MICHAEL BAY AT IT AGAIN!!

mikebot · Post by **mikebot** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:10 am

I know this is a forum for our beloved Transformers, but I think a lot of us have an appreciation for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Well Bay is changing their origin story and making them aliens in the upcoming live action film. I think this takes a lot away from what made the stories interesting. Or maybe I am just old and out of touch.

Post by **snarl** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:33 am

I'd actually love it if he died.

Hot Shot · Post by **Hot Shot** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:33 pm

snarl wrote:I'd actually love it if he died.

How dare you wish death on another human being over movies, sir?! You should be ashamed of yourself!

Me too.

Darth Aux · Post by **Darth Aux** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:00 pm

I'd actually love it if he tripped, fell over and scuffed his elbows very badly.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:30 pm

Darth Aux wrote:I'd actually love it if he tripped, fell over and scuffed his elbows very badly.

Oh, oh, and a carpet burn on his knee! One can only dream.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:39 am

You're all underestimating the torment of a properly stubbed toe.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:00 am

Fall of Cybertron was just released. New Generations and Masterpiece figures are on the way. Simon Furman is getting into his run on the continuation of the original Marvel comics. All because of the massive success of the trilogy of MB movies.

Can we please stop pretending that Michael Bay did more harm than good in regards to our little hobby?

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:15 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:Fall of Cybertron was just released. New Generations and Masterpiece figures are on the way. Simon Furman is getting into his run on the continuation of the original Marvel comics. All because of the massive success of the trilogy of MB movies.

Can we please stop pretending that Michael Bay did more harm than good in regards to our little hobby?

Those movies would have been made eventually anyway. Bay had nothing whatsoever to do with the success of Transformers. He had everything to do with the raping of it.

So, no.

inflatable dalek · Post by **inflatable dalek** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:43 pm

Yaya wrote:
Professor Smooth wrote:Fall of Cybertron was just released. New Generations and Masterpiece figures are on the way. Simon Furman is getting into his run on the continuation of the original Marvel comics. All because of the massive success of the trilogy of MB movies.

Can we please stop pretending that Michael Bay did more harm than good in regards to our little hobby?
Those movies would have been made eventually anyway. Bay had nothing whatsoever to do with the success of Transformers. He had everything to do with the raping of it.

So, no.

I think there's a double standard at work there Yaya- you're laying the blame for everything wrong with the films at Bay's feet but refuting any credit he might deserve for their popular success with "Those movies would have been made eventually anyway". If he's responsible for the bad he's responsible for their success as well. He can't be both a jobbing director doing something anyone could have done and the architect of evil behind their failings.

And I don't recall seeing many fans (myself included) being very confident the first film stood much of a chance of doing well before the first trailer hit. You only have to look at other Hasbro based movies to see that yes- we'd have had a TF film without Bay. But it could have been G.I. Joe (a film I'm actually worryingly fond of but it hardly set the box office alight and hasn't done much good for the Joe's as a whole). It could have been Battleship.

Just remember what things were like before 2007, we were coming off the back of the Unicron trilogy. Classics was somewhat half arsed, Transformers was basically an 80's property shrinking in popularity. We were in the world of Kiss Players.

In the years since, directly as a result of the success of the films, we've had: Animated; Prime; All new Classics; new books; new computer games; a new kid friendly British comic that got past issue 9, arguably improved IDW comics (that's debatable as it's only in the last year they seem to have taken a leaf out of the success of the movies and realised thy don't just have to do tired G1 rehashes and can push it in new directions)... probably lots of stuff I'm forgetting. Even if you've only liked half of that, I can't see anyone saying with any conviction the stone the films have dropped into the Transformers pool hasn't had very positive ripples and we're not much better off than we were six years ago.

And that's without the general raising of awareness of the franchise amongst the general public (who do seem to be enjoying the films a lot). It's created new young fans and turned Prime and Bumblebee from fondly remembered by kids of the '80's characters into genuine cinema icons. I can't see that being a bad thing for the franchise.
And if making Transformers one of the most successful movie franchises of all time is raping it, I could do with being raped like that.

As for the fourth one, I'd rather have a new director, simply because I think regular changes at the top are a good thing. We've had Bay's take on it, I enjoyed it and it did what it needed to do. But fresh blood is always welcome, and short of doing Grimlock (I'm amazed he hasn't shown up yet, he's the single most Michael Bay character in... well anything) I'm not sure what else he could bring to the table.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:15 am

inflatable dalek wrote: I think there's a double standard at work there Yaya- you're laying the blame for everything wrong with the films at Bay's feet but refuting any credit he might deserve for their popular success with "Those movies would have been made eventually anyway". If he's responsible for the bad he's responsible for their success as well. He can't be both a jobbing director doing something anyone could have done and the architect of evil behind their failings.

Bay rode the Transformers to fame, they didn't ride him.

There's a difference between being successful monetarily and being good. I don't deny the financial success the series had, but the quality was ass. The first movie was pretty good, but the next two were two of the worst movies I have every seen hit the big screen, right up there with Devlin's Godzilla movie. And I mean that as a cinema goer and movie buff, not as a wild-eyed cry-baby TF fanboy.

When I saw the box office revenue for the second and thirds movies increase, that was the day I lost all hope in humanity and have since then prepared for the end of times.

Bay dashed any dreams and hopes of seeing a Transformers film done the way Transformers fans would have wanted to see it done. The door was open, something no TF fan would have ever expected, and Bay ran through it and shut it in our faces by giving us shaky camera shots of a bunch of piles of metal shavings running around.

I don't argue that the movies are likely the reason we are getting these great comics we have now. Likely, they are. But that doesn't speak at all to the competence of Michael Bay as a director.

Dude got lucky by landing those movies.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:21 am

It has been far too long since I've been able to have a good arguement about Transformers on these here interwebs! Yaya, have at thee!

As Karl mentioned above, the success of the Transformers franchise can be attributed to Michael Bay. Would it have been BETTER with somebody like Chris Nolan or Joss Whedon directing it? Maybe. Was there ever a snowball's chance in hell of that happening? Absolutely not. When the news broke that there was going to even BE a Transformers movie, it was assumed that, if it was ever made at all (and didn't wind up in development hell like so many licensed films have a habit of doing) it would be some cheap kiddy cash in with Scooby Doo-like CG directed by the cheapest no-name they could find.

Then it was announced that Michael "I am famous exclusively for insane, over the top, explodey movies" Bay was going to direct. And people suddenly went, "wait. So the movie really IS going to be tits, ass, and big ass robots smashing and blowing the hell out of each other?"

When Michael Bay started talking about the movie publicly, he was very open about saying that he was going to do the movie HIS way and that, within reason, everyone was allowing him to.

My point is that the first Transformers live action movie was directed by a guy who was famous for insane, over the top, explosive action. And because of that, the Transformers movie was an insane, over top, explosive action movie. Because that's the kind of movie you get when you give the reigns to that guy. And because of it, awareness of the brand is at an all-time high. And that has led to the brand's expansion beyond what anybody could have ever reasonably expected.

And that expansion is what has been great for pretty much everybody. Like G1? Here are three different ongoing comic book series, one of which is a direct continuation of the stories you grewe up with, by the same creative team. If you get bored of that, feel free to check out the Masterpiece figures, and Generations line. Or maybe one of the award-winning video games based on the franchise.

Got kids? They'd probably like Transformers: Prime. And you can talk to them about a TV show they like because you grew up with the same characters.

Little kids? Rescue Bots. And, by the way, it blows my mind that the demographic for Transformers is so wide that they had to introduce a Transformers show that was made especially for kids...

ALL of that is available to you because of how Michael Bay handled the movies. He didn't just mail it in. He said, "I want to see a movie where big ****ing robots only stop beating on each other long enough for some chick in jean shorts to lean over a convertable or something and I'll bet I'm not the only one!" And, man, he could have. He could have "needed the gig"'d that movie right out the door. Some unknown "works cheap and needs to build his resume" type dude probably would have. It could have been Go-Bots Meets Scooby-Doo type bad. And, for the producers, that probably would have been fine. Transformers would have always brought in at least a small audience. Enough for 100 million bucks and decent DVD sales. But Michael Bay's "I WANT TO SEE MANLY ROBOT STUFF!" approach pushed the franchise past THREE BILLION DOLLARS.

And then what happened? HEY! There's money to be made here! More toys! More games! More comics!

I walked into a goddamn grocery store the other day and bought small model kit versions of Fortress Maximus and Dezauras.

There has literally never been a better time to be a Transformers fan, even if only a casual one. You can get you fix anywhere at any time in any shape and or format. Hell, I can get new Transformers TV shows and comics sent to my goddamn PHONE.

You could, if you really wanted to, submerge yourself in Transformers nearly 24/7 without repeating yourself.

And even if you HATE the movies, they take up about 2 hours every three years. Who even has time to see the movies? What with hunting down about eight different toy lines, unlocking everything in Fall of Cybertron, keeping current on two different animated series, three comic books, a handfull of spin-offs and one shots, attending BotCons, watching the recently released Japanese series with legit English subtitles, and waiting for the next Transformers NOVEL to be released?

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:00 am

The first movie is, against all the odds, a pretty decent movie - my mum caught it on telly the other week, watched it all the way through and called me the next day to say she'd enjoyed it. That's exactly the kind of exposure Transformers needed to become the global megabrand it is today. That my sister picked up an issue of MTMTE on a recent visit and then read the whole series so far because she really liked the characters (she's also about halfway through RID at the moment, after reading LSOTW) despite never having the slightest interest in Transformers comics before shows the quality of that brand.

I'm not going to try and defend ROTF as I think it's a pretty terrible film, but DOTM was straightforward enough to work as an ending to the trilogy - the people I went to see it with liked it a little bit less than I did but no-one was cursing it as the worst movie they'd ever seen. Sure Bay was lucky to land these films - and it's no secret that I would have given my right arm to see Transformers directed by Paul Verhoeven - but by making big event movies that parents could watch with their kids he took the brand far more "mainstream" than anyone could ever have hoped.

Before these movies Transformers was a niche interest at best. Long after the highlights of BW/BM, we'd just had Armada/Energon/Cybertron with their crappy dubbed cartoons, toys of extremely varying quality (especially after the Car Robots figures) and a comic publisher that had gone bust, leaving fans hanging. If Transformers had disappeared at that point, no-one outside of the fandom would really have noticed.

These days, Transformers are on a par with Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel or DC in terms of fandom. That can't be a bad thing.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:58 am

For comparison, I'm a fairly big fan of ol' Riker, but does anyone remember Jonathan Frakes's Thunderbirds movie?

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:32 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:
As Karl mentioned above, the success of the Transformers franchise can be attributed to Michael Bay. Would it have been BETTER with somebody like Chris Nolan or Joss Whedon directing it? Maybe. Was there ever a snowball's chance in hell of that happening? Absolutely not. When the news broke that there was going to even BE a Transformers movie, it was assumed that, if it was ever made at all (and didn't wind up in development hell like so many licensed films have a habit of doing) it would be some cheap kiddy cash in with Scooby Doo-like CG directed by the cheapest no-name they could find.

Transformers, the very idea itself, was enough to make the movies a success. It didn't need Bay.

Hollywood is always scrounging around for new ideas to make money on. Cars and planes transforming on screen into giant robots? With the technology at their fingertips? That's what you call a slam dunk.

At that time, Transformers was not some no-name, obscure brand. It had a twenty year following of fans, with multiple reincarnations in comic, toy, and television form. It had international appeal and reach. There were lulls, but the brand itself is just too unique to disappear. The only thing stopping the making of a kickass TF live-action movie was the limitations in technology. When that became available, the success of these movies was inevitable.

Would they not have been made if Bay refused? Maybe for a few years at the most. Bay only hastened on this TF tidalwave of Transformery goodness, but he wasn't responsible for it.

Then it was announced that Michael "I am famous exclusively for insane, over the top, explodey movies" Bay was going to direct. And people suddenly went, "wait. So the movie really IS going to be tits, ass, and big ass robots smashing and blowing the hell out of each other?"

Can a movie about warring giant robots fighting each other be made any other way besides "over the top" and "explodey"? Bay didn't make Transformers these things, they are these things by their nature.

Hollywood would have to make the biggest flub of their life to not be able to capitalize on the Transformers once the tech became available.

My point is that the first Transformers live action movie was directed by a guy who was famous for insane, over the top, explosive action. And because of that, the Transformers movie was an insane, over top, explosive action movie.

And I say that Transformers would have been such a movie regardless. In fact, it would have been even better, with perhaps easier characters and action scenes to decipher without camera shake.

Because that's the kind of movie you get when you give the reigns to that guy. And because of it, awareness of the brand is at an all-time high. And that has led to the brand's expansion beyond what anybody could have ever reasonably expected.

Would have happened anyway. The brands expansion was inevitable when Paramount gave the green light, not when Bay signed on as director. Sure, he probably brought a lot of Bay fans with him. Sure, the final movies would have possibly grossed more with him than other directors. But I do not believe that had it been a different director, it would have been a Scooby-Do flop. It would have been a major success with or without Bay because of what Transformers brings to the table.

And that expansion is what has been great for pretty much everybody. Like G1? Here are three different ongoing comic book series, one of which is a direct continuation of the stories you grewe up with, by the same creative team. If you get bored of that, feel free to check out the Masterpiece figures, and Generations line. Or maybe one of the award-winning video games based on the franchise.

Again, would have happened anyway, with or without Bay.

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:29 pm

I have no real opinion... but I would like to ask politely, not in a spirit of condemnation, if we could avoid rape comparisons when talking about franchising childhood toys... don't like the implications when rape is tossed around so casually.

inflatable dalek · Post by **inflatable dalek** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:42 pm

Yaya wrote:
inflatable dalek wrote: Bay rode the Transformers to fame, they didn't ride him.
*Spurts out tea*.

Really? That's Michael Bay, the man who, love him or hate him, was a proper A list Hollywood director with some of the most successful and popular big dumb action films of the previous decade under his belt? I'm not saying it wasn't a relationship that benefited him as well (though following up the wobble of The Island- which suffers mainly from him trying to do something non-Bay and failing- with a film based on toys could have been disastrous for him) but he was the one with the proven Hollywood track record.

I mean, Hot Fuzz had an extended love letter to one of Bay's less popular films. That's a rough sign of his impact on action cinema. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is of course subjective (everyone seems to love The Rock and the first Bad Boys though) but it's hard to deny it.

Transformers on the other hand, hadn't had any big level of popularity since... well Beast Wars if you're being generous. 1986 if you're being completely fair.

And if it's so easy to make a financially successful Transformers movie, why couldn't G.I. Joe do it when it had so many of the same factors in its favour (including generally being more popular and long running in America)? Why couldn't the people behind the '86 film do it? Lets not forget it was a complete box office bomb (and got pretty much identical contemporary reviews as the Bay Movies).

Bay dashed any dreams and hopes of seeing a Transformers film done the way Transformers fans would have wanted to see it done. The door was open, something no TF fan would have ever expected, and Bay ran through it and shut it in our faces by giving us shaky camera shots of a bunch of piles of metal shavings running around.

The way which Transformers fans would have wanted to see it done? I'm not saying the fans don't have good ideas, it's just if you ask ten fans what they want you'll get ten different good ideas. There are very, very few things we all agree on in terms of what we want. Hell, there's a decent number of people whose ideal film would have been a direct sequel to The Rebirth explaining how things would have led to Beast Wars.

I mean, my personal choice for how to do a big budget TF film would be to treat it as an American Godzilla franchise, big widescreen robots beating the crap out of each other with the spectacle you can't get in a comic or a TV show. Which is pretty much what I got. Which is nice.

Plus, a lot of things the fans want, are entirely cosmetic. There were a lot of fans who'd have been much happier with Megan Fox if she'd died her hair blond and been called Carley. Those who don't like the films for Prime not being the right sort of truck. Those who think Megatron would instantly have been a better character if Welker had played him even if the script had been exactly the same.

All those things would be easy to do (and we got our blond Carley in the end; and as an added bonus she was as stupid and annoying as her cartoon namesake), but would make insanely little difference to the actual quality of the films.

I actually find the bits of fan pandering in the sequels to be slightly annoying. I loved Starscream in the first one, a powerful plane destroying bastard who has a bit of snark but isn't obviously "I WILL KILL YOU AND LEAD". His descent into comedy coward across the second two that culminated in him being killed by Sam in a extremely silly scene just because fans wanted a Latta style idiot was a shame.

Same with Prime's trailer, nice idea in principle but him lugging this big thing behind him in battle winds up being such a encumbrance (it causes him to turn over at least once) it suddenly becomes obvious why they didn't have it in the first two.

Though I think you slightly contradict yourself there, how can it be both insanely obvious that a TF film would be a huge box office success but at the same time no fans expected that door to open?

EDIT: And I agree with Smooth, if nothing else Bay never seems to have treated this as just a job and has stamped his style all over the films in a way a lot of directors dealing with franchises don't often do (or get chance to do).

The Marvel films are generally all very entertaining, but beyond some use of Whedon and Branagh's rep companies it would be very easy to believe they were all directed by the same person. You certainly can't say the Bay TF films aren't full on Michael Bay films.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:32 pm

Yaya wrote:
Professor Smooth wrote:
Transformers, the very idea itself, was enough to make the movies a success. It didn't need Bay.

Thunderbirds, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Garfield, Inspector Gadget, Scooby Doo, Yogi Bear, GI: Joe, Battleship, Speed Racer, Underdog, and Dragonball Evolution.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:15 am

inflatable dalek wrote:
*Spurts out tea*.

Transformers on the other hand, hadn't had any big level of popularity since... well Beast Wars if you're being generous. 1986 if you're being completely fair.

And if it's so easy to make a financially successful Transformers movie, why couldn't G.I. Joe do it when it had so many of the same factors in its favour (including generally being more popular and long running in America)? Why couldn't the people behind the '86 film do it? Lets not forget it was a complete box office bomb (and got pretty much identical contemporary reviews as the Bay Movies).

*finishes using the can, flushes*

Because G.I. didn't have the same factors going for it. Neither did any other franchise.

You said it yourself ID, fans want to see a live-action, over-the-top film about giant transforming warring robots. G.I.Joe doesn't translate to live-action film in the way TF does, because it's been done before. TF offered the chance to film-goers to see something that isn't 'been there, done that'. With the technology finally catching up to the imagination, the dream of a live-action film was realized.

The way which Transformers fans would have wanted to see it done?

By that, I mean robotic forms that could be easily decipherable. The characters in Bayformers were overly complex in structure which made them very hard to relate to. I remember seeing a clip of some car transforming into a dancing robot that looked just fine. Blocky but real. You know, like Transformers.

And one could even argue that Megan Fox had more to do with the revenue stream than Bay. Add sexy to anything, and it's instantly worth more.

The Marvel films are generally all very entertaining, but beyond some use of Whedon and Branagh's rep companies it would be very easy to believe they were all directed by the same person. You certainly can't say the Bay TF films aren't full on Michael Bay films.

If you enjoy Michael Bay, that's fine. I think the guy is all flash and no substance.

Thunderbirds, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Garfield, Inspector Gadget, Scooby Doo, Yogi Bear, GI: Joe, Battleship, Speed Racer, Underdog, and Dragonball Evolution.

Again, none of which provide to the movie-going audience something they haven't seen before, that appeals to such a large target audience, spanning two generations of people across the world. I'm sure some of these franchises you list are quite popular, perhaps even more so that the Transformers brand. But none of them have an ounce of potential in treating the movie audience to a memorable experience. Transformers provides that. People just love giant warring robots that transform.

I stand by what I said. The concept made these movies what they were. That, and Megan foxes ass.

I have no real opinion... but I would like to ask politely, not in a spirit of condemnation, if we could avoid rape comparisons when talking about franchising childhood toys... don't like the implications when rape is tossed around so casually.

Not sure if it was I who said that, but if I did, I apologize for any offense and will refrain from using the term in such a way.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:02 am

I want you to take special note of two of those movies in my list. The first of which is Dragonball: Evolution.

If you want the absolute perfect example of what Transformers could have been, look no further. The movie was made by a no-name director with relatively no-name actors, and cranked out with absolutely no style whatsoever. The script was apparently written by somebody with only a casual understanding of the property.

What? Young guy fights an alien after looking for magic, wish granting artifacts? No problem! Dragonball's got a HUGE fanbase worldwide. No matter what we do with it, people will go and see it.

And they didn't. That movie bombed so hard that it single-handedly put every other English-language anime adaptation on the back burner. Remember when Evangelion, Akira, and Battle Angel movies were right on the horizon? Where are they now?

You want a story that sells itself? Powerful beyond measure aliens capable of decimating entire planets, picking themselves up, and doing it again. All set in a world that is both classical AND ultra-futuristic. It's superhero, sci-fi, fantasy with TWENTY FIVE YEARS and MULTIPLE GENERATIONS of loyal fans.

I saw Dragonball Evolution on opening day in JAPAN. (The movie opened months ahead of its US release over here). When the movie started, there were a total of three people in the theater. Within about an hour, it was only me. Just having a name stamped on a piece of crap movie isn't enough to make it successful. And when you consider that Transformers and its sequals are among the MOST SUCCESSFUL MOVIES OF ALL TIME, the "it was always going to be huge" argument just becomes embarassing.

But Transformers wasn't picked up by some no-name studio. So, there was always going to be some talent involved and at least a reasonable budget. So let's look at Speed Racer. Another series with a decades long fan following. And set in a futuristic world that makes Mario Kart look like a mini-golf Go-Kart track. Let's give it a budget just shy of a quarter of a billion dollars so that the directors (of the goddamn MATRIX), themselves life-long fans of the series can get their vision up on the screen. That's a license to print money.

Only it wasn't. It bombed hard enough to turn the directors into punchlines.

Again, classic property. Wide fanbase. Great cast. Directors who loved the series and wanted to share their love with the rest of the world. It was a movie that looked completely unlike anything that had been seen before. And it lost more money than Transformers made in its opening weekend.

Still want to argue? People have seen movies about racing before. And super-powered Asian guys fighting was already one in "The One." Neither of those concepts is anywhere near as unique as fighting robots. What do movie goers want to see more than robots?

How about dinosaurs? How about a movie where an ordinary everyman finds himself transported to a place overun not only by dinosaurs, but monsters undreamed of in human history. Everything is sentient, and nearly everything wants the hero dead. He has to go on a journey through this constantly changing wonderland to overthrow a monster dinosaur that has deposed the land's rightful rulers. It's a story that is unique, completely original, and has a fanbase made up of millions of people who were willing to pay $60 for a primitive version of the story. You could put anyone in that movie and get anybody to direct it, fire the guy you got, and then have anybody else finish up what's left.

And then you'd have goddamn SUPER MARIO BROTHERS: THE MOVIE and you'd know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that even if you hate the Michael Bay movies with a passion that burns years after the release of the last movie, it could have been MUCH, MUCH, WORSE!

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:47 am

The comparisons you and ID are churning out is like comparing apples to oranges.

It would take a royal ****up like Roland and Emmerich did with Godzilla to sink Transformers, and even that shitastic flick grossed over $100 million nationally and almost $400 million worldwide. Take into consideration inflation, and you're talking a worldwide box office tally of half a billion dollars! For a **** film with **** directors! Why? Because of the love of the property itself, because of it's appeal here in the US and overseas, because Godzilla, like Transformers is a sci-fi icon that transcends any one culture.

To say that the success of Transformers is hinged on Bay primarily is shortsighted and just outright ridiculous. How many other directors could have helmed this franchise and done a better job of it, making the same or at least close to the same box office receipts? Had it grossed $100 million less, would it have mattered? $200 million? Surely, that's all Bay is worth. Take away Bay and you still have a massive hit by even an average Hollywood director.

Dragonball:Evolution? Speed Racer? You're joking, right?

Dragonball had nowhere near the presence and popularity here in the states as Transformers. Transformers is one of those Japanese-based properties, like Godzilla, that crossed cultural barriers to the point of reaching cult status in North America. For a movie to reach the kind of box office revenue TF has reached, it has to be popular and be produced in the US. I sure as hell don't remember Dragonball or Speed Racer playing a big part in my childhood, or any other kids for that matter. They were minor league peripheral players in the US, if that.

The tech. That's what made the movie successful. That, it's history, and the concept. Not Bay.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:54 am

I get that you don't like his movies. I get that you don't like what he did with the Transformers license. And I get that you apparently don't think much of him as a human being. And, as much as I respect your right to an opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. And the FACT is that the TF movies were as successful as they were because of Michael Bay and his approach to them.

The Transformers wasn't some "legendary sci-fi property." It was a kid's show that ran for four years in the 80's before coming back for three years in the 90s and three more in the early 2000's. It was a cancelled comic book. It was a nostalgia property picked up cheap by a failed comic book company. And it was a line of children's toys that a small handful of adults also enjoyed.

It was a diversion for children and a hobby for few adults that liked the property when they were young. It wasn't Star Wars. It wasn't even Battlestar Galactica. How many people "got into" Transformers when their college roommate showed them some tapes or DVDs? They're the exception that proves the rule. They're "the pimple on the elephant's ass."

When Michael Bay said "**** all of that. **** nostalgia. **** kiddie crap. There are big ****ing robots with big ****ing robot GUNS and that is ****ing hot! And I am gonna do this thing balls out and **** anybody who doesn't wanna go along with that!"

There aren't many other directors who would have done anything remotely close to what Bay did with Transformers. Most A-listers wouldn't even touch the damn thing. Remember, it wasn't so long ago that most licensed movies did uniformly poorly (right up until around the time Marvel swtarted hitting it out of the park). So right there, the name alone, "Wow! Michael BAY is doing a Transformers movie! That's gonna be big ****ing robots blowing **** up!" That got the attention of people who, otherwise, would not have given two ****s about a Transformers movie.

But, again, I'm getting ahead of myself. Most of the no-name directors wouldn't have gone to ILM for their designs and expertise. They'd have done it on the cheap and Optimus Prime would have wound up looking like he stepped out of the live-action Scooby Doo movies. It would have been cheap. It would have looked like crap. And it wouldn't have made a ****ing cent because, outside of some kids, a handful of nostalgia enthusists, and a few thousand hardcore fans, nobody would have gone to see it. The ratings for Armada, Energon, and Cybertron weren't exactly setting the world on fire.

Didn't like the movies? Fine. Think some other director would have done it better? Maybe. Those directors wouldn't have touched a Transformers movie with a ten meter cattle prod. Not before Michael Bay did his thing. But because he DID, Transformers Five very well COULD be directed by somebody even higher up on the totem pole.

Thank. You. Bay.

TYB

inflatable dalek · Post by **inflatable dalek** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:48 am

Yaya wrote:
Because G.I. didn't have the same factors going for it. Neither did any other franchise.

That's being a bit myopic there Yaya. Joe was already a venerable franchise when Transformers started, and the RAH version started two years before and run through till around the time Generation 2 folded. And it was always the more popular of the two in America. And "Soldiers fight crazy people" is damn easier to turn into a film than giant robots.

And one could even argue that Megan Fox had more to do with the revenue stream than Bay. Add sexy to anything, and it's instantly worth more.

And who cast Fox (with the infamous- and hopefully apocryphal- car wash casting session)? And directed the lingering buttock close ups?

Thunderbirds, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Garfield, Inspector Gadget, Scooby Doo, Yogi Bear, GI: Joe, Battleship, Speed Racer, Underdog, and Dragonball Evolution.
Again, none of which provide to the movie-going audience something they haven't seen before, that appeals to such a large target audience, spanning two generations of people across the world. I'm sure some of these franchises you list are quite popular, perhaps even more so that the Transformers brand. But none of them have an ounce of potential in treating the movie audience to a memorable experience. Transformers provides that. People just love giant warring robots that transform.

Considering it's more a culty thing in America I guess you don't have much of a clue how insanely huge Thunderbirds is internationally? Including being a direct ancestor of Transformers itself . The show was huge in Japan and the toys created their love of die cast filled with lots of extras that led to the super robots and eventually to our boys. The show itself was very influential on anime as well.

All the lengthy stock transformation sequences in the Japanese TF shows are a botched attempt to recreate Anderson's "Rather than shot lots of different versions of each Thunderbird taking off, we'll shot it once but make it so mother ******* awesome those palm trees going down will have every kid in the country squeeing each week" policy. For fun, try comparing the Superlink closing credits to those of Thunderbirds, they're a direct homage (Prime's limbs in that show are inspired by Thunderbird 2's vehicles as well, one is even blatantly The Mole).

To give an idea of the scale of Thunderbirds multi-generational success, imagine the original Transformers cartoon getting a prime time rerun on a major American network now. To even more success than it enjoyed 30 years ago. And for faithful recreations of the original toys to become the must have Christmas present, with Optimus Prime becoming so rare Sesame Street has to do a special showing how kids can make their own to try and help parents out.

That's what Thunderbirds did in the UK. And then did it again when the show was forty years old. I can't think of any other action-kids show that has stayed so popular so constantly without revamps or remakes (Thunderbirds: 2086 and film not making much of a ripple) but with the same thirtyish episode. Delighting and amazing generations of children all over the world for nearly 50 years. That's a staying power Transformers has yet to achieve.

And it had all the right ingredients for a smash film beyond great international love as well. Transformers has robots, International Rescue had four of the coolest most gadget laden vehicles ever committed to the screen (and a space station), an epic scope (they destroyed the Empire State Building! In an episode where Thunderbird 2 had already been shot down and crashed and set fire to the palm trees! I love that one I do), 100% heroic heroes with a couple of quirky sidekicks to stop them being too dull, and scripts that worked on multiple levels for both the kids- who got an hour of action and adventure- and parents- who got the various movie jokes and references and the pure filth in the Penelope and Parker relationship.

Hell, it even avoided the problem of many British shows trying to make it in the world of Hollywood remakes by being gratuitously Americanised right from the off.

If it should be impossible to make a Transformers film that does badly at the box office it should be equally impossible to do it with Thunderbirds. But lo, they did. Easily.

I won't rant endlessly (The Hood is no longer Asian, but still dresses like a fiendish Oriental for no reason! London entirely populated by white people! Most of the main characters aren't in the bulk of the film! "YOU'RE LIKE A PUPPET ON A STRING!!!), but to sum it up in one it's the film with the worst product placement I've ever seen. Seriously, they contrive to flash up "Sponsored by Ford" on screen several times. In a film that already has a car chase that is nothing but close ups of the Ford logo.

Sigh.

Seriously, Transformers could easily have been that bad and done that poorly.

Though if you won't accept any of the films I or Smooth mention as being part of franchises that are the equal of Transformers how about two that are unquestionably it's superior? Unless you're being really myopic.

Take Star Trek. A huge cultural phenomenon the since it went into syndication in the 70's, easily the joint most famous science fiction franchise in the world, millions of fans, many of whom even treat it as a philosophy rather than a show (the scary ones). By your logic, it should be impossible for a Star Trek film to do badly at the box office. We've had two to date (one for each crew) that flopped spectacularly.

Look at Mr. Bond. Invented an entire genre of film, the most successful and long running movie franchise of all time, in the 90's it was estimated third of the world's population had seen one of the films at one time or another. Now go tell Timothy Dalton there's no way he should have stared in a box office disaster. He'll either cry or punch you.

If those two franchises can have flop films, any one can. There are no guarantees. It might not always be the fault of the film (Star Trek V and Licence to Kill wouldn't have stood a chance in the Summer of Batman even if they had been any good), but to suggest Transformers would have worked for audiences no matter what is being incredibly disingenuous to everyone- not just Bay- who worked on them.

I stand by what I said. The concept made these movies what they were. That, and Megan foxes ass.

In that case, why was the '86 film a failure? You didn't address that question. Why did the franchise as a whole fade into Centurions/Mask levels (kids are aware of it, like it and have some of the toys but it wasn't a phenomenon. Beast Wars is now nearly the age G1 was when it's big nostalgic renaissance kicked off and shows no sign of undergoing anything similar, any more than MASK is)?.

My youngest cousin was born in 1990 and beyond them having a couple of G2 toys (I now own their suspiciously well chewed looking Megatron) Transformers meant nothing to him or his slightly older brother before the films. It was that thing that crazy cousin Stuart liked and might as well have come from the Dark Ages.

No one's saying Transformers didn't have the potential for a great big silly film franchise. No one's saying other directors couldn't have made as much money for Paramount as Bay did. But the franchise is not so robust or iconic to survive anything. A really, really bad first film would have just met everyone non fans expectations.

The only franchise I think that possibly could keep on putting out non stop poor films that could get the punters still lining up is Star Wars, and that's basically modern mythology now.

Still, if anyone doesn't want to credit Bay with it not being a Battleship, I think having Spielberg's name as producer helped. The best in the business would have had no interest in a toy based film, but everyone wants to work with the beard.

Mind, that means he's responsible for getting Bay on-board as well...

EDIT: I should have course have said my youngest male cousin. I brought my ten year old female cousin a Transformers toy once and she declared "This is for boys silly".

Mind, of the toys in my room, she loves the cassettes. Ratbat rocks her world.

Post by **Kaylee** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:41 am

So it's half time, folks, and what a match we've seen. Yaya came out swinging but the tag team of Smooth and Dalek delivered a couple of tree-men-dous body blows- straight into the kidneys.

Yaya's a tough kid, with a lotta moxy, and he took that punishment and kept right on going: he landed a left, then a right to the Erudite Tag Team.

Dalek and Smooth linked arms and delivered a resounding blow back, but this is unlikely to knock Yaya down for the count!

Truly this is the sport of kings.

inflatable dalek · Post by **inflatable dalek** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:16 pm

All the wrestling matches I've seen involve lots of oil and the women involved making, sweet, sweet love at the end.

Post by **Kaylee** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:19 pm

inflatable dalek wrote:All the wrestling matches I've seen involve lots of oil and the women involved making, sweet, sweet love at the end.

I can probably rustle up a can of WD40. You, Smooth and Yaya will just have to make sweet, sweet love using that :3

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:16 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:And the FACT is that the TF movies were as successful as they were because of Michael Bay and his approach to them.

How is that a fact? I'm telling you man, you're shortchanging what makes the Transformers a special property relative to many others. Any property that survives over two decades with multiple reincarnations does so because there's something innately appealing about it.

The Transformers wasn't some "legendary sci-fi property."

No, as far as sci-fi properties go, it is "legendary". Every adult, male or female, who grew up in North America or Japan knows Transformers, before Bay or a movie ever made it to the big screen. Tom Hanks was singing the song on the Tonight Show years ago. Granted, not everyone was a fan, but they all knew Transformers.

It was a kid's show that ran for four years in the 80's before coming back for three years in the 90s and three more in the early 2000's.

Which speaks to it's staying power as a property. No Bay movie required.

It was a cancelled comic book.

And rebooted again. Then cancelled. Then rebooted again. Then cancelled. Then rebooted. There's a pattern here.

And it was a line of children's toys that a small handful of adults also enjoyed.

Small handful of adults? Of all the things Transformers had going for it, what elevates it to the status of 'legendary', is the toy. Do you know how many billions of dollars have been made by the sale of Transformers toys the past two decades? You say TF is not 'legendary" like Star Wars, but you're wrong. Transformers is first and foremost a toy legend, arguably one that surpasses any other line of toys ever created. Every kid that owned a Transformer remained a kid at heart forever because of it, even as an adult. The movie did well because those people you label 'handful of adults' are actually grown up kids reliving their childhood. And they took their own unindoctrinated children with them. That equals cash. Lots and lots of cash. They weren't taking their children to see a Bay film. They were taking their children to see a giant robot war movie. That's what they got with Bay directing, that's what they would have gotten if Bay hadn't directed.

Bay didn't see this kind of success coming. Even he was surprised at what the first movie turned into. Why? Becuase he didn't understand the brand, the kind of following it had worldwide. I wasn't surprised in the least. Not in the least! Bay's a lucky son of a gun that just happened to realize the potential behind such an ambitious project before any other storied director found the guts to say "yes, I will take a stab at this toy product". The movie was going to be made and it was going to be a hit, so long as it was not given into the hands of an incompetent bungler. The only credit i give Bay is that he jumped first and took a chance with something he didn't understand fully, but millions of adults and children most certainly did.

One could argue it could have been an even bigger hit had the films actually been critically acclaimed instead of critically panned by the critics. Ala Lord of the Rings, a fantasy tale that was also a movie masterpiece. How much more money would Transformers had made if it was described by the likes of Ebert as a "train wreck of a film"? Hard to say. Maybe more, maybe less. But it would have been a huge success nonetheless.

It was a diversion for children and a hobby for few adults that liked the property when they were young. It wasn't Star Wars. It wasn't even Battlestar Galactica.

What?! I consider myself a TF fanboy, sure, but you've got to be kidding me. Transformers is waaay bigger than BG. BG only took off for a short period of time, Transformers appeal spans decades.

They're "the pimple on the elephant's ass."

No, that's Michael Bay. He's the incredibly rich pimple on the elephants ass, the elephant being the Transformers property. And just like all ass pimples, they're just along for the ride.

When Michael Bay said "**** all of that. **** nostalgia. **** kiddie crap. There are big ****ing robots with big ****ing robot GUNS and that is ****ing hot! And I am gonna do this thing balls out and **** anybody who doesn't wanna go along with that!"

What Bay described was Transformers. Again, you and ID have yet to convince me how Transformers is anything but 'big ****ing robots with big ****ing robot GUNS and that is ****ing hot!' I mean what else are they, cuddly little bears whose stomachs light up with rainbows or little blue creatures three apples high?

There aren't many other directors who would have done anything remotely close to what Bay did with Transformers. Most A-listers wouldn't even touch the damn thing.

I think they would have, for sure. Eventually, they would have. Maybe not then, but certainly now. With the success of the Marvel flicks, with Peter Jackson tackling things like King Kong, with Guillermo Del Toro creating the sure hit Pacific Rim, some A-list director would have taken it on.

But, again, I'm getting ahead of myself. Most of the no-name directors wouldn't have gone to ILM for their designs and expertise. They'd have done it on the cheap and Optimus Prime would have wound up looking like he stepped out of the live-action Scooby Doo movies. It would have been cheap. It would have looked like crap. And it wouldn't have made a ****ing cent because, outside of some kids, a handful of nostalgia enthusists, and a few thousand hardcore fans, nobody would have gone to see it. The ratings for Armada, Energon, and Cybertron weren't exactly setting the world on fire.

Please explain to me then how Rolland and Emmerich's catastrophe of a Godzilla movie made half a billion dollars. Godzilla was a dead property even then in the US. Rolland and Emmerich are bigger schmucks by far than even Bay. But half a billion. Why? Because people know Godzilla and the idea of him stomping around the US, people want to see it. So it goes with Transformers.

If you build it, they will come. Apparently, if you destroy it, they come too if it's giant robots doing it.

Thank. You. Bay.

"You're welcome!"

Huh? Ass pimples talk!! Now that's what I call special effects.

inflatable dalek · Post by **inflatable dalek** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:28 pm

Yaya wrote:
Professor Smooth wrote:And the FACT is that the TF movies were as successful as they were because of Michael Bay and his approach to them.
How is that a fact? I'm telling you man, you're shortchanging what makes the Transformers a special property relative to many others. Any property that survives over two decades with multiple reincarnations does so because there's something innately appealing about it.

No one's arguing the durability of the franchise, just that it doesn't equate into automatic box office gold.

The Transformers wasn't some "legendary sci-fi property."

No, as far as sci-fi properties go, it is "legendary". Every adult, male or female, who grew up in North America or Japan knows Transformers, before Bay or a movie ever made it to the big screen. Tom Hanks was singing the song on the Tonight Show years ago. Granted, not everyone was a fan, but they all knew Transformers.[/quote]

They knew there was a robot based toyline. That's not the same as a deeply iconic SF franchise. I mean, the Rubix Cube is an even more iconic '80's toy as well, that doesn't make it something that should be turned into a film as well.

Small handful of adults? Of all the things Transformers had going for it, what elevates it to the status of 'legendary', is the toy. Do you know how many billions of dollars have been made by the sale of Transformers toys the past two decades? You say TF is not 'legendary" like Star Wars, but you're wrong. Transformers is first and foremost a toy legend, arguably one that surpasses any other line of toys ever created. Every kid that owned a Transformer remained a kid at heart forever because of it, even as an adult. The movie did well because those people you label 'handful of adults' are actually grown up kids reliving their childhood. And they took their own unindoctrinated children with them. That equals cash. Lots and lots of cash. They weren't taking their children to see a Bay film. They were taking their children to see a giant robot war movie. That's what they got with Bay directing, that's what they would have gotten if Bay hadn't directed.

Wait, you're saying the toys alone put the franchise on the same level as Star Wars? Really? Because Battleship has sold even more games to even more people over the decades as well, so why didn't that film make great box office as well?

And if the toys are amazingly iconic, why did the franchise subside in popularity in the years between G1 and Bay? Why wasn't it always that Juggernaut?

Not being on the same level as Star Wars isn't a shameful thing- arguably the only newly created series to get to that sort of level in the decades since in Harry Potter. Being a hugely successful toyline isn't anywhere on the same level as what those two franchises have achieved.

Bay didn't see this kind of success coming. Even he was surprised at what the first movie turned into.

Well yeah, doesn't that tell you something? No one expected the films to do as well as they did (one in the top ten grossing films of all time), they performed beyond even the most cheerful fans expectations. Do you think you're the only person with the amazing insight to have spotted Transformers was automatically gonzo box office no matter what, or are you perhaps badly overselling the state of the franchise in 2006?

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:18 pm

Yaya wrote: One could argue it could have been an even bigger hit had the films actually been critically acclaimed instead of critically panned by the critics. Ala Lord of the Rings, a fantasy tale that was also a movie masterpiece. How much more money would Transformers had made if it was described by the likes of Ebert as a "train wreck of a film"? Hard to say. Maybe more, maybe less. But it would have been a huge success nonetheless.

Quite a hit there, Karl, but speculative blows don't land like real ones, and he knows it! In the corner but still fighting hard!

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:34 am

You know, Yaya, you keep using the Roland Emmerich Godzilla movie as an example of a property that would get people in the doors regardless of who was at the helm. And I'm glad. Because I'm going to use that to you make you my board b****.

Adjusted for inflation, the 1998 Godzilla movie brought in about a quarter of a billion dollars in the US. And, by your assertion, that was on the strength of the Godzilla brand.

So, let's take a look at the OTHER Godzilla movies.

Adjusted for inflation, the original Japanese version of Godzilla took in 500,000 dollars. Or, about 1/500th of what the 98 version did.

But that's not fair. That was just the start of the series. That was BEFORE Godzilla grew into the theatrical juggernaught (b****) that it would.

So let's skip ahead to Godzilla: 1985. That movie, adjusted for inflation, pulled in a whopping 9 million dollars! Nearly 1/25th of what the 98 version would later do.

Maybe, again, I'm being unfair. Perhaps Godzilla became really big AFTER Transformers. Somewhere in between 85 and 98. But, ANY director who turned in ANY Godzilla movie would have had the same success and Ol' Rolland, right? The 98 movie was proof of that.

If only there was some way to check that. Oh, wait! There is! Only two years later, Godzilla 2000 was released. And it was a straight up Godzilla movie. It was what all those fans were disappointed to have missed out on when they saw GZ98.

How much did this return to its cinematic roots bring in, I wonder?

Just shy of 15 million dollars (adjusted for inflation, again).

The Rolland Emmerich version of Godzilla brought in such huge piles of cash not because of the property, but because people wanted to see a huge freakin' thing stomp around a city while being directed by the dude who leveled half of the planet in Independence Day.

Do you get it, yet? Is it starting to sink in. Dislike the movies all you like. But both Emmerich and Bay put their own spins on (arguably) classic franchises and attracted more than just the built-in fans.

Transformers COULD have been Dragonball Evolution. It could have been Scooby-Do, and it COULD have been guys in rubber Transformers costumes stomping around a Power Rangers set. The 98 version of Godzilla could have had Shaq in a rubber suit stomping around Nikelodean Studios. But they weren't. They were the kids of movies people go to the theater to see. Big loud escapist action movies.

I'd say, Double Ya, that I proved my point, but honestly, I think you did it for me.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:16 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:Maybe, again, I'm being unfair. Perhaps Godzilla became really big AFTER Transformers. Somewhere in between 85 and 98.

No, you're being unfair because you're comparing a highly refined and progressive CGI film to a bunch of films that featured a guy running around in a lizard suit. It's laughable that you would pull older Godzilla flicks into the comparison and not leave it at the 1998 film. Which was a big hit internationally only because of the much anticipated tech of seeing Godzilla stomp through US cities and actually look real this time.

The same was true with Bayformers. It was the tech that brought in the bucks, not Bay. Once that first preview hit, with Prime in slo-mo turning around on the freeway to tackle Bonecrusher, it was instant cha-ching. Maybe Bay should be credited with that scene, maybe he shouldn't.

They were the kinds of movies people go to the theater to see. Big loud escapist action movies.

I'd say, Double Ya, that I proved my point, but honestly, I think you did it for me.

First you say I prove your point for you, then you turn around and prove my point for me. "Big loud escapist action movies" is right. Exactly what Transformers was destined to be, regardless of who directed it. That's my point. The proof is in the property.