That doesn’t confirm anything. Travis Knight might want it but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to happen, especially not since he’s not part of or associated with Paramount or whoever is involved in the Cybertron film. As far as I know these ‘films in work’ are still at their writing stage as well. With the seekers yeah, they do look the same as they should but not all Decepticons were seekers. There were much more Decepticon characters from G1 who weren’t seekers.

 

Honestly the "1 Bazzilion budget if its fully set on Cybetron" argument is getting old. Bay wasted his budget on filming set pieces in exotic locales. Give the same amount to a more competent director, and that person would deliver in spades.

 

We have seen what a 150 million dollar animated film looks like, and it was still significantly less detailed and had significantly less rendering passes than that scene on Cybertron. No competent director will change the fact that CGI is expensive.

 

You are creating a discussion in which only cold facts (Sky is blue, heat burns, etc. ) are admissible, there was no mention of “confirming” in my post. We have limited facts and as such we must use analysis. One point of information; a source, Travis Knight, who is both relevant (he directed the most recent Transformers which all future Transformers movies will be based on according to Hasbro and Paramount) and credible (he knows what he is doing and has not lied to us or misunderstood something yet) saying he wants to do a movie like the beginning of the Bumblebee movie based in Cybertron AND Paramount says they want to do a cybertron movie.


Conclusion; I think it’s reasonable to deduce there is medium to high confidence that if objectives stay the same we will get a cybertron movie (without real world lighting or textures) similar to the beginning of Bumblebee.

 

I'd argue at most, medium confidence. Now I myself WOULD like to see a Cybertron movie connected to the events of Bumblebee with the same CGI, however just because two variables exist and a correlation is there, doesn't mean there's a cause is what I'm saying. Not to mention the source which brought up the Cybertron movie is rumored to LIKELY be under care of Paramount animations, which isn't involved with the Transformers franchise yet to my knowledge. Thing is, Travis Knight is NOT relevant. I don't doubt him individually, but as soon as he wrapped up Bumblebee he went back to Laika studios to finish off his new animated movie 'Missing Link', and what I mean by his irrelevancy is that HE personally, is not involved in the production of this movie. Just because he made Bumblebee which now is the reference point of future movies, doesn't necessarily mean he is able to assert authority on how things are done at Paramount.

I'm not suggesting he's lying, but he definitely never promised anything, he just expressed what he wanted to see in the future of the franchise. You stated he expresses his desire to DO the movie, but he just said he wanted to SEE it which is misinformation. There's potential but it's not as high as people want it to be. Otherwise why would there be a chance that Paramount animations involved? When ILM are the ones responsible for the CGI in these movies - Paramount does not own ILM for the record. By implying that the movie aims for CGI like the movies by saying 'appears' you're saying there is concrete evidence towards the statement you're making, which comes off as confirmation rather than a theory-based and potential statement by suggesting that they are. There is no indication that this film IS aiming to use the same CGI as the movies, we don't know that yet as you've said and basing it off one piece of information sourced from an interview isn't sound analysis.

There's nothing there to say that it is MORE likely to be a CGI movie, only that it's going to be ANIMATED and only has a chance of being CGI. To me that interview doesn't mean a higher probability of it being CGI or much more probable than when it was just stated to be an animated Cybertron movie, that's what I'm getting at. If factors align correctly then yeah we may get one animated with the same CGI, but there are currently no defined objectives here. The two we have are: the film is animated and it being produced by Paramount. Travis Knight MAY have influence, but objectively, things which he said in an interview doesn't constitute an objective for the filmmakers at Paramount since he has no footing in this movie specifically.

All I'm trying to get here is to reach and understanding where we have to temper our expectations for this film, all films in the future for the Transformers really, people including myself got REALLY excited after seeing the opening sequence of Bumblebee at the precedent of a Cybertron-based Transformer movie, but you'll be disappointed when you see the trailer and it just has the same animation as the TV shows. Then Starscream is Blitzwing sort of stuff happens again.

 

CGI is expensive, but a good director will know how to work around things.

 

Surely the story & characters are more important than the rendering passes?
I wouldn't mind a Cybertron movie with a $30,000,000 budget, that'd be 3 times what Transformers Prime had.

 

Cogman was mo-cap for sure. Other than that, the closest thing he ever did in terms of mo-cap were the Ninja Turtle movies.

 

Abominus be like "Computron talk too much"

 

I don’t know about medium (50%) I would argue more in the range 51% to 65, considering there is some evidence to support a CGI based movie. While I understand your desire to want curb your enthusiasm I believe there’s a middle ground between the low expectations that you support and Full blown unattainable enthusiasm. Finally as for Travis Knight I feel that he’s a credible source as he is the architect of this new beginning of Transformers live action movies; What he has laid down in the Bumblebee movie will be what all future movies will be based on.

 

The "story and characters" a CGI movie can portray ENTIRELY DEPENDS on rendering passes, because you have to go with an art style that allows you to make the most out of it, and Michael Bay or Travis Knight has nothing to do with that. It's why Transformers Prime had a second season nearly entirely composed out of barren old sets reused and only 2 new character models across 26 episodes: they did not have enough money to do more than that asset-wise.

A movie done in the same CGI quality as the Cybertron scenes in this film would be insanely expensive, so I wouldn't expect it to look like that at all unless they're either feeling like wasting alot of money or somehow find a way to make a 100 minute movie that features only 12 characters in the whole world.

 

It's great that we've reached some agreement and that range you've said is, to me, reasonable. While I don't believe you comprehended my points fully I'm glad you understood a bit of what I meant. To simplify for you though Travis Knight is no more than just a fan of the Transformers franchise as much as we are, a lot of people were unaware of this interview, in terms of the general audience at least, but still said they wanted a movie based on the opening scene because it's just that awesome, my friends too who've only seen the movies for time-killers and an excuse to hang out.

I just think it's a common thought to have to have a Transformers movie based on Cybertron with full CGI after seeing Bumblebee and the fact Paramount teased an animated Cybertron movie was complete coincidence on Travis Knight's part (but honestly, it was inevitable we'd get one IMO). He doesn't indicate it will be CGI, he merely suggested it SHOULD be if there WERE one and that's just what he desires to see happen, which doesn't indicate what Paramount plans to do - this interview took place also before it was announced by Lorenzo di Bonaventura that there was a Cybertron movie and the way he answered the question implies he didn't know about it since he's not officially part of the company and probably not supposed to know about it.

Of course, I want to see more evidence of it being true otherwise since we both, and a lot of people, want to see the events of Cybertron on-screen in glorious CGI by ILM.

An art-style can make or break some stories, it determines the mood of the movie and its atmosphere so I agree with this. There are ways to cut cost and make rendering efficient on a Cybertron setting, there are a lot of animation tricks film-makers get away with to do this but I won't go into detail about it since the next points nullify this anyway which supports the unlikeliness of a fully CGI Cybertron movie. Now, this isn't apples to apples comparisons but Avatar's budget was $237 million USD, in today's value that's roughly almost $280 million USD and it had the most CGI possibly ever. For a more harsher comparison animated movies typically go up to $200 million USD. The highest budget the movies (Transformers) had was $217 million, possibly more.

Considering this I don't think it's wise to take such a risk making a fully CGI movie and by making it so it'll get way more expensive than a lot of the most highest budgeted films in the industry, Transformers is a solid franchise but even here the reward isn't worth the risk, especially not after considering the franchise's long-term box-office drop. Bumblebee may have swayed away Transformers fatigue and the franchise may experience higher box-office but a Cybertron movie, with such a high budget which exceeds more than every other previous films is an illogical action to take by Hasbro and Paramount right after a low-budget solo film. There are no guaranteed results here.

Not only is cost a factor there's also time, which funnily adds more to costs, it takes a LONG time to render CGI which the Transformers franchise is notorious for although you could argue its numbers with animated films since I'm not knowledgeable in this area. To reduce time to render CGI this requires more resources and infrastructure which adds to costs and raises further the budget of the film to make up for it, ILM would definitely offer a very high price to animate the movie and since Paramount isn't a parent company of them it can come across as an unreasonable deal. Not to mention it'll be inefficient to do this type of film, any changes the Director or animators want to make or fix will prolong development of the film.

If they do end up doing it, it'll be the most ambitious Transformers film ever and will be an unnecessary make or break for Paramount Pictures. As much as I want to see it happen I still think it's improbable unless the CGI is actually more cost-effective than we think. If it's around 100 minutes it's more possible, beyond that running time is just asking for a high budget.

 

Travis might not return for awhile though.

 

Holy shit yes.

 

Up to $455.3 million now! $470 million+ seems locked if it doesn’t sink in Japan.

 

It's at $124M for domestic numbers. It's only $6M away from beating TLK's domestic gross. Let's see if it's possible.

 

Isn't it possible for 500? I mean BB is only 45 million from that number. If BB can get 30-35 million from Japan, maybe it can get the rest of 15 million from other places slowly.

 

Don't worry I got you there. This tuesday I will do my duty again with a friend of mine. So you can have an increase of 24 dollars (roughly converted from €) from Belgium.

 

Does the overall gross factor in Blu-ray sales? Even if it that number doesn’t reflect its theatrical run, it’s still a profit on top for that $450m

 

I don't see it doing $30M from Japan considering how it's done the rest of the world. I mean Age of Extinction did $27M in Japan and Bumblebee had come nowhere near Extinction's grosses in any market. I think it'll do what the Last Knight did which was around $15M.