MICHAEL BAY AT IT AGAIN!!

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:23 pm

Yaya wrote:
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.

As opposed to shoddily animated series of children's cartoons, you mean?

inflatable dalek · Post by **inflatable dalek** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:40 pm

Yaya wrote: 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.

So Godzilla now isn't a big epic franchise where the '98 film only made money because of how successful the character was? Now the older films are cheap tat?

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.

And now it's the trailer and the effects work in it that made people want to go see the Bay film rather than the franchise itself? Does that mean you're agreeing with me and Smooth now who have been pretty much saying that throughout?

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.

But no one has argued that Transformers wasn't always going to be an action film (at least I don't think I spotted anyone saying it should be a Samuel Becket* style play). What people are saying is, it was a film that wasn't a guarenteed success, and that before the trailers arrived not many peopel had high expectations for it.

And the point you keep ignoring- If it's impossible to make a unsuccesful Transformers film why did the '86 film, released at the peak of G1's popularity no less- tank so hard it still hadn't made its costs back at the turn of the century (I've no idea if its done so now).

I mean me and Smooth have offered lots of examples of major franchises- some bigger than Transformers- which tanked. We can point at the fallow periods to show Transformers isn't an unstoppable cultural juggernaut.

The best you can do is try and claim no franchise ever is bigger than Transformers and some vague thing about people having fond memories of the toys they owned (which people do about all the toys they had as a kid. I loved my New Adventures of He-Man Skeletor with his natty purple cape. That does not mean any new He-Man film should be based on that version of the franchise).

In terms of something you mentioned earlier... If a large part of the films success was down to parents dragging their kids to see it in some crazy cultish indoctrination (which is odd if Transformers was as massive a franchise immediately before Bay as you claim as you'd think they'd want to see it themselves anyway...) why didn't something like The A-Team, the 80's TV show, become a big hit for the same reasons?

*Not that one.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:42 pm

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

But it does. How can giant good warring robots vs. giant evil warring robots that change into different vehicles and weapons not translate into box office gold if its tackled by even a mediocre director?

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.

No, the billions more that Transformers toy sales have captured vs a Rubix Cube though certainly does warrant a film.

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?

I promise you Battleship hasn't made a fraction of what Transformers has made in toy sales. Not even close.

And yes, Transformers as a property in terms of it's popularity isn't on the same level as Star Wars, I agree. But it's in whatever category comes after that.

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?

Because that's the nature of every property that has longevity. It's peaks and valleys, but always there, on some level. But they never disappear. Star Wars. Star Trek. They've had their share of lulls for sure.

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.

Maybe so. I wouldn't want to be the one to have to prove that Transformers is as successful as Star Wars on the whole. I don't think it is. In fact, I don't think anything out there in sci-fi is on the level of Star Wars.

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?

It was always stupifying to me, even removing myself from the TF fanboy role, why directors were not jumping at the Transformers. The only answer I could come up with is that Hollywood was not aware of it's popularity and thought of it only as a toy. No mythos. No passion. No characterization. Just a toy. Not sure what it was that changed Bays mind. I clearly remember him giving a resounding "No" when he was asked about any interest in it. But then something happened. Maybe he did some research. Maybe ILM came to him. I don't know, but the dude lucked out.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:50 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:
Yaya wrote:
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.
As opposed to shoddily animated series of children's cartoons, you mean?

Apples to oranges. You want apples to apples, then compare Transformers:The Movie to rubber Godzilla suit movies. That's a more fair comparison.

How bout this Smooth. There's a movie coming out next year called Pacific Rim. It has no following, it has no fanbase, it has no clout, no name. It is a kaiju movie directed by Del Toro.

I guarantee you, right now, knowing nothing of the film, it's characters, it's story, it's cast, only it's premise, that this film is going to be box office gold. That this film will spawn at least two sequels. That this film will make, at least, internationally, $500 million.

Why? Because it's about giant ******* robots fighting giant ******* monsters in a giant ******* summer action film made here in the US.

Guaranteed success. For the very same reasons why Bayformers succeeded. No Bay this time, Smooth.

Better start praying for a box office flop, cause you and ID are going to eat crow. What greater challenge, right? I mean a no-name film without any history.

What have you got to lose?

inflatable dalek · Post by **inflatable dalek** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:00 pm

Err... surely if a film about giant robots that doesn't have a long running "Mega" franchise to guarantee its success does good box office, that would prove me and Smooth right?

Now, if Pacific Rim flopped you could use it to try and back up your argument that it's the franchise and the love for it that made Transformers a hit no matter what.

And with what, a year (?) to go there's already a good buzz about Pacific Rim, mostly thanks to the Oscar winning fanboy favourite director. Buzz doesn't equate to box office of course (Dredd flopped in the States because the promoters worked so hard on getting the comic-con crowd excited they forgot to try and sell it to regular cinema goers), but with Del Torro onboard it would be a surprise failure if it didn't do well.

Post by **Kaylee** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:34 pm

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 6:39 pm

inflatable dalek wrote:Err... surely if a film about giant robots that doesn't have a long running "Mega" franchise to guarantee its success does good box office, that would prove me and Smooth right?

How so?

I say this movie will succeed because of the premise and the tech. Not it's following. It has no following. The Transformers movie didn't just succeed for it's massive following. It was the concept and the tech given life on the big screen, something that hadn't been seen before, that was primarily responsible for the success of Transformers.

Some things just translate very differently to film. You're right, G.I. Joe may very well be as popular as TF, but the movies had lukewarm success. The reason? Because people have already seen, time and time again, 'soldiers at war' movies. G.I., unlike Transformers, really was a film that was going to succeed solely on it's fanbase.

To summarize:

Transformers as a comic, as a cartoon, as a toy=success from TF fanbase alone
Transformers as a live-action movie=success from anyone who is a movie-goer who wants to see something they've never seen before plus TF fanbase...and a dash of Michael Bay fans

Huge, huge dollar difference there. You and Smooth are greatly exaggerating the influence of Michael Bay, and that's where I disagree with you two. If Michael Bay really were that big a draw, his other more popular movies, like the Rock and so forth, would have done as well as TF. But they didn't, did they?

Bay films:

Pearl Harbor Worldwide: $449,220,945
Bad Boys Worldwide: $141,407,024
Armaeggedon Worldwide: $553,709,788
The Rock Worldwide: $335,062,621

And Transformers?
Transformers Worldwide: $709,709,780
Transformers: The Fallen Worldwide: $836,303,693
Transformers: Dark of the Moon: Worldwide: $1,123,746,996

Quite a difference, huh guys? I guess it just took those first four movies there to really start to love the guy before his obvious overriding influence cause those TF movies to just blossom into box office juggernauts, huh?

Explain this discrepancy in Bays movie performance, and I'll concede. I mean, you say people love Michael Bay. But they love Will Smith, Bruce Willis, and Sean Connery even more. Yet, those movies starring them didn't get anywhere near Transformers.

Post by **Best First** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 7:31 pm

Use of facts to win arguements is now banned*

*only applies to Yaya

Predabot · Post by **Predabot** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:37 pm

This.

This is F***ING ENTERTAINING!!

This is the stuff of life... the stuff of Transfans. ^^

Oh, how I have missed it... I almost began to believe that you had all lost your passion, that the fire I saw some 8 years ago, under the golden reign of Omega Supreme, had finally been extinguished.

I am most pleased to see that I was wrong.

I will now take advantage of the situation and being frequenting the site more, uh, frequently. ^^

inflatable dalek · Post by **inflatable dalek** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:01 pm

Yaya wrote:
How so?

I say this movie will succeed because of the premise and the tech. Not it's following. It has no following. The Transformers movie didn't just succeed for it's massive following. It was the concept and the tech given life on the big screen, something that hadn't been seen before, that was primarily responsible for the success of Transformers.

That is your current argument. You started off claiming the success of the Bay films was entirely down to the following. And the first one would have been a hit no matter what because of that following.

You're now claiming Bay had a hit because of the set pieces... which is what I was saying right from the start. So the only difference left is whether bay was essential to those set pieces working or not. I'd say yes, I guess you'd say no. But that's not the original stance you took.

Frankly, what you're saying now is much closer to what I and Smooth (if he doesn't mind me speaking for him, if you do, feel free to smack me) were originally arguing, but you're still debating it as if we've been completely contrary to you from the off.

You and Smooth are greatly exaggerating the influence of Michael Bay, and that's where I disagree with you two. If Michael Bay really were that big a draw, his other more popular movies, like the Rock and so forth, would have done as well as TF. But they didn't, did they?

I've certainly never said Bay himself was the draw, and I don't think anyone else had either. My stance is Bay is hugely influential on the shape of modern action cinema. To the point even a comedy film like Hot Fuzz uses his work as part of its baseline for action films. Bay style filmaking is the draw. And, strangely enough, nobody does that better than Michael Bay.

is that a good or a bad thing? That's a fair area for debate. Claiming Bay hasn't had that influence or his style isn't immensely (possibly bafflingly) popular is the delusional part.

Bay films:

Pearl Harbor Worldwide: $449,220,945
Bad Boys Worldwide: $141,407,024
Armaeggedon Worldwide: $553,709,788
The Rock Worldwide: $335,062,621

And Transformers?
Transformers Worldwide: $709,709,780
Transformers: The Fallen Worldwide: $836,303,693
Transformers: Dark of the Moon: Worldwide: $1,123,746,996

Quite a difference, huh guys? I guess it just took those first four movies there to really start to love the guy before his obvious overriding influence cause those TF movies to just blossom into box office juggernauts, huh?

Well, putting those in chronological order... The lesson would be that, in general (his big acknowledged flop Pearl Harbor being the exception) the suggestion from the films you've listed is each Bay movie does better box office than the last.

Are those box office receipts inflation adjusted, as Smooth did with the Godzilla figures earlier? Just so we're all working from the same starting point.

I'm surprised you didn't includeThe Island in there, wasn't that his weakest received film pre-Transformers? That would probably skewer the results more in your favour.

Explain this discrepancy in Bays movie performance, and I'll concede. I mean, you say people love Michael Bay. But they love Will Smith, Bruce Willis, and Sean Connery even more. Yet, those movies starring them didn't get anywhere near Transformers.

Inflation adjusted, Thunderball is more successful than any Transformers film. So Sean Connery manages that at least. I would be surprised if Will smith's four most successful films box office total isn't bigger than the four Transformers films as well (inflation adjusted, natch).

Even though you're now arguing the opposite of this despite your earlier posts I'll keep asking this until you at least acknowledge it undermines your original point (or, you never know, if you destroy the question with a great piece of logic):

If a Transformers film will be a hit no matter what, why was the '86 film a flop? Despite having the advantage of being release when the franchise was at the peak of its popularity and being made by the people responsible for the cartoon's success?

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:47 pm

Predabot wrote:This.

This is F***ING ENTERTAINING!!

This is the stuff of life... the stuff of Transfans. ^^

Oh, how I have missed it... I almost began to believe that you had all lost your passion, that the fire I saw some 8 years ago, under the golden reign of Omega Supreme, had finally been extinguished.

I am most pleased to see that I was wrong.

I will now take advantage of the situation and being frequenting the site more, uh, frequently. ^^

GODDAMNIT, NOW YOU HAVE TO STOP ARGUING.

Kidding, Preds. It wouldn't be like old times if we didn't ruthlessly pick on you.

Post by **snarl** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:05 pm

Were Transformers really at their peak in 86? I'd say that they released it arguably at the beginning of the first trough. What's the shelf life of new boys toys these days? I remember as a kid you'd get bored of stuff after 5 minutes. Obviously these days marketing is a different beast, we have **** rammed down our throats 24/7.

In the 80s, I don't think stuff was so in your face, plus it seemed to be a much more level playing field.

The buzz you can generate for something in the modern age is completely off the scale compared to the 80s.

I think there is far more public awareness and a far bigger market for TFs now.

The actual products and the market climate between 86 and 2007 are completely different.

I think Yaya's overstating his case, because Bay films, whether they're **** or not, do tend to take [composite word including 'f*ck'] loads at the box office. But I tend to agree with the rough idea that a live action TF film handled with any degree of competence by another director with the same budget would have done good business.

I definitely think we could have had a better film that did as well at the box office, Hasbro just didn't want to gamble that. TFs have been since they came about pretty popular. Big budget, effects driven films with large marketing budgets released in the summer tend to be popular.

TF:TM when released was a "traditional" animation about toys. So, already, it's a narrower market (5-10 year old boys - not known for their ). It didn't have a particularly large budget compared to contemporary animations (Land before time and all dogs go to heaven cost over twice as much), inept handling by allowing it to become well known in advance that they KILL OFF THE BIGGEST DRAW IN THE FIRST 20 MINUTES!?... pretty ******* inept... and it still did ok at the box office, and has I imagine (although I can't be fooked to look for figuers) spunked it since 2000, as TFs have really come into their own in terms of popularity and public awareness.

I'm just rambling and I don't really know what point I'm trying to make - well, I guess that it is this: I think Bay & Hasbro teaming up was good for Bay and making money for both parties than it was for genuine fans of the brand who wanted to see a good film. I don't think its a valid claim that without Bay we wouldn't have the new comics and games either. The brand is big enough without the films to justify the games and comics. I know loads of people who went to see the films just purely because they were on and looked exciting from the trailers.

Do they buy the games and comics? Do they [composite word including 'f*ck']. They are bought by the traditional, long term fan base.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:13 pm

I need you to take just a few steps back. Let's establish some common ground.

Transformers was a children's toy line. Considering this was more than just a few years ago, that sentence probably could have been one word shorter. Toys were made for kids. Expensive toys were made for kids with parents with more disposable income.

The Transformers comic book was made to help push that toy line to kids. Whatever else happened with the series, and most of the twists-and-turns it took could be attributed to selling NEW toys to kids.

The Transformers cartoon was another attempt to advertise directly to the target market, children.

All of the existing Transformers products were aimed at kids. Still with me? Still on common ground?

Over the next 20 years, there were some of the original fans who continued to enjoy the franchise. But that number is tiny. If you look at some of the early BotCons, you'll notice that they weren't held in huge hotel exhibition rooms. They were held in tiny little places. Places that only needed to accommodate a few hundred people.

That "pimple on the elephant's ass" comment was allegedly said by somebody at Hasbro in regards to the size of the adult fan population.

So, again, it's a franchise aimed exclusively at kids that is enjoyed by some adults. And it continued that way, through Beast Wars, Armada, Energon (which is when the movie was announced), and Cybertron.

Everything has been aimed at kids. Not teenagers. Not tweens. Kids. Toy-buying kids. That's it. over. finished. Transformers is a property for kids. It's a toyline for kids. It's a series of (now) poorly dubbed anime cartoons for kids.

And it was going to be a MOVIE for kids. It was going to be (in the worlds of Spielberg) just "a story of a boy and his first car." It could have been made cheaply. It would have had any violence or sexuality almost completely removed. It would have been a safe, sanitized, kid-friendly picture aimed at selling the toyline Hasbro would produce for the movie.

You keep saying that "of course it was going to be a big sci-fi epic blockbuster" but based on ****ing WHAT exactly? Transformers had NEVER been epic blockbuster sci-fi. NEVER. It had never been anything of the sort. Just because a handful of vocal fans on the internet and a yearly meet up at some bingo hall had raised it to such a level, there was absolutely ZERO reason to expect that this children's property would be turned into a movie aimed at teens and adults.

I'm going to write that again. A property that had, for its entire existence, been aimed squarely at children got a movie aimed instead at teens and adults.

That is not something that, unless I'm forgetting something, had ever happened before. Since? Definitely. Before? Unheard of.

The big, loud, Michael Bay action movie? That's on Bay. He's the reason that the movie was aimed where it was, how it was. Even Spielberg, the executive producer (and arguably the reason the license got picked up by Dreamworks in the first place) wanted to make a kids/family movie.

BUT, how about this? Transformers as a loud, sci-fi, blockbuster, explosion epic was a license to print money. And there are only two people who seem to have known that in advance. You, and Michael Bay.

inflatable dalek · Post by **inflatable dalek** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:33 pm

snarl wrote:Were Transformers really at their peak in 86? I'd say that they released it arguably at the beginning of the first trough.

I'd say the film created the trough, or at least some of the decisons made about the franchise that had their first expression in the film did. "Lets get rid of the popular lead character! And all the other popular characters! In as horrible a way as possible! Wait, why do none of the kids like the new guy we've introduced right after they've seen Optimus Prime get gutted?".

The harm the failure of the '86 film did to the franchise as a whole is fairly huge, certainly it helped to kill off the cartoon the following year and the toyline and the comic went into a fairly rapid decline right after even if they limped on for a longer time.

TF:TM when released was a "traditional" animation about toys.

What I actually really love about the film is its not traditional. It's worth remembering it was pretty much the first time a cartoon got turned into a proper theatrical film. Hell, films based on live action American TV shows were very rare at the time (being basically the Adam West Batman Movie and the Star Trek films. The first of which is also completely unlike any other attempt to make a film out of a TV show done since).

These days if a toy based cartoon is popular enough there will be some sort of film, even if its straight to video. And it will most likely be just a big episode.

The '86 film is made by people who are giddy they're no longer constrained by TV. With no precedent or rules (beyond shilling the new toys) they go nuts. It's easy to see why it failed as a result, but it's also easy to see why it became a post pub student classic a decade later and even though it is very easy to pick apart I love it for its bonkers creative decisions ("Hey, should we offer even a token explanation as to why the McGuffin blows up the bad guy?" "Nah").

and it still did ok at the box office

Was it not a complete disaster then?

If nothing else, wasn't the drastic last second UK re-edit to remove the swearing and add the crawl a direct response to the poor US box office (as well as the release being pushed back so the end of Target: 2006 no longer led straight into it)?

Post by **snarl** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:05 am

Well, imo, I'd say part of their core target audience would have been all those kids from the 80s that grew up - but what I think is very important is that although TFs were intially aimed at kids, the concept itself behind TFs is very good, BUT having reached the mid 2000s, with the massive advances made in effects, it (the concept) ALSO NOW fits in very well with popular modern expectations of a summer, effects driven, throwaway, popcorn blockbuster movie.

And who does those very well?

Well Bay does obviously. And it is just common sense to put your franchise in tried and trusted hands.

We're talking about a company that has recently been in the press for manufacturing their toys under dodgy circumstances China, because it makes more economic sense, remember that.

But the potential of the concept plays a huge part in getting this film made - Dreamworks and Hasbro aren't going to take a $150M punt on something, they will have modelled the economics of this film to [composite word including 'f*ck'].

It was in development from 2003.

Hasbro want to make more films without Bay.

Re-addressing the point about TF:TM flopping, you could argue that it was a success of sorts, given the beginnings of the brand, that there was even a feature film made in the first place.

I guess the toy companies of the mid 80s were seeing if they could stretch their brand out into other markets, but it just turned out they couldn't - or at very least they weren't willing to spend more money to see if they could.

A possible reason? Animated feature films adapted from cartoons made to sell toys to kids weren't offering enough / marketed well enough to compete against their own existing free products.

Examples: Care Bears did well (grossed $25M), but when it was released, it wasn't competing against it's own Care Bears cartoon that kids could sit at home and watch. Care Bears 2 came out after the cartoon had started only a year later, but that grossed less than a quarter of the amount of the first film, despite the toys continuing to sell well. My little pony also had to compete against it's own cartoon and did ***** at the box office. GI: Joe didn't even get to the cinema.

The cartoon were free, easily and widely available. The films cost money, and you have to go to the cinema.

The logic certainly follows for me.

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:05 am

My theory:

Bay was a competent enough director. Had it been given to Jon Favreau, for instance, it would have been several degrees better. But Bay knew enough to make a blockbuster out of it.

Hell, I liked the first one. Thought the second two were brain-damaging in the extreme. But the first one was dumb fun. Again, someone like Favreau would have curbed the excesses, but Bay knew what worked in a blockbuster at least.

It could have been better. Could have matched good reviews to good box-office, at least.

Post by **snarl** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:07 am

bumblemusprime wrote:My theory:

Bay was a competent enough director. Had it been given to Jon Favreau, for instance, it would have been several degrees better. But Bay knew enough to make a blockbuster out of it.

It could have been better. Could have matched good reviews to good box-office, at least.

That's what I was getting. Thanks my Mormon mate!

Post by **snarl** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:20 am

inflatable dalek wrote: I'd say the film created the trough, or at least some of the decisons made about the franchise that had their first expression in the film did. "Lets get rid of the popular lead character! And all the other popular characters! In as horrible a way as possible! Wait, why do none of the kids like the new guy we've introduced right after they've seen Optimus Prime get gutted?".

The harm the failure of the '86 film did to the franchise as a whole is fairly huge, certainly it helped to kill off the cartoon the following year and the toyline and the comic went into a fairly rapid decline right after even if they limped on for a longer time.

I dunno. I think Hasbro just made a lot of massive balls ups at the same time. The toy quality went from very good to [composite word including 'f*ck'] crap, rapidly once they'd used up all the Japanese moulds, which all coincided with 86.

Killing off Optimus Prime was ******* idiocy. How ****** hard would it have been to re-write him into the cartoon?

inflatable dalek wrote: What I actually really love about the film is its not traditional. It's worth remembering it was pretty much the first time a cartoon got turned into a proper theatrical film. Hell, films based on live action American TV shows were very rare at the time (being basically the Adam West Batman Movie and the Star Trek films. The first of which is also completely unlike any other attempt to make a film out of a TV show done since).

These days if a toy based cartoon is popular enough there will be some sort of film, even if its straight to video. And it will most likely be just a big episode.

The '86 film is made by people who are giddy they're no longer constrained by TV. With no precedent or rules (beyond shilling the new toys) they go nuts. It's easy to see why it failed as a result, but it's also easy to see why it became a post pub student classic a decade later and even though it is very easy to pick apart I love it for its bonkers creative decisions ("Hey, should we offer even a token explanation as to why the McGuffin blows up the bad guy?" "Nah").

I can agree with that. I've sort of made a similar point myself before I saw this.

inflatable dalek wrote:Was it not a complete disaster then?

If nothing else, wasn't the drastic last second UK re-edit to remove the swearing and add the crawl a direct response to the poor US box office (as well as the release being pushed back so the end of Target: 2006 no longer led straight into it)?

Domestic box office narrowly missed breaking even, so it probably turned a respectable world profit.

It's opening compared well to other 86 films, it just didn't really "blow up" and was only at the cinema for a month.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:47 am

snarl wrote:
I think Yaya's overstating his case, because Bay films, whether they're **** or not, do tend to take **** loads at the box office. But I tend to agree with the rough idea that a live action TF film handled with any degree of competence by another director with the same budget would have done good business.

I definitely think we could have had a better film that did as well at the box office, Hasbro just didn't want to gamble that. TFs have been since they came about pretty popular. Big budget, effects driven films with large marketing budgets released in the summer tend to be popular.

That's all I've been saying Snarlz. But for some reason, ID thinks I'm changing my stance. The statement that triggered this whole thing is when Smooth came in with the "the movie was a big success because of Bay and now we get comics because of him!" argument.

An argument that is completely wrong. Just flat out wrong. Transformers as a movie was gold from the start. There would have to me a major ****up going on for it not to be.

I don't argue that Bays films are financial successes. Only a fool argues with statistical facts (which BeeFster has now prohibited me from using, and so I will be banned once more, to return as the even more obnoxious YoYo, as promised). But Transformers didn't need him to be big. It was destined to be big regardless.

My theory:

Bay was a competent enough director. Had it been given to Jon Favreau, for instance, it would have been several degrees better. But Bay knew enough to make a blockbuster out of it.

Hell, I liked the first one. Thought the second two were brain-damaging in the extreme. But the first one was dumb fun. Again, someone like Favreau would have curbed the excesses, but Bay knew what worked in a blockbuster at least.

It could have been better. Could have matched good reviews to good box-office, at least.

I liked the first one too, and like you, I am now several degrees stupider after seeing the next two. Bay certainly wasn't necessary.

But the potential of the concept plays a huge part in getting this film made - Dreamworks and Hasbro aren't going to take a $150M punt on something, they will have modelled the economics of this film to ****.

It was in development from 2003.

Shazam! Finally, a voice of reason. And from Snarlos, no less.

And it was going to be a MOVIE for kids. It was going to be (in the worlds of Spielberg) just "a story of a boy and his first car." It could have been made cheaply. It would have had any violence or sexuality almost completely removed. It would have been a safe, sanitized, kid-friendly picture aimed at selling the toyline Hasbro would produce for the movie.

You keep saying that "of course it was going to be a big sci-fi epic blockbuster" but based on ****ing WHAT exactly? Transformers had NEVER been epic blockbuster sci-fi. NEVER. It had never been anything of the sort. Just because a handful of vocal fans on the internet and a yearly meet up at some bingo hall had raised it to such a level, there was absolutely ZERO reason to expect that this children's property would be turned into a movie aimed at teens and adults.

I'm going to write that again. A property that had, for its entire existence, been aimed squarely at children got a movie aimed instead at teens and adults.

Smooth, you're trying to tell me that a movie about warring robots was headed towards My Little Pony territory when Bay suddenly swooped in and saved the property from that kind of fate? How the hell do you remove violence from a movie about intergalactic warring robots destroying the Earth? How? Hard to believe. Like Snarlz said, give Hasbro a little credit. In fact, give all the credit to them. They knew where the money was going to come from. It would have taken a complete idiot at Hasbro to not see the potential of a more serious take on this property.

You keep saying that "of course it was going to be a big sci-fi epic blockbuster" but based on ****ing WHAT exactly? Transformers had NEVER been epic blockbuster sci-fi. NEVER

One more time Smooth, or I'm going to bring out the finger puppets to get this point across to you.

It's based on the technology that has now made it possible to bring this very unique sci-fi concept of giant warring robots to life on the big screen.

To make it a bit more clear, what I'm saying is, take away any familiarity with the Transformers, take away the name, and release the movie under the title "Giant ******* Warring Robots", ship it to ILM, and get a competent director on it, market it, and you've got yourself a hit. Maybe not a billion dollar hit, but certainly a major hit. Add the TF fanbase and the worldwide familiarity of the property among adults and kids in, and you've got yourself an all-timer. Add Micheal Bay in, and that might bring in an extra 100-200 millions tops.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:33 am

My Little Pony territory? No. E.T. territory. THAT was the movie that Spielberg wanted. The giant warring robots would have taken a back seat, or provided only the backdrop for the "boy and his car" story.

"Two warring races of giant sentient robots has been raging for millions of years, and yet, one of those giant robots can find friendship with a human boy who really needs one." That's the movie that was going to be made. And that's why the budget was originally about half of what it wound up being.

Kind of like what ET would have been if the proposed sequel would have gone forward...

Bay's idea for the robots to do their robot warring. Bay's idea for the funny human stuff that wound up being so popular with the teen viewers. Bay's idea for the WAR and DAMAGE to take up most of the last hour of the movie.

Would "boy and his car, in the face of a war that neither of them started" have been a hit? Maybe. Or maybe it would have been Battleship. Or GI:Joe The Rise of Cobra. Or Ninja Turtles III. Would it have brought in a HUGE number of new fans? Would it have given IDW enough incentive to expand the comics the way they did? Would it have given TakaraTomy a whole new audience to sell 200 USD Masterpiece figures to?

Probably not.

Now take your little finger puppets out of your ears, shine 'em up real nice...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjB0nQT3PJQ

Hot Shot · Post by **Hot Shot** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:45 pm

Professor Smooth wrote: Would it have brought in a HUGE number of new fans that are 90% unreasonable douchebags that lose interest after a year? Would it have given IDW enough incentive to expand the comics the way they did and dump the Furmination saga? Would it have given TakaraTomy a whole new audience to sell their already established 200 USD Masterpiece figures to?

A few things worth noting.

Oh, but please, keep praising Bay for his absolute minimum-requirement performance as a director.

Meanwhile, I'll try to stay out of this argument I've been having elsewhere over the past five years.

Predabot · Post by **Predabot** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:38 pm

bumblemusprime wrote:
Predabot wrote:This.
I will now take advantage of the situation and being frequenting the site more, uh, frequently. ^^
GODDAMNIT, NOW YOU HAVE TO STOP ARGUING.

Kidding, Preds. It wouldn't be like old times if we didn't ruthlessly pick on you.

Aww... not to worry, these days I understand, it's how you show that you care. ^^

Hot Shot wrote: A few things worth noting.

Oh, but please, keep praising Bay for his absolute minimum-requirement performance as a director.

Meanwhile, I'll try to stay out of this argument I've been having elsewhere over the past five years.

How you have grown.

I remember your beginnings five years ago, when you were merely 15 and hardly wet around the ears.

I liked the old you better... -_-

...........

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:34 am

This has been tons of fun. Thanks to everyone involved. Smoothweisers, hugs and handshakes all around.

Uh. Those Smoothweisers are pretty much for cosmetic purposes. They're well past their "best by" date...

mikebot · Post by **mikebot** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:02 am

Wow! The bands all here! Back together again!! Sweet!

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:30 am

Professor Smooth wrote:This has been tons of fun. Thanks to everyone involved. Smoothweisers, hugs and handshakes all around.

Uh. Those Smoothweisers are pretty much for cosmetic purposes. They're well past their "best by" date...

Maccadam's Best! Fleshling approved!

Sunyavadin · Post by **Sunyavadin** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 1:28 pm

I loved my New Adventures of He-Man Skeletor with his natty purple cape. That does not mean any new He-Man film should be based on that version of the franchise).

As opposed to that oh-so-stylish Glam Rock gold number from the film we did get?

Post by **snarl** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:41 pm

Re-opening this, my personal choice would have been James Cameron.

His CV is an absolute perfect fit.

Sunyavadin · Post by **Sunyavadin** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:16 pm

I was actually truly surprised when they announced the first Bay film that it wasn't Cameron they went for. Had to look up who Bay was. Then despaired when I saw what he'd done previously.

Sunyavadin · Post by **Sunyavadin** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:19 pm

TBH, Neill Blomkamp could stand a chance of giving us a good one too. Especially with Peter Jackson producing and Weta providing the Transformers.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:06 pm

Sunyavadin wrote:TBH, Neill Blomkamp could stand a chance of giving us a good one too. Especially with Peter Jackson producing and Weta providing the Transformers.

Now you're talking. Both excellent choices. James Cameron also.

TransFans.co.uk

MICHAEL BAY AT IT AGAIN!!

Michael Bay At It Again