BeastProwl wrote:Well, as cool as that scene sounds, it never happened. I wish they would give the movie to us seibertronians to direct, with the animators, and let US make the movie. I'm sure with enough time, we could make it make more money then Avatar ever did.
.
Shadowman wrote:I will put forth the theory that it was the internet itself trying to punch him in the face.
RiddlerJ wrote:Each one will come with an autographed picture of Michael Bay sitting on top of a huge pile of money.
vectorA3 wrote:I know this is the wrong place to discuss this, but I'll say it here anyway. The next Star Trek is set to film next year and drop in May of 2013. G.I. Joe 2 set for next summer. That's 4 years and 3 years between movies respectively. Whether these new movies be good, bad or ugly -why the *&(%&$&*$%& couldn't they do this with TF?? ROTF was horrible. Joe and Star Trek -let's take our time on, but TF, f&*% it, crank em out and get it over with, doesn't matter how bad they are. We don't care. This absolutely incenses me
Shadowman wrote:I will put forth the theory that it was the internet itself trying to punch him in the face.
5150 Cruiser wrote:Billions in profits says the majority liked what they saw.
RiddlerJ wrote:Each one will come with an autographed picture of Michael Bay sitting on top of a huge pile of money.
cotss2012 wrote:5150 Cruiser wrote:Billions in profits says the majority liked what they saw.
No, billions in profits says that the majority got duped by a well-oiled publicity machine saying "we're going to do it right" (for TF1), "the next one will be better" (RotF), and "Okay, we learned from our mistakes with the previous movie, and this one really WILL be good, we swear!" (DotM).
Shadowman wrote:I will put forth the theory that it was the internet itself trying to punch him in the face.
RiddlerJ wrote:Each one will come with an autographed picture of Michael Bay sitting on top of a huge pile of money.
cotss2012 wrote:Actually, the botched vehicle modes are just about the smallest complaint that I can think of regarding those movies. The horrid writing, useless characters, poorly constructed stories, etc. are all much bigger concerns.
Big box-office receipts as people walk into the theater do not indicate a positive impression upon leaving the theater.
cotss2012 wrote:[quote="5150 Cruiser]
like it or not, the vast majority of people approved of the movies. And their is absolutely nothing that you can say that can refute this..[/quote]
Wrong...
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_the_movie - 57% is a majority, but not a "vast" majority.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transfo ... the_fallen - 20% isn't a majority at all, much less a vast one
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transfo ... f_the_moon - at 35%, the best thing that can be said about this movie is that it sucked less than the previous one. .[/quote]
Shadowman wrote:I will put forth the theory that it was the internet itself trying to punch him in the face.
cotss2012 wrote:Big box-office receipts as people walk into the theater do not indicate a positive impression upon leaving the theater.
RiddlerJ wrote:Each one will come with an autographed picture of Michael Bay sitting on top of a huge pile of money.
cotss2012 wrote:First of all, if you're going to say something like "Lots of people saw this more than once in theaters", then be prepared to cite your sources. There are newspaper articles and film footage of people saying "I saw Star Wars/Titanic/whatever 14 times in theaters". I have yet to see such stories regarding Bayformers.
Secondly, a million crazy people watching the same movie a hundred times each does not a good movie make.
Third, the RT numbers for professional critics, while not the best measure of a movie's quality, are much more accurate than the numbers for people who have nothing better to do than create accounts at RT for the sole purpose of voting thumbs up/down on whatever movie they're most obsessed about at any given moment.
Bottom line: horrible movies sometimes make obscene amounts of money. Saying "this movie made a trillion dollars at the box office" means JACK SQUAT when arguing about how good or bad a movie is.
cotss2012 wrote:Big box-office receipts as people walk into the theater do not indicate a positive impression upon leaving the theater.
Burn wrote:The movies made a lot of money at the box office; ergo, everyone who paid to see them (prior to actually seeing them) thought they were good (after actually seeing them); ergo, the movies have perfectly logical and well-thought-out storylines, have female characters who serve a purpose other than being the male star's love interest, don't suffer from extreme close-ups that make the robot characters difficult to distinguish from each other...
RiddlerJ wrote:Each one will come with an autographed picture of Michael Bay sitting on top of a huge pile of money.
vectorA3 wrote: cotss never said that the movies were hated by a "majority". .
vectorA3 wrote:5150 - if all of the first movie actors have left, save for Tatum, and there's a new director who is just known for "Never say never" justin bieber --then I don't have high hopes. Couple this with the fact that a crew member already died on set when a lift collapsed - not lookin good. I love G.I. Joe too, so what a shame..
vectorA3 wrote:Star trek will be good if Abrams is steering the ship. Have higher hopes for it. ..
vectorA3 wrote:If contracts were in place for TF -then why weren't the movies made as a trilogy, stories linked?? Seems to me that the studio only greenlit TF2 after they saw the opening box office for TF1 - didn't have a trilogy in mind per se. It is what it is. Imho, the first film was the best overall, then DOTM, then ROTF.
vectorA3 wrote:With that being said, just because a movie grosses obscene amounts of money doesn't mean its a great high quality movie.
.
Shadowman wrote:I will put forth the theory that it was the internet itself trying to punch him in the face.
Burn wrote:Cute. Completely twisting my words there.
So tell me cotss2012, why do you think Megatron became a truck?
5150 Cruiser wrote:IN another thread, then tried to post up link from roten tomatoes, only prove that the majority of the general audience did in fact aprove of all three TF movies.
Rushie wrote:So... I hear Megatron turns into a truck in DotM?
RiddlerJ wrote:Each one will come with an autographed picture of Michael Bay sitting on top of a huge pile of money.
cotss2012 wrote:Burn wrote:So tell me cotss2012, why do you think Megatron became a truck?
Because Bay had stopped caring at that point.
Burn wrote:If you're going to say something like "Because Bay had stopped caring at that point", then be prepared to cite your sources.
RiddlerJ wrote:Each one will come with an autographed picture of Michael Bay sitting on top of a huge pile of money.
cotss2012 wrote:Burn wrote:The movies made a lot of money at the box office; ergo, everyone who paid to see them (prior to actually seeing them) thought they were good (after actually seeing them); ergo, the movies have perfectly logical and well-thought-out storylines, have female characters who serve a purpose other than being the male star's love interest, don't suffer from extreme close-ups that make the robot characters difficult to distinguish from each other...
Please, for the love of Primus, can you make ANY kind of argument that these movies were good, other than "Michael Bay has a swimming pool full of hundred dollar bills"?
NewFoundStarscreamLuv wrote:me and my friends combine all the time. Sometimes I even combine by myself if no one is around.
Return to Transformers Live Action Film Forum
Registered users: -Soundwave-, Bing [Bot], Bumblevivisector, Dino-Snarl, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Roadbuster, UltOrange, Zordon