Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by Cosbydaf, Aug 14, 2019.
THESE! Although I am not sure audiences wanted a cinematic universe to begin. I really enjoy the movies, but even I never wanted a cinematic universe so much as an enjoyable continuation following the previous four films.
Yeah, I never wanted a TF Cinematic Universe either. I honestly saw it's failure as soon as it was announced. There just aren't a lot of characters who would lend themselves to profitable standalone movies outside of Optimus and Bee. If companies like DC are struggling to make Superman and Batman work in a shared universe, what hope does Transformers have of making something like Wheeljack: The Movie? I don't think Transfomers shared universe storytelling lends itself to film.
I honestly think Aligned could have been Transformers' equivalent of the MCU, had it been done better. I like the idea of various shows and games and comics and novels tying into the same storyline, and telling different portions of it. If the Prime creators had cooperated with Hasbro's vision (and with High Moon studios), I think that continuity could have been the definitive Transformers story. I think those mediums lend themselves to a shared universe better than film, since it's less risky to put out a comic about Wheeljack than it is a movie. I sort of wish we could get a do-over, with more planning ahead.
EXACTLY!!!! Marvel, DC have a ABSOLUTE SHIT TON of characters everyone knows and loves hence why they can do a cinematic universe. With Transformers, most people only know bee and OP..... And even then these characters aren’t as popular in comparison to Marvel and DC’s fleet. This is why it was best for Hasbro to reboot. Start over again, and most importantly have continuity. IN MY OPINION, only the mainline Transformers movies can be profitable on a HUGE SCALE. Whereas, standalone movies like the Batman made 1 BILLION each, Captain Marvel 1 billion...
Why did TLK turn out so horrible? It's been pretty horrible since Bay and everyone learned during ROTF that not having a story wasn't a handicap to a movie. These movies have been mostly garbage with storylines that amount to nothing as well as build up to nothing because the net movie completely forgets the previous movie even happened.
What happened was that they tried to make a "cinematic universe" with people that knew virtually nothing about the franchise or what made the characters endearing for so long, exactly what Warners and DC did with their franchises. For fuck's sake, no one CARED about Iron Man, Captain America or GOTG before Marvel made movies about them. Everyone is trying to make Marvel movies money but none of them understand why Marvel movies make money, because they're able to translate the characters into more then just a cash grab. If Marvel can make a movie with a semi talking tree and a talking raccoon into a million dollar property then Hasbro SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECENT MOVIE ABOUT TALKING ROBOTS. It shouldn't be this fucking hard with a property that's been around for thirty plus damn years.
It's hard to take anything you hyperbolic internet film experts say seriously when you make ridiculous claims like this. You do realize the plot of AoE is directly dependent on the events of DotM, right?
The writers room caused some huge problems. Everyone in the writers room wasn’t trying to work together to try to make a cohesive universe. They were working against each other to get their own idea chosen to be a movie. In that process, they didn’t care about continuity, it was just a competition.
Gonna agree on this, Tbh i wanted a TF Cinematic Universe, but i don't think it works with just Transformers. just doesn't work with just them. tho that's my opinion anyway lol
Except this completely ignores why the Marvel films worked - they spent time doing individual films for core characters, giving them the time they needed, so that when the big ensemble Avengers films came around, everybody was already familiar with them more than they ever could have if they ONLY saw the ensemble films.
And a key part of all that is that the villains have to be good, too - if you asked me, the only reason to even bother with Thor: The Dark World, is for the absolutely stellar performance Hiddleston gives as Loki in the second half of the film, as otherwise it's a fairly dry and weak entry in the MCU.
Continuity is of course key, but it's truly understated that the villains have to be as up to the task to oppose the heroes, in a yin-yang kind of way. Transformers have been pretty weak in this, as far as the bay films go. This includes Lockdown, who I'll defer to @SPLIT LIP as to why everybody kissing that Destro ripoff's ass amounts to people thinking that the bounty hunter who basically nothing but an exposition dumper for a completely different group who never show up despite being blatantly intended to be the new villains simply pales in comparison to actually well written villains.
Exactly, they all skip the critical first step which is that the MCU started with five individual films (Iron Man, CA: TFA, Thor, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2) which introduced the main heroes as well as all the parts necessary to pull off Avengers such as the Tesseract (which isn't even established as an Infinity Stone by that point, because it by itself is already a WMD grade plot device) and of course Loki as a villain.
Instead we get shit like The Mummy which spent more time trying to hype up the Dark Universe as a setting instead of delivering on an actual damn film first and letting the world building be more progressive. To go back to the MCU, all Coulson exists to do in Iron Man is be a running joke about the organization with the really stupidly long name and he just pops up from time to time across the films - but he's been around so long that he's loved by the fans and thus when he gets killed, it really comes off as feeling like a major loss because Coulson was, essentially, the Avengers fanboy. There's no time given in any other cinematic universe to set up something that subtle, they just want to jump right into the part AFTER having to make a big investment with individual films and it's been proven to not be viable every single time. Including Disney themselves given Solo pretty much deep sixed spin off Star Wars films for a long time.
Not really. The only two major events are that A) Megatron's dead...again... and B) Chicago got fucked up hard.
I mean, if you just changed the final battle from the first film to take place in Chicago, it basically could lead straight into AoE and completely skip the events of ROTF and DOTM entirely. You'd have to change a few things like whose heads are at KSI but that's immaterial to a franchise that decided that the Udvar-Hazy annex in Virginia was situated right next to a famous Arizona plane boneyard.
Yeah, if you look at what little we know of that came from the writers room, its obvious they were just writing proposals and not anything even close to the layered structure that the MCU 'phases' are. The existence of that shitty WWII looking abomination of a film concept with no connection to literally anything prior beyond having transforming robots proves as much.
I don't think it works with much of anything, actually. Marvel's universe is the exception and not the rule. It's not working with Star Wars. It didn't work for DC.
Shoot, I saw Godzilla: King of the Monsters a couple of months ago, and I think that was far worse than anything I have seen from either Marvel or Transformers.
As for how I agree with @Prime Red The Last Knight kind of ignoring a lot of things AoE set up? I think the production didn't realize what they had with the previous film, at least partially due to the knee-jerk, over-the-top, hyperbolic complaints of vocal people in critical and fandom circles, including some people on this web site. Age of Extinction, far from being a worst case scenario for a post-DotM film, was probably a best case realistically speaking. $1.1 billion in worldwide box office. Characters and concepts that could be explored further, like Galvatron, the Creators, and the Dinobots. There isn't an imaginary, fan-pleasing, post-DotM direction that would have been "better," even though AoE is arguably the closest thing to what fans wanted after the first three films they previously hated so much. If anything, a "fan-pleasing" fourth film would have been worse and almost certainly much more dull than the film Bay and Kruger and company made.
As a result, I think the production intentionally moved away from that direction with The Last Knight, but did moving away from that direction please the international audiences that came to DotM and AoE in droves? No. I think it had the opposite affect in many markets.
Yeah, but Attinger's and Savoy's motivations were based on what happened in Chicago. Which tie into Lockdown's motivations for hunting the Autobots, because Lockdown didn't like how their war was ruining the universe at large. That's actually really neat I think; it's just that Lockdown sees the big picture, while Attinger and Savoy have a more limited and egotistical worldview.
It's also a big deal, because it affects the viewpoints of the new human protagonists in terms of how they view Transformers, because news about Chicago is what affected their views of this alien race, and Cade was curious to learn how Transformers work once he realized the truck was alien in nature, which in turn initiates the rest of the events in the movie.
Pretty much. From what we've seen and heard, future Cinematic Universe stories would have been more idea-based as opposed to character-based. I think they talked about a movie set in ancient Rome, a movie set in feudal Japan, and a WW2 movie starring Skyfire. Obviously they felt like they needed to connect the movies to human history and culture in order to make them work. That may or may not have been the case, but I think it does show how little name-recognition the individual characters have, when they have to resort to making the concept the main appeal. Even though Captain America was set during WW2, Cap himself was still the main appeal.
honest, i think it can work for DC. but the problem was they rushed it after Man of steel didn't make what the studio projected. they're doing fine now with focusing on Characters and story driven films like Aquaman, WW, and Shazam.
Yeah, I can definitely see that viewpoint, although even then, and even if future DC films do well, I wonder how a second attempt at a Justice League movie would do.
What DC needs to do is take their time, win the trust back to the honest. Make Standalone films. then they go back to the Team up movies. hell, if Dark Universe did that with Mummy. Like focus on telling stories and not building a universe, they would have won audience over.
Doesn't change a thing. "Mission City" gets wrecked at the end of the first film, maybe not as much as Chicago did but as far as anybody is concerned, that is still legitimately the first recorded instance of an alien attack at a major US city, following one robot and his scorpion pet completely demolishing a well established forward operating base. Oh, and the entire US intelligence network got brought down, too.
Somebody like Attinger would pounce at the opportunity given the inherent weaknesses, plus at the end of the first film you don't have the Autobots set up as a very valuable asset of the US armed forces as a strike group within NEST. The only thing that would prevent the government from seeing the Autobots as being better than the Decepticons is the word of two teens, some soldiers, and some dudes from a government agency so secret that it's on the level of the Manhattan Project almost and its existence is doubtful at best to everyone else.
The government would just make a public relations move and kill all the robots, since no robots = no problems. I mean, that's basically what Attinger gets the US government to go on in AoE.
And that is why Lockdown is a fucking stupid character in the context of AoE. How the hell do you think he gets jobs if it wasn't for that dumbass war? Why would he be in the business of hunting people down if he didn't like the situation that would necessitate hunting people down in the first place?
Neither of which have anything to do with why the final battle of the first film isn't basically interchangeable with Chicago in terms of their motivations. You still had robots flying through buildings, mass panic, and ordinance spray galore in Mission City. What you don't have is a critical US economic and transport nerve center fucking leveled and somehow this isn't making the entire country suffer as a result.
Again, what happened in Chicago that couldn't easily be retrofitted to have been from Mission City? Alien robots waging a goddamn war in the middle of an American city with people screaming everywhere and the US forces are getting their asses kicked at the beginning. Chicago was just Mission City on a far larger scale, but no less prominent. Just change the billboard at the beginning of Age of Excrement from 'Remember Chicago' to 'Remember Mission City' and it's the same effect.
For me it was unfulfilled expectations. I loved the first movie. RotF was a disappointment with all the crude humor. That shocked me the first time I saw it but I enjoyed later viewings because I was prepared for it.
Then DotM, my all time favorite movie. Toned down the crude humor and over the top characters. Had great effects, scenes, twists, action...
Then AoE, my second favorite movie. An interesting new turn with the franchise, though it had some scenes that should have been shorter. It had even less crude humor and crazy characters. I thought Bay learned his lesson from RotF and was on a good path.
Then TLK let me down. Probably the worst humor yet. Forgettable scenes with a long, boring romp looking for a map or something.
That's what made it bad for me. It still had some great scenes, but not as many or as good as the other movies. And for the first time in the series I actually agreed with the consensus that the story was bad.
Shifting the goal posts, are we?
How is this moving goal posts? How is one city getting wrecked by robot war different from a different city getting wrecked by robot war?
My point is that in order for AoE to happen, all there really needs to be is A) Megatron's dead so he can be Galvatron, and B) a big ass city got wrecked to serve as a catalyst/rally point for why the majority of people hate the Transformers unilaterally such that the US government would openly let them be exterminated.
What else am I missing here? TELL ME. I want to know. This is how discussion works.
EDIT: OR, to appease the mods, we can all just drop it since this thread should be about TLK and not be devolving into yet another argument about why Age of Excrement is a garbage film. Though, it really does say something how even now, four years later, we're still arguing over that shitty film even though TLK did the killing blow to the Bayverse.
You know, I've never thought about that before, but you're completely right. There was a bonus feature on the TLK home video of the various writers "pitching" their story ideas to Bay and Spielberg. It definitely came across like a competition.
They ran out of ideas after Dark of the Moon but there was a lot of money to be made so they hoped you wouldn't notice they didn't give a damn because big explosions, smart ass jokes, and stuff in your face.
Separate names with a comma.