Paramount can't afford to lose bay for transformers...literally

Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by Miyaren, Jun 8, 2014.

  1. Miyaren

    Miyaren Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,389
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +3,172
    Now let me explain myself.

    Anyone who keeps an eye on film budget relative to film grosses should know that the less budget a film has, the more it can potentially own. This is all the more important for blockbusters which can easily cost 200-250 mil, which coupled with marketing could mean that a movie has to make a whopping 600 million before breaking even! ( case in point, spiderman 2 this summer which Deadline estimates needing 750 before profit for Sony)

    What does this have to do with Bay? Well regardless spwhether you like or hate his TF films (I love 1,3 dislike 2 a lot) there Is NO DOUBT he can give you the MOST bang for your film budget.

    Looking at tf3, with its insane third act action stretch and entire CGI co stars, only cost 165 mil with an additional 30 for 3d cost. Now look at both Amazing Spider-mans...they cost 250 each and has about 20 minutes of mild action compared to any of bays tf movies.

    So what gives? Aside from lots and lots of Hollywood director having no idea to stretch a movie budget (which is what you get when you give 200 million to an indie director like Marc Webb), Bay does the most set up on each day and this far brings down the budget for running a set during the principal photography of the movie, which he can pump into The cgi.

    Therefore, if someone else made dotm and by all accounts, aoe which looks to include even more cgi robot screen time, the budget can easily ballon to 300 million or more. ( I know Mark whalbarg said the budget is 300 mill but official report remains 165 ish by both Forbes and Box office Mojo)

    Therefor it is very fesibale that robo screen time will be cut more if another director took over, cos all the money could be mis spent on other stuff and not concentrated into the post production.

    Thoughts?btw I don't have a beef with Marc Webb and I keep citing his movies cos he represents the worst about Hollywood budget ballooning
     
  2. rapid_fire

    rapid_fire Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Posts:
    6,845
    Trophy Points:
    367
    Location:
    Peterborough, On
    Likes:
    +5,454
    Uhh.. no
     
  3. Yggdrasil

    Yggdrasil Banned

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Posts:
    5,418
    News Credits:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    176
    Likes:
    +51
    Because you obviously don't understand how budget works. Not EVERYTHING goes into CGI and action. Unlike the Transformers movies Spiderman movies had actual serious talent and actors that demand bigger paychecks than Shia LaBarf and generic underwear model #2343.

    Second off because of the nature of Spiderman's moves all his action scenes are 100% CGI, the enviroment, the character, everything.

    Transformers actions scenes on the other hand all all filmed on location with bots added in later on and most of that action is just military guys running around shooting in the background smoke that we assume are the Transformers. That is A LOT cheaper and cost cutting than any of the ASM action scenes.

    Plus there's the budget for the marketing. ASM2 went BALLS OUT INSANE with their marketing you could see Spider-man everywhere you turned, like every 2 seconds there were Spiderman trailers and TV spots on the TV it was insane.

    Compared to TF4 where I'm yet to even see a single poster or a tv spot myself.

    Not everything in the movie is in the how much CGI can you stuff in 2 hours for this ammount of monney. Other things cost as well. Things that Bay has been cutting corners with.

    On a side note I enjoyed those "20 minutes of mild action" in Spiderman more than I enjoyed all of Bay's military masturbation "action" sequence in all three movies combined.
     
  4. Miyaren

    Miyaren Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,389
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +3,172
    Mmm hopefully I didn't provoke anything. Again I'm not commenting on the actual movies but what the budget brought out and whether the money shows on screen.

    Are you saying that optimus versus driller, twin vs devastator, prime vs sentinel are not full cgi shots with the background simply superimposed in through the computer? Your description of military guys shooting everything with hardly any bots sounds like rotf, which I admit I hated. Dotm was very different.

    Also I don't think Andrew Garfield is seriously considered top talent any more than Shia labeef or command more cash. As de from other top talents, asm 1 had Rhys ifan, Dennis Leary while 2 had Chris cooper and Paul giamatti...all of whom are no more cash commanding than other serious actors like Francis marcodnamd, john turreno and now Stanley Tucci.

    Jamie foxx and Emma stone --I give you that
     
  5. Dark Neptune

    Dark Neptune Autocon

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2011
    Posts:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Likes:
    +0
    I have to agree with the OP.

    Studios look at the cost and profit efficiency of the films their directors make. It doesn't matter if the films the director makes get bad reviews but earn hundreds of millions in the box office. They would still want that director.

    On the other hand, it matters if a film earns positive reviews but bombs at the box office. At the end of the day, it's the $$$ that matters.
     
  6. Yggdrasil

    Yggdrasil Banned

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Posts:
    5,418
    News Credits:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    176
    Likes:
    +51
    Prime VS The Driller and the opening sequence in DOTM are the only two 100% CGI shots, everything else was filmed on location, we've SEEN them filming it all.

    Again look the the majority of DOTM final battle. Most of it is actually just Sam&Carly running around the city with Bots in the background. Heck the majority of the scene was centered around the failing building, all of it interrupted by brief CGI action sequence here and there.

    It's more cost effective having pre-shot sequences and adding CGI to it than creating everything from scratch. Hell Bay said that the reason why ROTF ended so abruptly is the fact that they ran out of film material to put the CGI in.

    Another cost efficient way is the way Bay films the robots themselves. You almost never see them transform because transformation cost insane amounts of money, you rarely see them in full they are often hidden behind debris or shot from weird camera angles etc.


    Andrew Griffith at least has Never Let me Go and Social Network under his belt. People can say what they want but that alone puts him in a whole other league compared to Shia La Beouf who got his, very brief, spotlight only thanks to Transformer movies.

    And Martin Sheen.
     
  7. Miyaren

    Miyaren Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,389
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +3,172
    Are you saying blowing up Chicago and making it into a battlefield cost a little?
    It's more cost effective having pre-shot sequences and adding CGI to it than creating everything from scratch. Hell Bay said that the reason why ROTF ended so abruptly is the fact that they ran out of film material to put the CGI in.

    Also look at the robot screen time when they are not fighting. All of those cost A Lot of money and seriously no less than cgi shots of electro and lizard (both of which I thought were a little too phoney
    It is very arguable whether Garfield is any more money costing than labeef when he was cast as spidery. One of the reasons sony admits to rebooting is to keep the casting cash down as tobey and Kristen is commanding way more past spidery3.

    To be fair, tf movies also had Jon Voight (aka Jolie's dad), John malkovich, and now Marky mark and John goodman
     
  8. Miyaren

    Miyaren Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,389
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +3,172
    Also whatever you say about rotf I agree with. To me that movie was 1 hour of good stuff (ark stuff, forest battle, power up prime, shanghai etc) and 1.5 hour of bad and mess
     
  9. Yggdrasil

    Yggdrasil Banned

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Posts:
    5,418
    News Credits:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    176
    Likes:
    +51
    Yes it does. It cost less than CGI-ing the battle damage anyway. If you followed directors and what they say most of them will in fact say that making models, making sets and all that jazz in the end ends up being way cheaper than doing it all with CGI.

    Problem is that while it's cheaper it's time consuming and with the insane deadlines movies have these days most of them can't afford filming on location anymore.

    But actually they don't really. If you look at elector or the lizard everytime they are on screen they are moving, flying, emoting, shooting, fighting etc.

    On the other hand when the TF's are on screen usually they just stand there and do nothing often times blurry in the background so mixed with the insanely complex Bayformer designs you can cheat a lot more when they're not in the spotlight and nobody's going to notice.

    Sony did a reboot because they wanted to keep the Spidey licence but didn't want ANYTHING to do with the cast of the previous films because of the fuck up that was Spidey 3.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    They also have Ken Watanabe and Hugo Weaving. But thing is voice actors cost way less than regular actors. You can have any celebrity voice come and do a voice for like 3 to 4 hours and get a paycheck it's not that big of an investment.

    Hell Hugo said that he just came and read the lines not even knowing what the film is about.
     
  10. Miyaren

    Miyaren Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,389
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +3,172
    I think you are seriously under selling the robot cgi in all 3 tf movies as robots merely standing in background. How about the 5 min ark scene in rotf, the observatory scene in tf07 and all sentinel and optimus scene plus Africa scene in dotm? No humans involved in any of them with robots as the focus

    The thing with spiderman can be devoted to another thread entirely. Whether you think song rebooted due to cost or spiderman 3 is not really the point. Point is Garfield is probably on the same level as labeef when he was cast, salary wise. To be honest I would've preferred Garfield than labeef in tf cos I can merely tolerate him, and that my wife would actually watch tf with me as she s a big garfield fan.

    I regretted putting in john goodman cos I knew some point would be made of his voice acting capacity. How about: to be fairl tf movies also have Jon Voight (Jolie's dad), John malkovich, and now Marky mark and Kelsey grammar ?
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2014
  11. nametaken

    nametaken Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Posts:
    1,290
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +4
    hadn't realized ILM charges Bay less than others as this thread suggests.
     
  12. Dillatron

    Dillatron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2012
    Posts:
    1,998
    News Credits:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Location:
    Europe
    Likes:
    +454
    This made me laugh.
     
  13. ChaosDonkey

    ChaosDonkey Lord Brain

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Posts:
    1,963
    Trophy Points:
    227
    Likes:
    +439
    You want to earn big money on mindless action summer blockbusters?
    Call in Bay.

    I don't think there is more to it.
    He is good as his job, earning a lot of money.

    As a friend of mine who is a writer says.
    "I love to watch Michael Bay, its the best way to cut of from reality, and spend some hours cleaning out my head"
     
  14. Miyaren

    Miyaren Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,389
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +3,172
    This.

    The whole point I'm trying to make is that bay is very efficient at blockbuster movie making and earns the biggest profit to budget margin.

    The money he saves from production by being a fast shooter CAN be then spent on more cgi
     
  15. Aernaroth

    Aernaroth <b><font color=blue>I voted for Super_Megatron and Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Posts:
    28,110
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    422
    Likes:
    +9,859
    While Bay has a reputation for bringing in big movies on time and on budget, your reasoning hinges on a tautology that Bay is the "best bang for the buck", and that he's necessary to achieve the highest possible return on investment, instead of a lesser known, cheaper director using a smaller budget. I'm not convinced this is the case.
     
  16. Miyaren

    Miyaren Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,389
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +3,172
    But this is predicated on the assumption that the lesser known cheaper guy can bring in the same sort of action bay delivers in dotm and by all accounts, aoe.

    Also having a smalle budget automatically means less action or cgi. That's a given whether it is bay or Marc Webb or cheaper guy No. 231
     
  17. Gordon_4

    Gordon_4 The Big Engine

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Posts:
    18,138
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    382
    Likes:
    +8,221
    The big killer these days is marketing; getting genuine social penetration is really needed to bring in the numbers. For my money, Dredd had some of the best action in films for the past few years; it was tight, visceral and had pulled no punches: had some real impact and grit about it. It was made for a pauper's wage, about 50 million. Yet because no one knew how to market the thing, it performed poorly.

    Same thing nearly happened to Pacific Rim; great concept, great movie some real heart and an earnest sense of good guys beating bad guys. And Legendary very nearly screwed the pooch with it's marketing so it just scraped by. Fate was not as kind to Disney's 'John Carter', a movie that cost Disney a lot of cheddar and has probably put the kaibosh of fun sci-fi for a while.
     
  18. Miyaren

    Miyaren Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,389
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +3,172
    Very true. The opposite is spiderman 2 which overspent leading it to being unable to recoup despite making loads of cash.

    I find it tragic that pacific rim wasn't a bigger hit. If it made 600 it would be fast tracked for 2016 with the insane Jaeger kaiju combination concept. Instead it's stuck in limbo.

    By all accounts, aoe is ramping up promotion significantly. Any idea how it's doing now on social media (which I don't use aside from merely having a fb account
     
  19. Aernaroth

    Aernaroth <b><font color=blue>I voted for Super_Megatron and Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Posts:
    28,110
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    422
    Likes:
    +9,859
    I am not convinced the first statement is true, and while yes, I acknowledge the second point would be true in a very general sense (but there could be many exceptions), I do not agree this would necessarily result in a smaller RoI for the film.
     
  20. Miyaren

    Miyaren Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,389
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +3,172
    I understand that cos these sort of assumptions are just that. Assumptions

    Until another director made a shot for shot dotm and made it less than bay we would never know for sure. And we all know that won't happen