I've heard that one before but the big one I recall was Paramount wanting none of the Transformers to speak, Hasbro opposed this and I guess it just got narrowed down to just Bumblebee who couldn't speak.

 

I've read Steven Spielberg was the one who didn't want the robots to talk.

 

I believe they called them the Creators to be consumer friendly I guess, I would have loved for them to be called the Quintessons, since majority of people don't know about them.

 

I don't think for a second that was the case - rather, I'm still convinced that was a cop-out so they didn't actually have to commit to who or what the Creators were at the time so they could turn them into whatever for the following film. Could have just as easily been the Vok who were the 'Creators' based on the information provided by the film - and given how loose the films are with adaptation simply nameslapping whatever they came up with as the Vok instead of sticking to what they originally were is not out of the question.

 

They weren't "so bad"

Every movie profited three to five times what they cost to make, had successful toy lines, and have characters that are still being produced today 10 years later.

 

One theory I have, is that Bay didn't really care so much about the material, and tried to spin it in a way that was more to his tastes...Well, once Steven Spielberg backed down after the 2007 film.

Bay at times reminds me of the older brother who looks at your toys and goes: "These all look so lame, and you play stupid lame stories with your toys! I'll show you a cool story, with robot testicles, hot babes, and lots of explosions!"

 

How exactly is the -$100 million deficit from TLK "profit" exactly?

An apt summary, given Bay was not shy about giving his opinions about how he thought the dinobots were dumb around the time ROTF released. Pretty sure he wasn't a fan of the idea of female Autobots, either, even though they were in the film to a limited degree.

Then after DOTM it was becoming super evident he was growing disinterested with the franchise, since AoE only went down in exchange for Paramount backing Pain and Gain, and TLK required what was effectively a $10 million bribe in addition to the already high director's salary.

 

Money doesn't mean quality, toylines are gonna sell no matter how good or bad the movie is cause ultimately people just want figs that look cool and your last point confuses me. Most characters already existed before the movies?

 

This isn't entirely accurate - the reason why Bay didn't want Arcee in the first film is because he thought she was too small compared to the other Autobots. Which is understandable. And, given he included the Dinobots in AOE with the rationale "dinosaurs are cool", I'd say he changed his mind about them, too.

Also, due to the fact that Bay changed his mind of his own accord in the first place, despite initially turning them down, I would say that he wasn't interested from the very start is pretty unlikely. The story goes that he went to Hasbro, gained a new respect for the concept and, combined with his desire to work with Steven Spielberg, said he'd changed his mind and he wanted to do it.

I also find it funny that people who praise the Dark Knight Trilogy (pretentious shite from beginning to end) and slag off the Bayverse, say that Nolan cared about the source material, whilst Bay didn't. Nolan didn't know anything about Batman when he signed on - to the point where David S. Goyer had to explain to him the simplest things about Batman canon. The only reason he did The Dark Knight Trilogy at all was so Warner would approve Inception, which was his passion project and to get experience helming big blockbusters for that.

Which is presumably why he turned the Joker, the greatest supervillain of all time, from a brilliant, cackling criminal mastermind into a junkie gremlin with face paint. People who say Bay disrespects great characters and praise Nolan in the same breath are hypocrites.

 

Imagine calling Heath Ledgers Joker a junkie gremlin with face paint. You sure you even watched Dark Knight?
And as important I consider good adaptation, making a good movie takes center stage. The Dark Knight trilogy is mostly good, Bayverse is bad through and through.

 

Was my statement about quality? Here is my statement (relevant bits bolded):

Now, if you hated the Bayverse and loved the Dark Knight trilogy, that's up to you.

However, to say that Nolan cared about the source material is wrong - he showed up on set, not knowing a damn thing about what he was supposed to be doing, to the point where David S. Goyer had to explain the simplest things about Batman canon to him. The only reason he did the whole trilogy at all was so Warner would approve Inception, his passion project.

However, in a digression, I consider the first three Bayverse movies infinitely more enjoyable than Nolan's pretentious crud - even ROTF, in that so-cheesy-it's-hilarious way. Perhaps more importantly, more people of my generation (who were kids in the mid 2000's) remember the first Transformers than they do Batman Begins.

 

And my point was that for me at least and I'm sure plenty of other people too. Inaccuracies to the source material start to matter less when the movies themselves are good. The Baymovies aren't good.

 

I feel like this is a very good point. While I personally think the Bay movies are bad and still don't have an issue with their inaccuracies to the source material - I'm very certain many people who despise the movies because of their lack of accuracy, especially many users on these boards, wouldn't have that grudge if the movies were generally deemed as good.