Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by Music, Dec 18, 2018.
Well it's still going strong... so it's not a big problem
There's no way of knowing just how profitable they were until we get some more information. Using the 2.5 x rule is actually a CONSERVATIVE estimate, and that wouldn't put them at 100m profit. Not sure where you're getting your numbers from. But I'm not trying to argue, we can agree to disagree on the definition of mountains of cash. To each their own.
TLK losing 100 mill was revealed in the Screenrant article confirming Bumblebee was a profitable film. It cost so much more and they spent so much on advertising/marketing all with the expectation that no matter what the movie would likely top a billion. Which it very much did not. Bee had a lot less advertising and about much smaller budget. It's an earner and with the japan release in march it'll come close to/go past 500 mil global.
The likely long term effect that for a while at least TF films will be smaller affairs. And that the next one will likely succeed based purely on BB's reception, even if it's terrible.
$442 million!And on and on..
We still don't know exactly how much they spent on P&A. Even if it was less than The Last Knight, it was likely not cheap.
But if $130 million domestic is the ceiling for these films now, that's not the greatest thing for this franchise longterm either.
It’s not unlikely that it’ll hit 500 million plus global which is very respectable. And again important thing is not how much it made but whether it earned or not. Which it did and the previous film did not. And while we have no official numbers on advertising they didn’t do nearly the blitz of TLK including multi minute skits using movie quality renders of the characters. Which were likely priiiiiiiicey
What multi-million dollar skits are you referring to?
Nice. Bumblebee is back in my country for IMAX screening only
Oh good for you [starts Christian Bale rant]
"We will fight on, regroup, rebuild and retake our franchise. But we must find refuge first. You will see this small movie. Once we gathered the others, we'll join you. You must protect this movie. If the haters tear it down. Our people are truly finished...Stay safe member. The fandom is coming."
With it being so financially successful, I'd say another film is almost guaranteed. Hopefully directed by Travis Knight and hopefully set on Cybertron without any human characters.
So either 20 minutes long or with a 1 billion dollar budget?
I didn't realize Toy Story had a 1 billion dollar budget.
I have a feeling these designs are less expensive to leverage, especially because they said they were working on a Cybertron based movie.
Haven't been on this thread for a while so I'll probably try to get up to speed if any more interesting conversations arise although I'm sure there are other threads for this that I don't know off.
Maybe, maybe not. These designs may not be as complicated as the Bayformer era Transformers but designing them and modelling still isn't cheap and CGI is inherently still equally expensive with how long they take to render and the difficulty of editing them into filmed footage and in this case also rendering the setting of Cybertron itself. It explains why there were so many re-used seeker models on Cybertron rather than a diverse range of Decepticons unlike that of the Autobots which Travis Knight himself admitted he tried to put in as many characters but he didn't have the budget - or so that's how I remember it. As far as we know the Cybertron based movie is animated, not CGI like the live action movies and likely will be its on stand-alone.
Films are in the 'works' but none of them have been green-lighted as of yet. Travis Knight will likely assume the role of consultant for the franchise and unless he changes his mind will not direct another Transformer movie. It's been stated that he was offered a place in Paramount but passed on it as he wanted to continue working at his own film animation company, Laika studios.
I know some people find motion capture absolutely abhorrent and how it's not "real" animation, etc. Well, while it's nice that the Transformers are fully animated in these films, I think it would cut down on time and cost if they used motion capture in the films. I think it's great that they want to fully animate them, but I don't see it being necessary. They're very humanoid in robot mode, for the most part, and filming an actor walking around in tights with dots painted all over their faces and then overlaying the robot designs has to be far cheaper than animating them in full and honestly nothing is lost.
Look at Lord Of The Rings and Gollum as well as Smaug. Both are motion capture and look incredible. So is Caeser in the Apes series. (Serkis is amazing, and I'm impressed that Cumberbatch actually slithered around to get Smaug's movements just right.) Heck, even Thanos was motion capture and he turned out great.
Outside of transformations, I don't see a need to animate them in a live action film when motion capture exists. It's cheap and easy by comparison and would get these movies churned out quicker (as long as the quality and the investment return is there).
It was implied here that Michael Bay used mo-cap for Transformers although it's not certain if they completely used mo-cap to animate them. Bay also doesn't like mo-cap in movies as to him it makes it harder for actors to essentially express themselves more freely or something like that. IMO motion cap MAY be efficient, but for Transformers it may not work and if they haven't used mo-cap, at this point ILM are already skilled enough to animate the Transformers however given that they already have an infrastructure for mo-cap and the technology available (and also they supposedly used it for other films) I guess it's not entirely unreasonable for them to use motion-capture to cut costs.
I think it's better for them to continue in what they're comfortable with and sometimes you can't use mo-cap for Transformers and they would require animators to fix or add to them anyway. What I refer to are facial rigging (some Transformers have faces which share no structure with that of a human and even if they do they move differently), fights (which would mean hiring experts and I'm uncertain if mo-cap is capable of tracking those movements), transformations and other unrealistic movements.
Hmm. I've always heard that full animation was used on these films and no mocap at all. If they've been using it, I'm not sure why they've been so costly and taken so long between films. I mean, Bay's continent-hopping doesn't help matters, but still.
As for expressing themselves, that's just Bay's ignorance and completely untrue on a scientific level. Caesar, Smaug, Gollum, and Thanos are proof of that.
Then again, Bay thinks grimy T&A and stupid humor is what makes a Transformer film, so we can't really go by him, anyway.
I wonder if there's a requirement that ILM has to animate a certain percentage so as to make it authentic or something of that sort. I'm just making a guess, there, I'm not actually saying that's what's going on. Perhaps they enjoy it. Nothing wrong with that. As for facial rigging and not having human elements to their faces, etc, that's already disproven by Smaug. His face and skull structure is that of a dragon and they still used all of Cumberbatch's performance and acting (it's fully him, much like Serkis) when you see Smaug on the screen. If they can do that with an elongated dragon with scales out the wazoo, they can do it with a humanoid robot with facial features. And they've done fight scenes in mocap. Transformations are the only part they'd have to animate.
Oh, I have no problem with mo-cap as I've stated and I don't really agree with Bay on his stance either. His rhetoric was also based on the Avatar and a few other movies too where James Cameron, I believe, expressed the difficulty of producing those type of mo-cap films. I'm also curious about animation costs, I believe they were given in the Guinness book of world records when the first movie was acknowledged for its extensive CGI at the time although I haven't seen any of those numbers so for now I'll just say their costs while significant to the budget probably aren't as much as the last films, mostly because it's a smaller film.
I disagree to an extent with the facial rigging, while it is impressive that LOTR managed to facial rig those models convincingly they're more easier to do than robotic faces. If you were talking about the iRobot faces then yeah, I'd 100% agree but the Transformers faces are made mostly of intricate parts or at times are very simple, where facial rigging is just unnecessary, take for example Prime and Bee with their moving mouth plates. For the intricate ones take Shatter's face for example and look at the way her face articulates expression whenever she talks, there's a lot of pieces moving about and I think it's harder to rig that vs what LOTR had to deal with, Gollum was humanoid, Caesar was an ape which shares similar structure to humans and for Smaug they stated they pushed the facial animation to the front of the head to make it easier to mimmick a human face.
I'm not saying it's impossible for Transformers to have facial rigs but at this point they've already made their expressions convincing through standard animation, Shatter's face was so expressive and amazing which is why I like the character so much - with Decepticons usually having no personalities and all in previous movies. It just becomes impractical to rig many different parts of a model to imitate what they've already done well. As for fights that's great, I think it's best that they mo-cap them then enhance them as it serves as a base to make their movements natural then emphasized to greater effect.
Separate names with a comma.