ago can become overrated, and likewise the reverse. The pendulum swings.
You keep trying to move the goalposts to make this about the movie being successful for the studio. That is not what's being discussed.
I actually considered putting the Bay movies myself. I definitely think they get too much hate. There are people who talk like they're the worst things ever, and they're certainty not. Although I decided against listing them because I was trying to stick to movies that I felt were legitimately great movies that tend to go overlooked (like The Undiscovered Country), or movies that I think are fine (or at least serviceable) but are completely hated (like Cars 2). While I do think the Transformers movies are a bit underrated, I wouldn't personally consider them among "the most underrated movies", like the title suggests. For me, they have a few too many problems to be be considered solid films. Although there's definitely an argument to be made that they are very overrated. I would say the strong aspects of the movies don't get enough attention. It wasn't my intention to move the goalposts, I've been referring the movie being successful for the studio for most of my replies to you, because that sounded like what you were initially arguing against. Although it's possible I misunderstood or misinterpreted your post. I apologize if that's the case. While I do think we're probably drifting off-topic a bit, I would argue this debate does tie into whether the movie is overrated or not (so I'll steer the debate back in that direction). Your're claiming that Bumblebee had a less-than-ideal audience turnout (which I don't deny). If anything, doesn't that lend credence to my statement that Bumblebee is underrated? Like, if it had been a more popular movie, wouldn't that have led to more people going to see it?
I guess the thing about "underrated" for me is that I like to describe or judge films based on what they are and what they're trying to be. Consequently, I am basing my opinions of the Bay Transformers movies based on what they actually are: over-the-top movies about robots fighting each other. And for that, I find them heavily enjoyable, and I think they have some aspects that are better than given credit by even many of their supporters. They aren't perfect, and they get some things wrong...but they also get many things right for Transformers, including some things that are hated by most members of the fandom (even by many Bayverse fans).
This thread really needs a definition of under rated. My working definition is it is a quality film that satisfies one of the following three: 1. Box office disaster 2. Poorly reviewed at the time. 3. Has fallen out of the public awareness since release. I’d say Clue satisfies this on all three counts (it’s a cult film and not widely known now). Undiscovered Country, Star Trek VI, fits the last one. It’s commonly forgotten among the Trek Cannon as it came at a weird transition time for the franchise. I’d argue Bumblebee probably isn’t. It was well received, did well at the box office, and remains generally well known and popular with the general public. I’d also argue Avatar (James Cameron) probably doesn’t fit this either. It’s still widely known, it was well received at the time, and it made literally all the money.
Memoirs of an Invisible Man. I always see people referring to this as second rate John Carpenter. Anytime I've watched it, I always had a good time. I think it's a satisfying movie. Feels more like a Chevy Chase movie, doesn't exactly have the typical Carpenter vibe, but I like it. Don't think people give it enough credit.
