As someone who likes Beast Wars, I can agree there are some fans who do needlessly put it on a pedestal. I enjoyed it as a kids' show, but I never thought it was that deep, and very few of the characters actually change through the course of its run.

These days, I enjoy the G1 cartoon more.

 

I'm not sure I need a context for this one.

Not Thanos: Hand of Fate?

 

Its actually Manos: The Hands of Fate, because "manos" is Spanish for hands.

So the actual title of the film is "Hands: The Hands of Fate".

 

Whoops, I misremembered the title.

That's lot of hands

 

Yes, and it's called The Transformers: The Movie. Or maybe it's just a bad film that has a cult following for reasons other than being bad.

Touche. I did a rewatch of Beast Wars and Beast Machines a while back and couldn't help but find that a lot of what I didn't like about Beast Machines ultimately had its genesis in Beast Wars, and some of the things I did like about Beast Wars were also present in Beast Machines. I died a little when I realized that, but such is the risk of reviewing things with a critical eye.

 

I'd totally pay money to see that. It sounds insane, Thanos could only make it better. Okay, Marvel...get crackin'!

 

No. I am now the Pope of Transformers, if you are only a fan of rescue bots you are not a TF fan. Orthodoxy

 

But I, Galvatross, am the Ogrelord of the DeShrekticons, and sometimes you need a few Rescue Bots to save wayward travelers from ma' swamp!

 

A common statement made by certain people in these discussions is that the Bayverse is a poor representation of "what Transformers is at its core". This doesn't even begin to be sensible - or let alone true - since what Transformers is at its core is giant robots fighting each other.

It's not like, say, Planet of the Apes, which, right from the Pierre Boulle novel, has been an allegory for man's treatment of animals - it's a role reversal, where sapient great apes treat animalistic humans the same way we treat animals in our world. Almost every re-interpretation of Planet of the Apes has kept that core point.

King Kong has always been about man coming into conflict with nature - represented in the conflict between the mighty, but savage, Kong and the technology of the modern world. Pretty much every King Kong film has been based around that general storyline.

With Transformers we have... giant robots, split into two groups called the Autobots and Decepticons, the former led by Optimus Prime and the latter led by Megatron, beat the crap out of each other to hawk robot toys. To argue that Transformers has ever been anything more than that is simply pretentious.

 

It’s statements like theses that find not only humorous but lacking in understanding of the segment of the fandom bring referenced and the franchise.

 

I am the Antichrist. Unicrons blood is the lifeforce and inspiration of my very dogmas and teachings.

 

When you refer to "Transformers" here, do you mean the idea of Transformers or the fiction of Transformers?

 

The idea of Transformers.

 

But what might be in your best interests might not be in my best interests, and vice versa. There is no universal example of Transformers fiction that's going to be in everyone's best interest.

Furthermore, what's in the best interest of fans might not be in the best interests of general audiences or studios. The 1986 movie, while being the ideal Transformers movie for many fans who grew up with it and perhaps some who have discovered it as a cult classic, was a box office bomb. If Paramount produced and released a 2020s version of that or the Bumblebee Cybertron scenes, it might not be that hot. Bumblebee may be loved here, and its lower budget allowed it to make some movies, but it made less revenue than any of the Bay movies and was probably nowhere near as profitable as the first four wildly successful Bay movies.

I love G1 episodes like "Webworld" and "Madman's Paradise" and BW episodes like "Transmutate," and I very well could love theoretical movie adaptations of them, but my theoretical enjoyment doesn't automatically translate to a box office success or fandom acclaim. One person's treasure may another person's junk, and one person's junk is another person's treasure.

 

You've effectively diluted my point.

The question:
WHY SO MANY PEOPLE WANT TRANSFORMERS 6 FROM MICHAEL BAY?

The way the question is worded suggests incredulity. Thus extended version of the question might be:
WHY SO MANY PEOPLE WANT TRANSFORMERS 6 FROM MICHAEL BAY, despite his pattern of poor plot, potty humor, plotholes, poor transformer characterization, misogyny, ugly designs, and money losing 5th movie signaling a audience generally tired of his brand nonsense.

To that, my reply, in its simplest form is; people are highly illogical.

 

Well, let's make the point that Bay did direct three highly profitable films, with a toyline that sold incredibly well - whilst critics didn't like them, audiences seemed to. The general audience doesn't seem to care about plot - spectacle's what matters (sadly).

It was AOE where things start going wrong because of the three things you drew attention to - the potty humour, the poor Transformer characterisation and misogyny. It only survived because it was marketed in China.

For parents with young kids, why squirm in your seat whilst the Transformers film spends five minutes discussing statutory rape laws in Texas, when you can go and see How To Train Your Dragon 2 instead? Your child will not be privy to uncomfortable discussions about inappropriate topics, mature topics are handled with actual nuance and there's a more compelling story overall.

Unlike AOE, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (which most parents with older kids took them to see) has CGI characters that are portrayed with dignity and nuance and who carry their own dramatic arcs - they're not playing second fiddle to human characters. However, DOTM and AOE do, at least, attempt to give Optimus Prime a character arc.

And in August, both the above demographics could watch Guardians of the Galaxy - where there's enough action to keep the older kids entertained and enough bright colours and funny lines to keep the little ones happy.

As for the misogyny, nothing I can say except that created an environment where the mindless teenage audience was allowed to be as toxic as it liked - after seeing Thor: Ragnarok, my thirteen-year-old cousin (he's 16 now), said "Thor was better when he wasn't faggy."

The same cousin, a year later, threw a tantrum that there were too many little kids in Bumblebee.

You can imagine my reaction on both those occasions.

 

No. You have no point other than just generic stuff that's been repeated ad nauseum a million times.

There's nothing wrong with potty humor. Potty humor can be hilarious! For instance, Devastator's anatomy is hilarious! I laughed so hard at that in the theater!

"Plot holes" is an overused term by online fans. In order for something to be a "plot hole," it has to defy logic. A "plot hole" is not merely something unexplained.

And either way, all sorts of movie series have plot holes, especially using the loose definition of many fans.

Another overused term in the modern world. Where is this "misogyny" you speak of? Yeah, Bay likes filming hot chicks, but filming hot chicks =/= misogyny.

That's a subjective opinion and not a universal, objective truth.

This argument makes zero sense, for multiple reasons.

For one, AoE was also hugely profitable...it was the most profitable movie of 2014. Anyone claiming otherwise is either dishonest or delusional and, in some specific cases, using their own overblown hatred to pretend otherwise.

Two, there's ZERO indication that those three reasons are why the general public lost interest in the Bay movies. That's just fans projecting their preferences onto general audiences.

Three, most of those specific things were actually improved upon in AoE. AoE has LESS of the potty humor from the first trilogy. The 2007 film and RotF and DotM had MORE potty humor present. AoE gives many of its robots MORE to say and do than its predecessors; the characterization wasn't poorer, it was just different to reflect the fictional context, and both the fictional context and the characters were less likely to be within the comfort zones of fans. But being within a comfort zone doesn't make things better. I enjoy all of the Bay movies, but sometimes I think fans look at the earlier films through nostalgia and rose-tinted glasses and throw the later films under the bus to satisfy some groupthinking bandwagon, even when some of the things people hated about the earlier movies are lessened in the later movies.

Four, what "misogyny" was actually present in the Bay movies? Depicting women in an attractive way =/= misogyny any more than depicting shirtless buff dudes is misandry. Nor were the male characters depicted in a more flattering light in the movies, so I don't see how "misogyny" was present in the Bay movies.

 

I don't think it was entirely due to Bay's directing, more timing and budget.

I already dropped my mic.

 

But you said nothing of any substance. You got Shrekt! Have a Shrektastic day!

 

It only really survived because it was heavily marketed to pander to the Chinese audience. That is a fact. Firstly, its domestic gross was almost £100 million less than DOTM - and it was only the fifth highest grossing film of 2014, domestically (after the LEGO Movie, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 and Guardians of the Galaxy). By comparison, the first film was the third-highest domestically of 2007, ROTF was the highest-grossing of 2009 domestically and DOTM had the second-highest domestic box office of 2011.

Internationally, the story wasn't much better - in the vast majority of European markets, it usually spent about a week at the top spot before being beaten by Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and How To Train Your Dragon 2. The reason why? Firstly, it was widely thought to be an unnecessary instalment in a franchise most people seemed to think had ended three years ago.

The other reason was the gross, brainless humour and gross, brainless violence of the previous films (and was still present, in many ways, in AOE) turned people off. For parents with young kids, why squirm in your seat whilst the Transformers film spends five minutes discussing statutory rape laws in Texas, when you can go and see How To Train Your Dragon 2 instead? Your child will not be privy to uncomfortable discussions about inappropriate topics, mature topics are handled with actual nuance and there's a more compelling story overall.

Unlike AOE, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes has CGI characters that are portrayed with dignity and nuance and who carry their own dramatic arcs - they're not playing second fiddle to human characters. It's also a genuinely gripping film that tells sophisticated stories and themes - about xenophobia, revenge, war and how the actions of the violent few can drown out the peaceful many.

And in August, both the above demographics could watch Guardians of the Galaxy - where there's enough action to keep the older kids entertained and enough bright colours and funny lines to keep the little ones happy.

It was the Chinese market that saved AOE - over a third of AOE's total box office came from that market.