Mistakes are acceptable but when its you're JOB to be in the media 'know' and you screw up THAT BAD? There isn't really an excuse for that kind of epic fail.

 

What makes a no-name internet reporter special to the point of receiving ridicule here, on Twitter, and Facebook? I wouldn't be surprised if some yahoo sent death threats to this poor doofus because "they gots muh teefermers rong!" I mean...it's an animated movie about robots. If the writer had pulled a Rather or Williams, sure, but this? Eh, let 'em take the L and move on.

 

Because some people will read that and go no further and not know there is an entire history of related content other than 'this first animated movie'. Its not unique to this situation. There have been plenty of Gaffe's like this in the last few years of women and men saying they are the 'firsts' in whatever and they are absolutely not. It's fake news. Allowing falsehoods in media leads to further falsehoods. Transformers One is not the 'first animated transformers movie' anymore than Jennifer Lawrence was the 'first female action star' as she claimed. Its a slipper slope. Had you actually researched into the situation you'd find that it just wasn't this reporter it was also Paramount claiming this as well. Yes its a stupid topic to get 'upset about' but you shouldn't let them off the hook either.

 

Movie studios are businesses. They put up hundreds of millions of dollars in the hope that they recoup that money plus make more money. The movies may have made a lot of money despite being bad, but that doesn't mean they were made to be bad on purpose. There would be no sense in doing that, especially with that much money on the line. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

I don’t really care that they screwed up, but I agree that journalistic fact-checking should be considered mandatory Step 1 before even creating a draft article. My guess is that the report was written by someone born in the 90s who was oblivious to the ‘86 film, but ignorance is no excuse— especially when research is a fundamental part of the job.

I see no reason for torches and pitchforks, though some light jabbing is completely appropriate in this case.

 

The articles were actually quoting a media executive at CinemaCon, and since all the enthusiast press does in quote entertainment conglomerate PR, is it really fair to blame them?

No I'm not going to name the executive, we should collectively let it go. Twitter Notes was on the case, everyone's been set straight, go about your business.

 

This is the internet, people will only move on when someone else says or does something stupider. So give it a week.

 

Megatron

 

man that is a killer outfit

 

here's another example of this 'generation of urinalists' doing the same type of stuff

 

My own take isn't that they purposely made the movies bad, but that (given that what they've done is good enough to make tons of money) they don't particularly care about making the movies good.

 

These actors all have voices. They will be fine.

 

Look, I really don't want to reignite that "voice actor" vs. "Hollywood actor" distinction, but just having a voice doesn't making one a good voice actor. There ARE actual skills involved. And, bluntly, while many Hollywood actors DO have those skills (as I said in a previous post, it's about "acting" first and foremost), not all do. Voice acting is a particular discipline.

 

Voice-only actors are people who can't get real acting jobs.

It's a Transformers cartoon. Hemsworth, Johanson, etc will be absolutely fine for this. I think you underestimate the skill of the average hollywood actor. I'm not sure what level of emotion or whatever you think a voice actor is going to need to be conveyed, but If the movie sucks, I doubt it will be due to the voice acting. The Mario movie would not have been any better if Charles Martinet had done the voice instead of Pratt.

 

No need to insult an entire class of actors, please.

 

Voice actors are poorly paid and poorly treated. If those people could dump those jobs for Hollywood acting jobs they absolutely would. So it's not really an insult in my mind.

 

I mentioned a podcast on voice acting earlier in the thread (I Hear Voices). They would very much disagree with you in regard to the option of dumping. Some of the "poor pay" is likely because you don't have to put in nearly as much time into a voice acting job as you typically do for live-action. Fewer "retakes" and so forth. As to "poorly treated," I don't know how universal that is, but anecdotally there are definitely horror stories in live action, too. Perhaps you mean that they're not as well-recognized for their work? This is undoubtedly true, but many voice actors find that to be a good thing, as it enables them to continue to have a private life while doing something they love.

And, let's be clear, many voice actors love voice acting.