Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by Dmhead, Jun 27, 2018.
Evocative imagery, they name is Artistodave
Let's wait for WB/DC to start making good movies before we start suggesting anyone imitate them. Yeah, they jettisoned a bunch of people after Justice League, but they haven't released any movies after that yet. How do you know the next DC stuff will be any better?
About Bumblebee, the trailer doesn't make it look like it will be any better than what Bay did. If anything, this looks a little worse to me, because for all the faults of the Bay movies, they at least weren't boring. The BB trailer looks dull.
It's really hard to determine what caused the decline in popularity with the movies. The fandom (at least here) has been kind of going on this weird witch hunt to try to figure out who is responsible: is it the actors? Is it Michael Bay? Is it Ehren Kruger? Now people are blaming the producers- does anyone know what a producer actually does in the movie process?!
Film producer - Wikipedia
I really don't thinks it is any one person's fault- I think the movies were this thing that got so huge so fast, that everyone just kind of lost sight of what it was people liked about them. It's also an odd situation in which critics gave all the movies fairly poor reviews, but audiences reacted very differently. The fandom wasn't helpful either; there was really no universal opinion among the movies, some people like them and some people hate them. This puts Paramount in a though situation- what does the audience want? More robots?Less humor? More humor? More special effects? More China? Mark Wahlburg? A cute robot that says "chihuahua? When things started going wrong, they didn't know what to fix- or when things started going wrong in the first place. I'm no expert on this, but that's my best guess.
You know I really respect this post, and this question would be a good example of why.
If you want my opinion, as time went on I don't think there was going to be any movie that would have had a solid majority praise the films to no end. Every single one of the five Bay movies was ripped apart in their time by internet fans, and some are still ripped apart to no end. Ask a dozen people what they want in a Transformers movie, and you'll get a dozen different responses. It's not the 80s anymore where everything is G1. Instead, you have a huge global audience from many cultures that absolutely dwarfs the number of people who grew up on the cartoons. You have a fandom whose preferences vary widely. Trying to please all of those groups can be a tricky balancing act, and most of Bay's movies pleased global audiences enough to make a huge of money. Even TLK, while having the weakest box office haul in the series, still made more than 99% of box office disappointments, and I remember hearing even it did well on home media sales, at least initially.
As unpopular of an opinion as it may be, I agree. So far I don't see the "heart" that so many other fans see, nor does it have those exciting moments that Bay's trailers had. Plus, I always felt Bay saw how weird and goofy and ridiculous the brand really is, and that's something that he lets be in his movies. The Bee trailer makes things seem mundane by comparison.
I find it ironic you say this isn't the 80s where everything is G1...and yet that's exactly what Hasbro is doing. The next major series are Cyberverse and WFC 2.0...which are both hard G1, while the films are going into an 80s set piece with heavy G1 design emphasis.
That's like saying "well it didn't come in last!" about a race horse you bet big money on that placed 4th at the Kentucky Derby. And it's still pathetic because what you call 'better than 99% of box office disappointments' is still $100 million below what the first movie made and was considered a success. Oh, and it struggled to make that $600 million even though it was the sequel to back-to-back billion dollar revenue films.
The fact is made $600 million means nothing. It CRASHED a billion dollar franchise so hard that it almost reached the biblical level of Batman and Robin - only narrowly avoiding it because even after screwing Paramount over by ruining the Hua Hua Media contract, Paramount couldn't cancel the next film in the series. Even Lorenzo had to eventually come out and admit it was anything less than perfection - which with a man in this industry and his kind of ego was a massive blow.
Maybe 'mundane' is what people want in their films. You're only saying it seems mundane really because Bumblebee has clearly lowered the stakes from "oh the world could be completely fucked AGAIN" like in the last five films straight and it's more laid back and probably down to Earth as a result. After all, it's better to do something simple but do it extremely well as opposed to doing a crapload of things all at once and all of them are done really goddamn poorly.
Except G1-inspiration, including G1-inspired designs =/= "Hard G1." G1 in America was the Sunbow cartoon, Marvel Comics, and associated toylines. Cyberverse is not "Hard G1," it is Cyberverse. "WFC 2.0" (Whatever that means) is not "Hard G1," it's "WFC 2.0," regardless of inspiration.
Did I ever say it wasn't a box office disappointment? $600 million, while weak by this series' standards, is still better than the vast majority of movies that are considered box office disappointments.
Please do not put words in my mouth. You seem to have misunderstood and/or misrepresented what I meant by "mundane."
I'm not talking about scale of the fictional universe or scale of the threat or conflict. I'm talking about that pleasantly weird factor that has endeared myself and perhaps many others to the brand for a long time. I say the weird and over-the-top aspects of Transformers are things more fans should embrace and not hold in disdain.
I'm not saying this movie won't embrace that. Like every film before it, I'll give it a fair shot. I just didn't get that from the first teaser trailer. Which is all good. There will be more trailers, spots, and interviews.
...have you even seen the fucking designs?
That's a silver, flat-chested, bucket helmet wearing, square-as-fuck, oversized black fusion cannon-on-arm wielding Megatron. About the only differences are that he turns into a tank (which is virtually a larger version of a self-propelled gun) and the color mapping on details is slightly different on the legs and forearms.
You wanna argue semantics? Fine. It isn't slavishly the exact same shit as G1 down to the wire, but it's a pretty damn modernized take in the current toy market and acting like there's really a difference is being petty because we all know Hasbro won't ever make Megatron a gun again since even RtS Legends Megatron was pushing it.
Hasbro's plans were already confirmed to be trying to go back to the WFC concept, which means potentially another shot at rebooting a branching continuity since Aligned fucked everything up. And you know what WFC originally was? HEAVILY G1 BASED.
Do most of those box office disappointments have $200 million+ sunk into their budgets?
Unfortunately, the track record for the bay films means a direct relationship between 'weird factor' and the threat level - which is to say it's pushing suspension of disbelief at all times.
And too MUCH of a weird factor is going to drive off the general public from whom the actual majority of box office profit will come.
To be quite frank I'm not sure what the Bee film could actually DO if you weren't already interested from that first trailer.
But it was never G1, even if it shares many superficial similarities.
Looking beyond superficial differences, some characters in WFC were quite different from their G1 equivalents, even considering that sometimes the Sunbow and Marvel versions were sometimes quite different. For instance, G1 Thundercracker was never this comparatively soft-spoken scientist that he was in WFC.
There's no doubt TLK had a higher budget than most, but even then it still made $600 million in box office. Disappointing by series standards, but still box office most series would dream of.
But the films have had a weird factor since the very beginning with their designs and premises and goofball characters. I'm not saying everything has to be Webworld, although I love Webworld, but warring alien robots from outer space that talk and transform is weird as shit. It always has been and always will be.
Did I ever say I wasn't interested whatsoever in the film? I just wasn't amazed or wowed by what I saw in the trailer. My interest in this case does not stem from the trailer.
Yes, but at the same time Thundercracker is what, second tier at best simply because he's directly beneath Starscream? Did he ever do anything that wasn't essentially a generic thug action other than one time when he thought about letting the Decepticon plan fall through because it would make Starscream look bad? All the major characters in WFC are exactly the same otherwise.
Because you aren't doing your damn math. To be truly profitable, any film has to return on investment the budget plus the advertising cost (which is averaged to being the same as the budget), meaning a box office take of over twice the budget is necessary to be comfortably profitable. For TLK that's roughly $400 million with budget + advertising, but with only $600 million revenue, that's only a 50% return on investment after making back the budget. That's terrible. Essentially, TLK didn't make enough money to cover its own budget as well as the budget for an equally large film of its caliber.
Let's just say for a moment they are all exactly the same otherwise: They're still not in G1 or its continuity. Especially given Bumblebee becomes mute in FoC, and Trypticon becomes the Nemesis, as examples.
"Because you aren't doing your damn math." Cut the strawman. I wasn't even trying to argue profitable verses unprofitable. I was just saying most films that are box office disappointments would still love to make $600 million in box office. What's disappointing for Transformers would be amazing for some other series. I don't know if you just hate TLK so much that you feel you need to belittle it any opportunity you get, or if you just enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, or what.
Besides, I don't think enjoyment of a film or validation of one's opinions about it should have anything to do with how profitable it was. I didn't like Revenge of the Fallen or Dark of the Moon or Age of Extinction because of how much profit they made. I liked them because I thought they were hugely enjoyable summer blockbusters. I didn't like The Last Knight less than its predecessors because of profits. I just didn't enjoy it as much as the other movies. The 1986 film was very enjoyable, but it was a box office bomb. I really liked The Good Dinosaur despite it being Pixar's lowest film in terms of box office.
Finally, many, many films that don't make a profit on box office alone still make their money back on home media sales, rentals, television deals, etc. The Last Knight will very, very likely end up making its money back when you include home media sales if it hasn't already.
Christ give it up already. The bayverse is done. We’re rebooting to a much more g1 offering and therefore has a better chance of making a lot of money.
What a pointless post that adds nothing to the discussion. I don't need to give up jack squat, because everything I said was true. G1-looking =/= G1. The Bumblebee movie is not G1. Cyberverse is not G1. WFC is not G1. G1 is American and Japanese cartoons, the Marvel Comics, books, and toys from the 80s and early 90s.
We don't know for sure whether the films are rebooting or not.
And how do we know going a more G1 route superficially is going to make more money? We don't. I love G1, but if anything I'm worried Hasbro is only going to want the most stale, boring, and overused aspects of G1 rather than the better G1 material.
I find the comparison of Paramount and diseases quite amusing now, what with its new hope being Bumblebee, named for a species renowned for creating a rather marvellous substance capable of healing wounds and stemming infections.
Bumblebee shall make the honey that cures our ailments, or even if not, at least feed us some heartwarming sweetness. How deliciously metaphorical.
And the memes, don't forget the Memes.
What I see is a recognizable character representation of Megatron. Its not as if newer fans have never seen him like this before.
There are plenty of characters who haven't changed much physically. (Mario, Garfield, Wonder Woman, Cheer Bear) So I'm not quite sure what the issue is?
Because there's been a multitude of different Megatron designs that you bringing up a bunch of characters in different media who haven't changed makes no sense?
Like, strictly on designs alone since I'm going to be naming multiple versions of the same individual within specific timelines, there's G1 Megatron, G2 Megatron, Beast Wars Megatron (who is an entirely separate character within the same G1 timeline), Transmetal Megatron, Transmetal 2 Megatron, Beast Machines Megaron, Car Robots Megatron, Armada Megatron, Energon Megatron, Cybertron Megatron/Galvatron (because there's the Galvatron colored Megatron and then the Megatron colored Galvatron), Classics 2006 Megatron with the big green nerf wings, Movie Megatron V1 2007, Animated Megatron (both the Cybertronian form AND the Japanese Super Megatron derived Earth form - for the sake of sanity I'm also not counting the triple changer Marauder Megatron who never left prototyping), Movie Megatron V2 2009 a.k.a. the big one armed potato tank, Movie Megatron V3 2011 a.k.a. tanker truck cloak Megatron (my personal favorite movie design), Prime Megatron, Movie Megatron V4 2014 a.k.a. 'shitty Galvatron' (because it's the same character let's be honest they all but outright just say as much in the film anyway), and Movie Megatron V5 2017 a.k.a. "he finally got an externally mounted fusion canon". There's also Stealth Bomber 'rebuilt' Megatron from the IDW comics but I forgot what year that got introduced.
Each one of these things I just listed are wholly unique designs of Megatron across the franchise that are different from one another either in moderate to significant ways, but regardless are different enough to warrant distinction of what continuity they are from. I did NOT mention toy-exclusive versions other than Classics 2006 Megatron because THAT version of Megatron is unique onto himself while other toy versions are essentially variations of the designs I already named (I.E. Reverse Convoy is a Megatron disguised as a version of Convoy/Optimus Prime but he's based on the G2 Megatron toy with the greatest difference being the cannon, and that differs only because that's where the secondary Megatron head is hidden). This does not apply to one-off cases like how CW G1 Megatron and CW Armada Megatron share the same mold with the only real physical difference being a head retool, because the latter also is entirely a different primary color and has purple accents, while the former is almost entirely silver with red and black accents. CW Armada Megatron also has the treads on the back officially transformed only part way to mimic the giant shoulders of the original design.
But when you look at designs such as RtS legends Megatron, CW Leader Megatron, TR Voyager Megatron, and Masterpiece Megatron, you can clearly tell that barring slight variations in each figure such as the CW/TR toys having tank treads, they're all blatantly based on the exact same original character design, which in this case is G1 Megatron. Compare to Animated Megatron Earth mode, which also looks similar because of shared G1 roots, but he is obviously unique even past the design style because of his more angular chest, the cockpit kibble behind the head, the grand shoulders inspired by Super Megatron, and the presence of swords as his melee weapon of choice by default whereas most Megatrons don't use swords as a default weapon. Animated Megatron Cybertronian mode likewise is based on Movie Megatron, but is much more...clean let's say and even then he still clearly retains an external arm mounted fusion canon and black legs.
With Cyberverse Megatron, you take one look at that thing and you know it's a variation on G1 Megatron. I mean, overlooking the fact it turns into a tank because Hasbro doesn't want to make him a gun for obvious reasons (and what is a tank but a giant ass gun on treads anyway?), what exactly beyond minor detail differences makes Cyberverse Megatron at all different from G1 Megatron?
So what if there has? Optimus is usually a truck and red and blue. Bumblebee is yellow and black. Sorry, but I really, truly don't understand what you seem to be upset about with this?
...did you read my question to you at the end of the post?
I did. I don't know much about Cyberverse Megatron to tell ya the truth. But I don't understand why you.appear to be upset? Are you upset that he is a classic incarnation? That there are people complaining about him not always being a classic incarnation? Are you wishing for something new? Just trying to genuinely understand that's all.
I'm not upset that it's a classic incarnation, what I'm annoyed by is people looking at the Cyberverse designs and acting like there isn't an obvious slant to make a heavily G1 based series with Cyberverse all because of pure nuance and the idea something can't be straight up G1 because it doesn't adhere exactly to what the original G1 was.
I mean, out of ALL those Megatrons I listed, NOT ONE of them ever was as close a duplicate to the original G1 Megatron robot design until Cyberverse Megatron. There is a blatantly obvious intent to try and ape G1 as close as possible design wise with Cyberverse and to pretend that isn't the case is what I can't wrap my head around.
Separate names with a comma.