Yeah... seems very unlikely You beat me to it, that's what happens when you forget on which threads you are posting.
Using BATMAN as an example to prove the failure of a franchise is quite possibly the worst example ever. The first BATMAN movie spawned Batman: TAS, quite possibly the most successful action cartoon franchise in 25 years. 4 Seasons of the regular series 3 full length Movies animated movies 2 Seasons of Spin-off Superman 3 Seasons of Batman Beyond 4 Seasons of Justice League And those successes fed back into itself to strengthen the DC media franchise with Superman Returns and Batman Begins. EVEN WITH Arnold as Mr. Freeze the movies were HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL and the franchise was a Juggernaut with long-lasting support to this day. And besides, batman 3 and 4 were a director change. If anything, that was the issue, not the lack of appeal of batman. So again by using the example of Batman, as long as the director stays the same we can expect highly successful movies. You are discounting financial success to prove your own biased opinions and argue them as some sort of fact. The franchise is not dying. TF the movie did not damage the franchise, a Hokey sequel that duplicates the style of the first movie will not doom the franchise. You don't have to like the movie, but stop trying to argue the first movie was a failure and that the second movie has to change from being like the first or it will doom the franchise, because both of those statements are basically false and can be proven false by qualitative research which the studios do frequently.
I am sorry, I am going to have disagree with the majority of your statements. Mostly because you are misunderstanding what I am saying. If you are talking about financial success, then yes, TF1 succeeded. If money is the only true indicator of success then you are right in assuming that TF1 was a success. However, just note that the Batman movie with Mr. Freeze also sold a TON of toys. However, most people thought that the movie was horrible. That killed Batman for a while. You can't say that the first movie spawned Batman Begins when there was a clear lag of anything of substance that was Batman in the years between. It would be like you saying that G2 spawned Beast Wars eventhough there were years of nothing in between and eventhough the 2 were stylistically different. Batman Begins was in 2005. The last Batman movie before that was in 1997. There was a definite period of lack of any Batman movies. Batman the animated series was from 1992 - 1995. I am not disagreeing with you that the 1st Batman movie in 1989 wasn't good. It WAS good. And due to its success, more Batman movies were created but the subsequent lack of quality and story in the movies killed the franchise. Coincidentally, it was due to the same lack of focus that killed the movie. Instead of focusing on one protagonist and one antagonist as in the 1st movie, the movies had numerous protagonists and antagonists. It became confusing till Batman Begins simplified everything again and did away with the ridiculous style of the previous movies. Batman was always a dark story, but the subsequent sequels had garish costumes and bombastic effects. Batman Begins fixed all that. I think you also take it a bit too far when you say that a movie in 1989 spawned Justice League. It'd be claiming that the first Batman movie in 1943spawned the Superman Returns movie. I also think that you overlook the simple fact that series can die. Not completely but at least leave the public spotlight. They usually are forgotten by everyone except the most loyal of fans. For instance - the Lord of the Rings. I am unsure when the first Hobbit animated movie was released but it was decades since that another movie was made. You cannot claim that it also had success in the years in between. Every series has peaks and valleys. They have their highs and lows. Batman and TFs are the same. Its usually to a bad decision that there are the lows.
It did. This is empirical fact. Bruce Timm confirmed this. Same director, same production company, same everything. 1989 Batman jumpstarted DC's modern entertainment franchise and expanded them from a comic franchise to an entertainment franchise. *Batman TAS was a direct result of the success of the batman movies *Superman TAS and Batman Beyond were direct results of the success of Batman TAS. *Justice League was was a direct result of the success of Batman TAS and Superman TAS And the modern batman series has been successful, nonstop: You are deeming success on if a movie was good in your eyes. Lots of people enjoyed Batman 3 and 4. While it is hooky, it was an ok movie with some very popular actors. The Batman universe has room for that depiction of Batman and people enjoyed it. And Batman is part of a DC franchise and not his own franchise, so saying BATMAN franchise has failed is like saying the BUMBLEBEE Franchise died during the Armadaverse. Just because a studio focused on other members of it's franchise doesn't mean that Batman was a failure or unsuccessful. Batman has been in an animated series NON-STOP for over 12 years now with batman action figures on the shelves for close to 18 years. There has been ZERO break. I don;t see how that qualifies as a dead character or unsuccessful. And Financial Success is the *ONLY* relevant meter of success because financial success is a direct result of people approving something with their money. Just because you don't like something does not mean it was not successful. You keep failing to understand that. Not being liked by 'True Fans' doesn't make it a failure. You are flat out wrong in your prediction of dying a slow painful death of the franchise.
Ok, first off, your talking about exceptions leaves no option of discussion on this topic. You said lots of people liked Batmans 3 and 4. Fine, so they did. Lots of people also liked Dude, Where's My Car?. The fact that some part of the population somewhere in the world liked the movie doesn't necessarily make it "good". If you hold that opinion, there is no need for me to discuss anything further with you. If you hold it that if even one person liked the movie, then its good, then I will respect your opinion. But that ends all discussion. Second, I did not deny that the first Batman movie in 1989 was good. I said just the same. I also agree that it spawned Batman the Animated series. However, you took it to an extreme and hence why you did not reply to my Batman Begins line of reasoning. Batman Begins spawned itself after those so-called good good movies (Batman 3 & 4) killed the movie franchise. If they were just as good as you say, there would not have been a lag of 8 years. You think that anything with the Batman name was spawned by the movie in 1989 or the Animated Series. No. Using your logic, the TRUE originator of all things that are Batman was the first Batman comic. I also NEVER stated that the Batman franchise died. If you read my previous post, I even said that franchises can leave the public eye for many years due to failure of one particular series only to be revived by another. I never stated that TF as a franchise would die. Like others have stated, Hasbro was smart and didn't put all its eggs into one basket. Even if the movie line fails, the cartoon line might not. Since they are totally unrelated, I agree that the failure of one does not affect the other. Let me then clarify my point - the TF movie franchise as it current is will die a slow death. Think I am backtracking? Look above at Dropshot's quote of my own words! And, no, I don't agree that financial numbers are the indicator of success. The $700 million is used by the fanboys to feel good about the franchise. However, adjusted for inflation, Transformers is #91 on that list. If you compare it to other recent movies that were the first in the series, TF did worse. Most sequels fare worse than the original. If the 2nd one is more of the same, expect the sequel to drop further on that list. http://www.the-movie-times.com/thrsdir/alltime.mv?adjusted+ByAG+50 I think this is where you have your misunderstanding. You don't judge a series on its own, but just if it carries the name of the original. To you, so long as something exists in SOME form in popular culture, its still popular. I think thats where we have our misunderstanding. I AM IN NO WAY SAYING THAT TRANSFORMERS AS A CULTURAL ICON WILL DIE. Excuse the caps. I am merely saying that THIS incarnation of TFs - the movie incarnation - will die if they do not fix the glaring problems of the first movie. To you, TFs have always been successful. Because there has been some FORM of TFs around. However, individual series have failed. Subsequent series revive the public's interest.
What you deem Glaring problems are seen as enjoyable successes by others. Your point of reducing the human cast and the human interaction is a perfect example. And the studio is not going to change everything when the first movie did so well and so many people liked it the way it is. By your example, listening to you would lead it down the BATMAN 3 and 4 path by changing the core of the movie focus to appeal to a different group of movie viewers. If you really believe 3 and 4 caused a downturn int he BATMAN franchise while 1 and 2 were so good, then why would the studio change ONE THING about TF1 when making TF2? By your own examples they should ignore your opinions and make TF2 exactly like TF1 in every way to make it successful. TF1 was a success financially and by popular opinion. You just didn't like it. Nothing needed to be done to accommodate people like you for TF2 because honestly your opinions do not matter. Changes to please you would alienate the general public. The studio's job is to make a movie that appeals to the most amount of people, not the TRUE FANS of a franchise.
I'll give you one thing - you have a knack for tangents. "If you really believe 3 and 4 caused a downturn int he BATMAN franchise while 1 and 2 were so good, then why would the studio change ONE THING about TF1 when making TF2?" Why? Because I view the first TF movie the same as the Batman 3 & 4 movie. I DO NOT view the first TF movie as the first Batman movie. Hence, my logic fits. As far as your ultimate statement, only time will tell, only time will tell...
This entire threade is I understand the OPs intention, but it just ended up being ANOTHER in a long line of movie 'bayformers' debate. Look, the movie is what it is, either you liked the designs or didn't like the designs. But the whole "Michael Bay robbed my childhood" melodrama is really old. He is the director now, and will be for the next two movies it looks like, and the tone is set and they are what they are. So enjoy it or don't, but quit bitchin'! Also, I don't know you, but I lol'd hard at this. You have had like 20 posts afterwards!
That is because he must argue anyone who disagrees with him into submission when he is clearly right... http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20080227.html
Wow I have read every single post in this thread and all I got out of is was....well....nothing? Wasnt this thread supposed to be about the aesthetic or comparison or Ironmans design to the way the transformers were built to be more "humanoid". Of course I stand corrected because I forget things.
This is a great discussion!! But I'm going to disagree with alot of what you say here. The Batman movies , after the second, sucked because of the change in director. Tim Burton found the scripts weak, and since he backed out, so did Michael Keaton. The new director decided to make batman campy again, and thus, the movies (with no clear Batman and poor direction) were weak. But in a way, Batman Begins was made, in part, because of The first two Batman movies... Nolan wished to return to the Dark gritty style inspired by those movies and works by Frank Miller. The Batman movie in 89 did lead to Justice League, because the movie spawned the success of Batman the animated series. This series brought about the rise of Bruce Timm (who I could only wish would do a Transformers series), and BTAS success lead all the way to the Justice League unlimited. The stories are all connected, events finishing in JLU started , in some events, back in Superman the animated series. But it is doubtful that, if not for the success of the 89 movie, Dc would have sank the money into a new Batman series clearly inspired by that style, which was retained all the way through JLU. And yes a series can die, but the overwhelming mass of people love Transformers. From hardcore fans to first timers, it was widely accepted. My dad (a 68 year old who only knows of TFs cause he bought them for me when I was a kid) loved it. He said it didnt try to be something it wasn't. TFs was always about the fights and explosions, beast Wars rewrote that in some ways, but still, it is what it is. So when they redesigned the robots, they ment to jumpstart the franchise. In my opnion, they were great save two (Starscream and megatron). The absolute lack of homage to the characters they are based off of is sad, even though I actually like the designs. But superman returns didn't give him a mask, two guys and a pair of shorts, so the decision to not homage the characters properly was sad. Turning the Decepticons into "evil monsters" was bad, but at least with lesser knowns like Brawl, Barricade and Blackout it was acceptable. Hopefully, with Megs deactivated, a proper redesign can be down, and I really hope Starscream recieves some reformatting to. Other than that, keep the autobots the same! To me, they looked great.
