Transformers 4 Bayfoptimus Prime First Look

[Shanti418]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/25/ ... k-revealed

I have to be impressed: I thought I had buried my expectations bar deep beneath the ground, but this image STILL manages to to disappoint me. Op looks more like an actual robot, but vastly less like a Transformer, and even less like something remotely associated with a truck.

Or is that the point with that whole "....Cybertron!" thing in the article? Is the whole "We can show Cybertron, they don't NEED to be cool cars and trucks, the point is the characters!" line of thinking going to be Bayformized? This is just horrible. And now-post Avengers, which proved that you CAN produce a genre movie that pays tribute to the fandom's knowledge without making it niche, it just sucks sucks sucks that this movie franchise is continuing to relieve itself all over the characters I loved for millions of global dollars. I don't know why I'm so worked up about this at this late point, but there it is.

[Kaylee]

At least we had Predacons Rising this year

[Computron]

OP looks a bit wimpy =(

[Professor Smooth]

The Michael Bay movies are their own thing. And I enjoy them. Maybe I wouldn't if they had influenced the *other* Transformer fiction more, but...they really haven't. The great Don Figueroa did some movie-verse influenced art for awhile. And Bumblebee in TF Prime spoke in beeps. But I've still got RiD, the seminal MTMTE, and more toys (from Gachapon G1/TFP figures up through G1 Masterpiece figures) than I could ever hope to collect. Hell, the reissue of Fortress Maximus was like $150 USD when it hit Amazon Japan. That, along with all/most of Encore wouldn't have happened if not for the interest the movie drummed up.

And if something like 100 million people enjoy a version of Transformers that's different from what I grew up with (and continue to enjoy) every three or four years? That's cool. See ya opening night.

[Bumblebot]

I think they took the photo of Wahlberg a split-second too early, given his expression.

[Darth Aux]

I think the sword looks out of place, I didn't mind the blades. Just give him an axe,

[Shanti418]

The Michael Bay movies are their own thing. And I enjoy them. Maybe I wouldn't if they had influenced the *other* Transformer fiction more, but...they really haven't. The great Don Figueroa did some movie-verse influenced art for awhile. And Bumblebee in TF Prime spoke in beeps. But I've still got RiD, the seminal MTMTE, and more toys (from Gachapon G1/TFP figures up through G1 Masterpiece figures) than I could ever hope to collect. Hell, the reissue of Fortress Maximus was like $150 USD when it hit Amazon Japan. That, along with all/most of Encore wouldn't have happened if not for the interest the movie drummed up.

And if something like 100 million people enjoy a version of Transformers that's different from what I grew up with (and continue to enjoy) every three or four years? That's cool. See ya opening night.

They are indeed their own thing and you indeed are entitled to enjoy them if they massage you in such a way. And I'm well versed in the "Movie popular, must make mainstream" dialog trees. But since Transformers 3, there's a backlash against the "hollow out the middle, stuff it full of popcorn action" line of thinking - Star Trek Into Darkness. But since Transformers 3, we've seen a successful, smarter reboot of a property that was already wildly successful in the past 15 years - Spider Man. And that's the tip of the iceberg. So no, I'm not excited about having to go through another round of same old. Let someone else have a turn.

[Professor Smooth]

They are indeed their own thing and you indeed are entitled to enjoy them if they massage you in such a way. And I'm well versed in the "Movie popular, must make mainstream" dialog trees. But since Transformers 3, there's a backlash against the "hollow out the middle, stuff it full of popcorn action" line of thinking - Star Trek Into Darkness. But since Transformers 3, we've seen a successful, smarter reboot of a property that was already wildly successful in the past 15 years - Spider Man. And that's the tip of the iceberg. So no, I'm not excited about having to go through another round of same old. Let someone else have a turn.

All I'm saying is that, if you didn't enjoy the first three movies, then you should probably already know that the fourth was never going to be your cup of tea.

If you like 'em, then that's cool. If not, then I don't see how any new movie news isn't reduced to simply background noise.

Somebody on another board likened the Transformers movies to reading "Horse and Rider" magazine. If you're not into horses, then it doesn't make much sense to read that magazine (while commenting about how it's not really your thing).

"Let somebody else have a turn?" The guy at the wheel has brought in something like FOUR BILLION dollars in ticket/disc sales. Each of the movies has brought in more profit than the last. Why in the name of whatever would anybody with any financial stake in the franchise *want* to give somebody else a turn?

That "smart and successful" reboot, the Amazing Spider-Man? That was the lowest grossing Spider-Man movie. It made 70 million less at the US box-office (and 140 million internationally) than Spider-Man 3.

[Sunyavadin]

Head no longer looks ****. But why's his body encased in a Crysis Nanosuit?

[Shanti418]

All I'm saying is that, if you didn't enjoy the first three movies, then you should probably already know that the fourth was never going to be your cup of tea.

If you like 'em, then that's cool. If not, then I don't see how any new movie news isn't reduced to simply background noise.

Hence my "I thought I had buried my bar of expectations" and "I don't know why I'm so worked up about it at this late point" sentences.

Somebody on another board likened the Transformers movies to reading "Horse and Rider" magazine. If you're not into horses, then it doesn't make much sense to read that magazine (while commenting about how it's not really your thing).

Hence why I said it here instead of Seibertron or something: we pride ourselves on being provincial and thumbing our noses at things we don't like.

"Let somebody else have a turn?" The guy at the wheel has brought in something like FOUR BILLION dollars in ticket/disc sales. Each of the movies has brought in more profit than the last. Why in the name of whatever would anybody with any financial stake in the franchise *want* to give somebody else a turn?

Yes, and Sam Raimi or Chris Nolan had the sense to go do something else. The idea that they steadily increased in profit isn't some Bay magic: it's the simple economics of the global box office. MANY MANY franchises (Ice Age, Madagascar, Fast and the Furious, etc. etc.) are cash cows because each iteration increases their franchise recognition with a global audience. That has less to do with Michael Bay and more to do with Earth consuming US cultural products. The idea that "it made sense to the people trying to make money so it MUST be good!" doesn't work when we're talking about sweatshops and it doesn't work when we're talking about what are supposed to be creative mediums.

That "smart and successful" reboot, the Amazing Spider-Man? That was the lowest grossing Spider-Man movie. It made 70 million less at the US box-office (and 140 million internationally) than Spider-Man 3.

"It made less money" does not mean it wasn't smart and wasn't successful. If it was the bomb you're trying to frame it as, I wonder why they are not only making a sequel, but attempting to create an entire franchise of movies out of the SM universe.

[Professor Smooth]

The Spider-Man movies made progressively less money. Dark Knight Rises brought in 70 million less than its predecessor. The Bay movies have increased with each installment. So, it IS kinda unique to Michael Bay.

I'm not going to pretend that they are awesome, perfect movies, but they make progressively more money for everyone involved in making them. So any suggestions that they "should" do things differently is nonsense to the people in charge.

[Shanti418]

The Spider-Man movies made progressively less money. Dark Knight Rises brought in 70 million less than its predecessor. The Bay movies have increased with each installment. So, it IS kinda unique to Michael Bay.

Many, many points to raise against this hastily constructed straw man, so I'll just give them bullet points.

- So following the strict capitalistic logic you've followed thus far, why don't Sony or WB engage in a bidding war over Michael Bay because it IS unique to Michael Bay that ALL his sequels make more money! Bad Boys AND Transformers! Oh, because n=2 means nothing statistically? I see.
- Did Michael Bay secretly direct all the Fast and Furious movies as well? Because they too have basically increased with each installment.
- The Spider-Man movies did NOT make progressively less money. http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/cha ... derman.htm Look at worldwide grosses, as this is my point with franchise recognition. With the economic growth in places like China and India, and with the cultural imperialism of the West, movie studios can bet on increasing global box office. So once you've done the hard work of establishing "Madagascar" (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises ... gascar.htm) as a thing, it's much easier to go into a saturated market and go "...Number 2!!" and increase your box office.
- See also the increasing box office of Pirates (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises ... ibbean.htm) and your OTHER example, Batman (http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/cha ... batman.htm), where TDKR is the highest worldwide grossing film. Smooth, you're in Japan! Stop seeing US box office as the be all and end all of picture profit. That's so 20th Century. :P

I'm not going to pretend that they are awesome, perfect movies, but they make progressively more money for everyone involved in making them. So any suggestions that they "should" do things differently is nonsense to the people in charge.

And my point - aside from again saying that the market logic of "This is making more money so changing it is nonsense" is a VERY problematic ideological place to stake out if you're concerned with social injustice, global inequality, and human exploitation - is that "Transformers" as a movie thing is established. You could have Joe Director do Transformers 4 and it's going to make money hand over fist, so why not try a different approach? You can feed everyone the exact same story you just gave them a decade ago (Spider-Man) but do it differently and the movie will still make money for the studio because why? Because now global audiences are familiar with and interested in Spider-Man thanks to the previous movies. The idea that Transformers+Michael Bay is this lightning-in-a-bottle goose that laid the golden egg that Paramount MUST owe fealty to lest they cut off their nose to spite their face (now THAT'S horribly mixing metaphors) is just anachronistic.

[Professor Smooth]

You're forgetting that the studios don't see as much of a profit on the international ticket sales as they do on those in the US. That is especially true of ticket sales in China.

So while you can say that a movie generated a billion dollars in ticket sales, if most of that comes from international markets, the actual profits are much lower.