Who would You like to see re-boot the Transformers after Bay?

Posted by Marvin Lee 
I hope Bay is telling the truth that he's not TF anymore but I'm ready for a re-boot here. Batman got redone by. Burton-Really good except for a short batman and a fat joker. Joel Shoemaker- Batman & Robin/Batman Forever- God Awful...Like ROTF Bad, like Pontiac Aztek bad. Then Christopher Nolan. Best of the re-boots.

Burton brought a comic book to life and Nolan made a comic book seem like real life so the two are really a toss up for me but with that example in mind.

Who would you like to see re-boot the Tfansformers? I'd like to see the guys who did the Fast and Furious series have a crack at it. They seem to know how to make the cars the star and have the people along for the ride.
I've heard these rumors swirling for the last week or so, but I honestly find the idea of rebooting a four year old movie franchise baffling. Why could't a new director simply come in and add to what's already there? There are plenty of other characters and fan-favorite plotlines to abuse... and they can always make up new ones. They can refresh the main cast and whatnot, but the idea of starting over from a new 'Transformers arrive on Earth' movie sounds terrifically boring.

Introducing Prometheus Rising Studio.
[prometheusrising.net]
I make 3D printed mecha action figures.
MSW
None of these movie has been a true Transformers movie. They have been "the Adventures of Sam Witwicky and his Wacky Friends, guest staring the Transformers". A reboot would be a step in the right direction.

Keep in mind, their rebooting the Spider Man franchise, despite Spider Man 3 making more money than the first two Transformers films.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 08:02AM by MSW.
Sanjeev (Admin)
Nah, I'd rather see a reboot than more sequels, like Ben suggests. The Bayformers movies are fundamentally shit. How could a new director and creative staff create something good out of that without MAJOR retcon? And that includes the atrocious robot designs.

A reboot wouldn't necessarily have to be about the G1 characters arriving on Earth, but even if it did, it could be handled 1000 times better than these movies...and thus be...y'know...enjoyable to watch. Fancy that.

What I'd love to see is a *series* of movies. No, not a fucking "trilogy", which is Hollywood's default investment program. Something like Marvel Studios' Avengers Assemble series, where they have a bunch of different ultimately-converging storylines.

...Which is exactly why Spidey's already getting a reboot.
Just for kicks and giggles, how about a movie that actually takes place in 1984 (like how Watchmen took place in 1985 and X-Men First Class in the 60's).

But whatever, I liked DOTM. Stop wishing for the TF movies to be highbrow science fiction.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I asked if I have "Time For L-Gaim" but I got "No Reply From The Wind".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 01:19PM by Vincent Z..
Vincent Z. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But whatever, I liked DOTM. Stop wishing for the
> TF movies to be highbrow science fiction.

I haven't heard anyone ask for that. I think what they'd like to see if form not to be a giant kill-em-all battle with fart jokes as the comic relief. Those things aren't a problem necessarily, but they're not in keeping with the history of the franchise. It's not hard to understand where many folks over the age of, say, 30 are a tad miffed about the films.

More serious than thou
B00
Get JJ Abrams, or Jon Favreau they seem like they have lots of fun with their films, and can make a decent exchange of dialog between to characters that doesn't de-volve into rambling gibberish and adolescent sex jokes.

Well okay, that kinda is how Iron man goes down, but its still easier to watch than a Bay film.

__________________
MoonBaseTom Season tickets available. Call now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 02:44PM by B00.
Sanjeev (Admin)
Favreau's Iron Man is about ten trillion times more palatable than Transformers. I actually enjoy that movie despite its flaws...while Bayformers feels like a frontal lobotomy.


Vincent Z. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...Stop wishing for the
> TF movies to be highbrow science fiction.

Precisely the comment I'd expect from someone who gets off on pedo-bait cartoons.
>Precisely the comment I'd expect from someone who gets off on pedo-bait cartoons.

Precisely the comment I'd expect from someone with a minister license.
Sanjeev Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Precisely the comment I'd expect from someone who
> gets off on pedo-bait cartoons.

OH SNAP!
Sanjeev (Admin)
Vincent Z. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Precisely the comment I'd expect from someone who
> gets off on pedo-bait cartoons.
>
> Precisely the comment I'd expect from someone with
> a minister license.


Nice try.

A+ for effort though.
Do ministers have licenses? I am pretty sure they don't.

-Ginrai
Golden Gate Riot on dead trees at: [www.destroyallcomics.com]
Sanjeev (Admin)
Hey, I have a license. Drive a hybrid, in fact!
But hybrids are the leading cause of smug pollution!

--------------------------------------------------------------

I asked if I have "Time For L-Gaim" but I got "No Reply From The Wind".
B00
Vincent Z. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But hybrids are the leading cause of smug
> pollution!

Swing and a miss....

__________________
MoonBaseTom Season tickets available. Call now.
Sanjeev (Admin)
It's cute when he keeps trying, though, isn't it?

I THINK I'M MOE FOR VINCENT Z.
>I THINK I'M MOE FOR VINCENT Z.

PROVE IT, BUY A HUGGING PILLOW WITH ME ON IT.

But seriously, didn't you boycott ROTF just because of Aubobot twins?

--------------------------------------------------------------

I asked if I have "Time For L-Gaim" but I got "No Reply From The Wind".



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 08:43PM by Vincent Z..
Prometheum5 Wrote:
> I've heard these rumors swirling for the last week
> or so, but I honestly find the idea of rebooting a
> four year old movie franchise baffling. Why
> couldn't a new director simply come in and add to
> what's already there?

The TF movies are such a narrative mess so far that I don't see what's to gain from building on the established facts. The mythology literally goes nowhere. The Allspark gives us an unlimited number of new robots, the Matrix revives the dead, the Space Bridge takes us from Cybertron to Earth... all of it is just in service of providing more CG robots to beat on each other. The conflicts forming the foundation of the movies' story feel hollow and pointless, because all they lead up to is small-scale battles in human cities. The formula used to produce Bay's TF movies is fundamentally broken as a way to form a story - it just generates fleeting, superficial conflict.


Vincent Z. Wrote:
>
> But whatever, I liked DOTM. Stop wishing for the
> TF movies to be highbrow science fiction.

I don't think it's intellectual SF that anyone is looking for with the franchise. What's missing in my view is the most basic sense of plot; a thread of logic that follows from scene to scene, some kind of cause-and-effect, motivations for the characters... the things that make a story a story, not just a series of disjointed scenes working at their own purposes. This was marginally present in the previous films, but in Dark of the Moon, there was really nothing to grab on to. Premises were abandoned as soon as they're established, and the frequent expositional speeches didn't hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

How about that scene where Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is talking to Patrick Dempsey, and they establish that it would be totally crazy and impossible for the Decepticons to transport six billion humans through the Space Bridge... and therefore, the Decepticons are going to transport AN ENTIRE PLANET! Which is, of course, MUCH easier than rounding up a bunch of humans and transporting them individually or en masse? I don't see how that's supposed to make sense to the characters or to the audience.

That's just one example, but the WHOLE MOVIE is like that. There's hardly a concept or plot point that holds together if you try to figure out why it's actually happening, what would lead the characters to behave in this fashion or how it follows from past events.

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
er... back on subject.

I think Re-boots have to be the case because no director/studio wants to take on someone else vision. It might be just ego but when someone gets it right they are put on a pedestal as "getting it right" Sometimes when a person tries to take on their take to an existing style there can be problems... ie: Superman Returns (They tried to copy Richard Donnars vision but it came out flat.) I really don't think they CAN out do Richard donnar's Superman, which is why NO one in Hollywood would touch Superman. Another good example:

Gene Wilder as Willie Wonka in Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory VS. Jonney Depps/ Tim Burtons creepy Michael Jackson inspired child molesters Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

Nolan's batman-- got it right.
New Spiderman coming out- I think will be a flaming disaster.

I LOVE Vincent Z's idea of doing it in 1884. BUT I'd probably make it for just the 1st 30 min of the movie and then going to 2005. Here I'd go all Terminator and have someone go back in time showing how having the TF on earth has caused technology to advance but at the cost of getting on the radar of Unicron which will destroy earth. So some anti-technology terrorist go back to 2005 (using technology which is the irony) to change the timeline. (Right about the time Hotrod F'd up Optimus letting Megatron get the drop on him.)

This changes the future so that 2011's technology is where we are today and not the vision of what people in 1884 thought 2005 would be aka Buck Rodgers.

The new story arc can go from there....

In the mean time I'd show a montage of the cars/trucks constantly updating themselves over the past 30 years so that there is a link to the 1984 TF's and what a 2011 TF would look like. (What TF wants to look like a 30yr old design anyway.) All the figuresHe should still LOOK like themselves but updated. The classics line proved that this can be done very easily.
>1884 if that wasn't an obvious typo, I'd say you want a movie adaptation of the TF comic Hearts of Steel (about TFs in the 1800's).

>which is why NO one in Hollywood would touch Superman

Actually, they are doing another SUperman reboot. Going to be by the guy that directed 300 and Watchmen, so get ready for Supes punching things in SLOOOOOOOOOOW motion.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I asked if I have "Time For L-Gaim" but I got "No Reply From The Wind".
So, after watching Bad Boys I and II for the first time last night, I figured out what the new Transformers franchise needs: a buddy cop movie. Get Streetwise (AKA Shaftbot) Stakeout, who's trying to repair his reputation as former leader of the Rescue Patrol. You can blow up a loooooot of shit as reckless cops, but you're still more closely tied to a plotline to get us from setpiece to setpiece. Make the plotline be about Energon drugs like I think was in one of the comics, and following through that lead takes a twist by exposing the growing underground Decepticon movement! Exposed, the Decepticons put their plans into overdrive and assassinate Sentinel Prime, Prime Minister of Cybertron (get it?). Get Prowl as the dickhead chief of Transformers Police, bring in guys like Jazz, Ironhide, and Bluestreak for the big finale car chase that transforms into a huge gun battle. Movie takes place on Cybertron, and the finale ends with the fledgling 'Cons fleeing. The good guys realize this is the start of something bigger, and Optimus Prime, their new leader, decides to begin reputation building as tough on crime by leading Task Force 'Autobot' to follow and capture the 'Cons, leading to the crash on Earth.

Second movie. Prime and his Bots wake up on Earth, locate the Cons also on Earth, and the war escalates. Back on Cybertron, a new Decepticon, Shockwave, leads the remaining fringe elements of Cybertron in a bloody coup against the government. As the movie ends, Shockwave sends his new armada towards Earth to hunt the Autobots (in a dramatic role-reversal!)

Third movie, Cons are hitting Earth hard, and Prime must rally the Autobots to defend Earth, repel the invaders, and take the fight back to their homeworld.

Can I have my Billion Dollars now?

Introducing Prometheus Rising Studio.
[prometheusrising.net]
I make 3D printed mecha action figures.
Sanjeev (Admin)
Vincent Z. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >I THINK I'M MOE FOR VINCENT Z.
>
> PROVE IT, BUY A HUGGING PILLOW WITH ME ON IT.

Don't think I'm not furiously knitting one up right now!

> But seriously, didn't you boycott ROTF just
> because of Aubobot twins?

No. But the stuff you keep making up is awesome. Clearly, you went to art school; keep it coming!


Prometheum5 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, after watching Bad Boys I and II for the first
> time last night, I figured out what the new
> Transformers franchise needs: a buddy cop movie...

Genius.

I think this would pan out nicely with the Marvel Studio model. Think about it: you could have the buddy-cop TF movie sub-franchise just like Iron Man and its sequels...but they could ultimately work towards some greater continuity plot. Then you could have Marvin's/Vincent's in-the-past movies (like Captain Amrrrca)...also working towards the same continuity plot. And add a couple more and BOOM: big Unicron fight.

Where's my billion dollars?? ;)
Plus, you can easily work in the fan-favorite Wreckers movie. I'm envisioning something akin to Red or The Expendables with old guys like Kup, Ironhide, Springer, Ultra Magnus, and Brawn. They get the band back together throughout their own movie, beat their baddies, and then realize there's a larger threat looming...

Introducing Prometheus Rising Studio.
[prometheusrising.net]
I make 3D printed mecha action figures.
two words. Ang. Lee.

no seriously. I thought the original Hulk big-budget movie was a billion times more interesting than the rebarf--and a lot better than most super-hero movies. He built the story, the action was satisfying, and it even had that hint of sadness that the sitcom and comic had (well, I thought so). Sure, it may have not been a favorite, but I thought he handled the material wonderfully. I think Jennifer Connelly was a bad choice for bruce's love interest. that's my only complaint. she's kind of a bummer. like she knows how sensitive and deep she is. Oh, and it could've been a little shorter.


OK, so no one would want Ang Lee to do that one. I get it. 5 people liked the Hulk movie.
Seriously, I wish Spielberg directed it from the get go.

for the reboot--Neill Blomkamp (district 9) might work.
kiriko Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> for the reboot--Neill Blomkamp (district 9) might
> work.

I liked that movie, but I'd sure like to see any TF reboot be suitable for KIDS (rather than the 15-year olds the current ones are aimed at). He'd have to handle it differently.

More serious than thou
kiriko Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> two words. Ang. Lee.
>
Where were you when I needed you in the superhero movie thread?

>So, after watching Bad Boys I and II for the first time last night, I figured out
>what the new Transformers franchise needs: a buddy cop movie.

Ha. Great idea. Didn't the Marvel comics feature Nightbeat as a detective or something?

One reason that would never work,though, is that movies are aimed at people-older-than-kids, who on the whole (I'm indulging in a problematic generalization, I know) are a lot less imaginative than children. So asking the target demographic to sit through a movie featuring only heroic robots is not gonna happen, unless your heroic robot is a cuddly little kid: [en.wikipedia.org] and the empathy-degree-of-difficulty is much diminished.

I thought I saw some comments about how the movie sucked because it wasn't like G1/superhero movies or that it just sucked in general. The latter I get, though personally I thought it was a somewhat entertaining piece of fluff, barring the really boring last hour of robot violence porn.

As to the former--come on, people. I saw Thor, Iron Man, etc. They were not that much better than this. You might say they're more coherent, linear, etc., but they're also just as cliched, overwrought, fairly illogical, gag-driven. The armor-on-armor action in both Iron Man movies was about as interesting as the action in Transformers (though the action in Iron Man occupied much less time, thank goodness). So I filed them under somewhat entertaining pieces of fluff, too.

You know what the problem with the Bayformers was? The movies were based on a silly, illogical (but highly marketable) idea. It's like trying to make quiche out of a pile of dog turd. Sentient robots espousing Lockean notions of individual liberty. Stoo-pid. Only a kid could love it.

It's funny, because the criticism here is the same as you'd see in a newspaper review of a typical comic book movie. It's like looking at a sliding scale of expectations and values for "good flicks."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2011 03:27PM by gingaio.
Shit, Nightbeat is totally the other police TF I was trying to think of this morning but drew a blank on.

I will have to tell you that I think you must be on drugs if you would compare Iron Man I or II and Thor to these movies. The Marvel superhero movies have done a commendable job of developing strong and consistent characterizations and a meaningful world, which is something the TF movies couldn't do in three films with the same characters.

Introducing Prometheus Rising Studio.
[prometheusrising.net]
I make 3D printed mecha action figures.
Prometheum5 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will have to tell you that I think you must be
> on drugs if you would compare Iron Man I or II and
> Thor to these movies. The Marvel superhero movies
> have done a commendable job of developing strong
> and consistent characterizations and a meaningful
> world, which is something the TF movies couldn't
> do in three films with the same characters.

If by developing a meaningful world, you mean developing a meaningful worldview that promotes western imperialism and justifies the U.S. military-entertainment-industrial complex, then, yes, I'd say IM I and II are on par with Bayformers, minus the American muscle cars. As for characterization in Thor--I'm still trying to wrap my head around how I'm expected to believe that genocidal, warmongering Thor turns into noble, sweetheart, defender-of-all-lifeforms Thor...all because he gets a boner for the Black Swan hottie? When that personal transformation is the pivot upon which the entire narrative turns, I'd say that that's not a small failing.

I'm not saying these movies suck because of these things. They're fun and stupid. I'm just saying, well, what I said in the last post: They ain't much better.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2011 03:47PM by gingaio.
Sanjeev (Admin)
gingaio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As to the former--come on, people. I saw Thor,
> Iron Man, etc. They were not that much better than
> this. You might say they're more coherent, linear,
> etc., but they're also just as cliched,
> overwrought, fairly illogical, gag-driven. The
> armor-on-armor action in both Iron Man movies was
> about as interesting as the action in Transformers
> (though the action in Iron Man occupied much less
> time, thank goodness). So I filed them under
> somewhat entertaining pieces of fluff, too.

I think it's appropriate that Rev. Sanjeev frankensteined this over to the dooper-hero suck thread. For all the reasons you outlined above. Linear coherence in plot, while not necessarily the most consciously prized dimension of a film, makes something easier to watch. So, like, Thor and Iron Man are easier to digest in that sense. But they're certainly no better.

In fact, the TF movies are like watching Gargantua and Pantagruel with alien robots thingys. The grotesque materialism is so heavy handed that it's impossible for me to think that these films are anything other than satire parading as pop-culture. Bay is a fucking genius.


> You know what the problem with the Bayformers was?
> The movies were based on a silly, illogical (but
> highly marketable) idea. It's like trying to make
> quiche out of a pile of dog turd. Sentient robots
> espousing Lockean notions of individual liberty.
> Stoo-pid. Only a kid could love it.

See above thesis. I'm dead series about this. The TF movies have been seriously misread by the movie going public.

As for rebootage, I don't think it matters. Corporate Hollywood is so risk averse that, no matter who writes/directs/stars, we're simply going to see more of the same. The best case scenario is that someone comes along and makes it more linear, more coherent and everyone says, "I guess it was better," while quickly forgetting all about it.
ang lee....

I liked his work EXCEPT for the Hulk. Hulk showed up like an hour into the movie... I actually fell asleap. Incredible Hulk was much better BUT I don't want to turn this into a comic hero site.

What I don't understand is how hard it is to make any of these TF movies. The hardest part was the technology to make them believable but that's done and over. The TF has some of the richest,characters, history and fan base. It seems like you just have to figure what part(s) of the history you want to make then make the movie.
Marvin Lee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I don't understand is how hard it is to make
> any of these TF movies. The hardest part was the
> technology to make them believable but that's done
> and over.

Eh, I'm not so sure about that. I think it's workable, but not believable. While I like the basic designs in the films there are a lot of times when they don't mesh with the live action stuff at all. Not to mention the problems with things like paint and glass transforming from clean to dirty and back again. Or characters not losing mass and parts even after they've been shot up.


> The TF has some of the
> richest,characters, history and fan base. It seems
> like you just have to figure what part(s) of the
> history you want to make then make the movie.

Don't take it personally, but I don't get this reasoning. Any time someone mentions this, or brings up "mythos", I cringe. The original incarnation of Transformers was goofy, cliched schtick meant to sell toys. It seems like 99.9% of the supporting media that has come after is as well. And if there was anything of substance in there it would be impossible to glean for a general audience. Diehard fans don't make a good target audience.

I liked Star Wars as a kid. A lot. But it was never meant to be high-concept anything. Everything about it was strictly two dimensional. Yet now we have fictional films about Star Wars fans in some kind of weird sub-genre. And it's absurd. People need to be able to step back and admit when something isn't really as substantive as they might want it to be. Or admit when it is substantive in areas with which they are unconcerned. For example, sales and marketing. As is the case when thinking about another Transformer movie and how much money it could make.
Sanjeev (Admin)
Gcrush Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Marvin Lee Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> The hardest part was
> the
> > technology to make them believable but that's
> done
> > and over.
>
> Eh, I'm not so sure about that.

Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder if the diarrhea-in-my-eyes designs of these robots--and how their transformation sequences are like a landmine going off in your face--are simply to cover up how mediocre the cg actually is. Like, if the designs looked clean like in the original cartoon, and transformed in much more conceivable ways, I wonder what it would look like. I know there are convincing fan-made cg clips here and there, but maybe that wouldn't work on the scale of a 2.5 hour movie. Maybe at that level, the robots would look too...cartoony?

I dunno.


Gcrush Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Marvin Lee Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > The TF has some of the
> > richest,characters, history and fan base.
>
> Don't take it personally, but I don't get this
> reasoning. Any time someone mentions this, or
> brings up "mythos", I cringe.

So jaded! You sound like gingaio! :P

But Marvin's right and I'll tell you why. First of all, I think you're letting your hate of ALL things remotely comic book-like (perpetual characters/plots) cloud your objectivity. No one is disputing that anything TF-related is intended to sell toys. Past, present, future. The original cartoon was schlocky and so damn bad on so many levels...no one is disputing that either. That doesn't change, however, two things:

1) There were individual "episodes" here and there (either *actual* episodes of the various cartoons or particular issues/runs of the various comic series over the years) that were genuinely awesome. Different writers come and go. Every now and then, someone has a good day. How ever it happens, it happens. There are gems that stand out (just as there are real stinkers)...and those gems are the glue that endear such franchises in people's minds. And these gems could theoretically be adapted into a big-budget picture [it'll never happen, but that's what Marvin's getting at].

Perfect example: I'm watching the original Star Trek show right now (dunno why I never bothered to do this in the past). It's TOTALLY cornball and all that. But every now and then, there's a slick episode by Harlan Ellison that really hit that sweet spot. Or just the right interaction between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy that make the rest of their awkward dialog gel in a certain way that makes you smile. It's still "bad"...but at least it's now "charming".

2) I call it the "universe effect". There are a myriad of great scifi stories (or really any form of fiction) out there. Most are self-contained yarns that don't necessarily exist to sell anything. These stories tend to feature some sort of futuristic universe...where some shit happens. Great. But there are other stories that transcend into franchises because instead of having that futuristic universe being a simple back-drop to the conflict at hand, it almost takes on a life of its own. There are SO many individual characters and storylines that fit into this universe's "canon" that it actually becomes enjoyable to follow individual stories (even if they suck) JUST to see how they affect the grand scheme of things. This is true for Star Trek, comics, Transformers, and probably even Star Wars.

Example: Onell Design's Glyos toys. At first, they featured just two characters with this loose, Micronauty backdrop. Not bad, but not super-compelling. Then they started to release more characters. THEN they started doing the Passcode games, which were pretty dumb (as far as games go), BUT people ate them up because each one revealed more and more about the universe. Now, there's an online comic...and even fan-based characters who're written into the canon...and the franchise is insanely popular! People are constantly clamoring for reprints of the original artbooks they sold before they even produced their first figure in China. The fans are HUNGRY for fiction in this now-lush and fleshed-out universe...arguably even more so than they're hungry for more toys!

And I agree that part of the problem with the "universe effect" or such franchises in general, is that they tend to be stuck in perpetuity: certain characters--especially fan-favorites--are frozen in the same emotional conflicts they were decades ago...let alone never fucking dying. (Sorry, don't mean to head off your argument before you make it, G...but I'm just conceding this ahead of time!) But the point is that the history of all the different characters and their interactions--across eras, alternate realities, etc.--is a big part of what makes these types of stories compelling...and I think that's why the new Marvel movies are on the right track.

Just a couple more responses:
> And if there was anything of substance in
> there it would be impossible to glean for a
> general audience. Diehard fans don't make a good
> target audience.

I think the very concept of the "diehard fan" is vanishing. Hardcore fandom--especially Transfandom--is becoming more and more the norm in our culture because now, more than ever before, it's so easy to become hardcore. All the information is at one's fingertips. Hell, you can bittorrent ENTIRE runs of comics in an evening. It's pretty wild!

That said, however, I think you're right: see, it's not that diehard fans don't make a good target audience. I think it's more that if you dumb things down enough for the random person curious to know what the spectacle is all about, you'll make more money. You said it yourself: it's all about risk aversion. Or, rather, the opposite side of the same coin: appealing to the lowest common denominator. Even as fun as the ideas in this thread are to discuss--and EVEN as marketable as they could be to "hardcore" fans--they'll NEVER fucking happen.


> I liked Star Wars as a kid. A lot. But it was
> never meant to be high-concept anything.

I agree with what you said later about people needing to admit that sales and marketing are FAR more a concern among the architects of these franchises than writing good stories, producing good toys, etc. But despite that, Lucas STILL maintained the integrity of the Hero's Journey tale in the original trilogy. Despite his likely greed-based intentions, he still wove a yarn that's legitimately solid (not that I'm a fan, but I can respect it).
I agree with most of what you said, Sanjeev, but making comics/shows/movies for fans directly usually makes really impenetrable garbage. Check out the navel gazing Transformers comics have been doing at IDW for years now.

-Ginrai
Golden Gate Riot on dead trees at: [www.destroyallcomics.com]
Sanjeev (Admin)
Oh, I don't know about that. I mean, I'm sure there's some stuff out there that's made for fans that sucks ass, but look at the Marvel Studios' films. Since Marvel took over their own movies, they've definitely been about pleasing hardcore fans (like myself). Their #1 motivation is profit, of course, but they could have followed the traditional Hollywood risk-averse/lowest-common-denominator approach and made their movies like the X-Men movies, the Fantastic Four movies, or the Spider-Man movies. They likely would have made more money...but instead, they chose a more moderate path by remaining faithful to what made these characters endearing to fans, while still making the franchise accessible.

Same thing with Nolan's Batman movies. I'm hardly a hardcore or diehard fan, but I have plenty of friends who are who blew their wads over these movies...and they're arguably LESS accessible than the Marvel Studios movies. And they still did well, commercially.

Anyway, I don't disagree: I think that the lowest-common-denominator approach is what is most profitable...and the most profitable approach presented clearly in your business plan is usually the only way to get corporate funding. Risk aversion. It sucks.

But there *are* exceptions...and they ain't bad. So I guess it could be done with Transformers..? But I ain't betting a nickel on it... :/
Of course the BEST option would be NO MORE Transformer movies period but of course Dreamworks and Hasbro won't let that happen... a reboot would be ideal however, and maybe a redisgn of the bot where they are more traditional blocky looking than all busy, wirey, sinewy looking like Bionicles.

But those hoping for a quality filmmaker should not get their hopes too far up... I doubt even Favreau will want to touch this. Expect them to hire second tier action movie hacks like McG, Brett Ratner or Len Wiseman. At "best", they may be able to land someone like Zack Snyder or Roland Emmerich who would then proceed to make exactly the same kind of TF movie that Bay did...
Sanjeev Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So jaded! You sound like gingaio! :P
>
I sound nothing like me.
>
> But Marvin's right and I'll tell you why. First of
> all, I think you're letting your hate of ALL
> things remotely comic book-like (perpetual
> characters/plots) cloud your objectivity. No one
> is disputing that anything TF-related is intended
> to sell toys. Past, present, future. The original
> cartoon was schlocky and so damn bad on so many
> levels...no one is disputing that either. That
> doesn't change, however, two things:
>
> 1) There were individual "episodes" here and there
> (either *actual* episodes of the various cartoons
> or particular issues/runs of the various comic
> series over the years) that were genuinely
> awesome.

There's that Transformers episode ("The Golden Lagoon," I think) that involves Beachcomber trying to protect a golden pond that bestows protective properties, and which ends up being destroyed in the crossfire between the Autobots and Decepticons. The closing shot is of Beachcomber sitting near the bombed-out pit that had been the lagoon, saying in a very deflated, heartbroken manner, "Yeah, we won."

I remember that episode because it blew me away when I was a kid and it rides counter to the usual operating principle of the show.
I don't think those are designed to appeal to fans, I think they are designed to appeal to the mainstream, which is why they work. When they try to appeal to fans, it's a million fucking in-jokes and references to obscure crap, which makes it impenetrable to a casual audience. Superman Returns is a pretty good example. I recall seeing the old Superman movies when I was a kid but I was pretty fucking lost when I tried to watch that movie. Another example is every X-Men movie except First Class. 65 million cameos per minute does not make a good movie, it makes a movie with a zillion cast members and only one or two characters you even feel like you know. Patrick Stewart had barely anything to do an he was in 3 movies. Ridiculous.

-Ginrai
Golden Gate Riot on dead trees at: [www.destroyallcomics.com]
Tim Burton? He's castrate the designs worse than Bay did, he's an ARTIST even moreso and wouldn't be able to help himself.

Ang Lee? Are the Decepticons going to be giant robot Poodles? (Hulk reference) Ack!

I'd be happy with Peter Cullen home videos of him in a cardboard OP suit sitting on his porch just shouting random lines. As a home grown G1 fanimal, the ONLY part of the Bay films I connected with was Cullen's voice as Prime. The robot designs just killed me over and over...ugh!

I'm not saying the robots have to look just like they did on TV in 1984, but the metallic organic over oragami-ed designs just ruined these movies for me completely. That and Bumblebee not being able to TALK!!! Wasn't the connection between Bee and Spike sort of the heart of the original chemistry?

I just think that it's wayyyy too soon to be slapping a date on the calendar for a reboot. Sure, Hasbro has learned that you can slap the Transformers name on just about anything and you'll make money, which you can't argue with, but as a FAN I still dream about a live action movie that captures and respects the essence of the original series. Is that too much to ask?
Sanjeev (Admin)
Ginrai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think those are designed to appeal to
> fans

Oh, they totally are. They just *happen* to have been written to appeal to mainstream audiences as well. The simple proof is that hardcore fans (like myself in the case of the Marvel Studios movies or most of my DC-head friends and the Nolan Batty-flicks) fucking loved them. But you're right: if a movie tries to appeal ONLY to diehards, they become incestuous piles of shit, full of in-jokes and other lame crap. This is why I stopped watching Aqua Team Hunger Force (or whatever it's called now), for example. The X-Men movies are a borderline example, though: I mean, they were popular among a lot of fans...I guess (I'm certainly not one). But they were commercially successful, so the masses definitely liked them despite the dumb cameo/easter egg mentality.

Anyway, if we look at the general spectrum of profitability, it simply reads: mainstream audiences (i.e., lowest common denominator) > mainstream and diehard fans > diehards only. And the incline is pretty steep. So if you're a screenwriter in Hollywood and you want to pitch your business plan to investors, guess which category they're gonna want to see... It's risk-aversion.

That said, we've been shown that the middle category of movies written to appeal to *both* the random movie-goer AND hardcore fans can be at least viable. I think that makes a GOOD TF movie possible...though statistically highly-unlikely.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

footer