Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Megatron_Wolf wrote:We fans have been demanding quality. The movie assholes just didnt listen. Remember when they saide that Megatrons head would be changed because the fans were bitching? Well did it happen? No. They dont care about the fans. As long as the movie will make them money they dont give a rats ass about what the die hard fans think. If Bay wasnt directing it might have bee a diffrent story but since they got that idiot to direct he only wants to see what he wants on screen.

I think you're finally starting to see how movies are made.

It's been said before: If they made this specifically for the fans, which are a tiny piece of the population, it would fail horribly. Instead they're appealing to the larger crowd, which is the smart way to go.

Megatron_Wolf wrote:

Zuko wrote:

Phategod1 wrote:can I ask a question? How can someone be a fan of something for 20 years, and not be care about how its treated on celluloid. How can you invest hundreds of dollars on toys, Spend hundreds of hour on websites dedicated to it, but when it comes to the movie you don't demand quality? What if you spent $200.00 for MP prime and it fell apart the minute you took it out of the box? Why is Spiderman treated like the Holy Grail? It has nothing to do with how popular one series is over another It has to do with Director and Writer Competency. The thing is a lot of the "Fans" don't demand quality. But at least they (fans with low standards)can "enjoy the movie"

Because we haven't had quality in a Transformers show since Beast Wars.

We fans have been demanding quality. The movie assholes just didnt listen. Remember when they saide that Megatrons head would be changed because the fans were bitching? Well did it happen? No. They dont care about the fans. As long as the movie will make them money they dont give a rats ass about what the die hard fans think. If Bay wasnt directing it might have bee a diffrent story but since they got that idiot to direct he only wants to see what he wants on screen. Prime example: Pearl Harbor. That movie sucked but made money.

No really? That's exactly what I said two pages ago. They only said changes were made to stop the bitching for five minutes. And it worked. Theres no reason to cater to a couple thousand fans or even ten thousand fans because the movie would explode and maybe pull in a couple million.

Megatron_Wolf wrote:The movie assholes just didnt listen.

And why should they?

Milanion wrote:Godzilla98 was still the most successful Godzilla movie ever - even if you and Toho didn't like it.

Tristar - who made a ton internationally but didn't break even domestically when you factor in the 22 million spent on domestic marketing- were unhappy enough with it to cancel planned sequels and give Toho the go-ahead to restart their franchise a year later (which, per their contract with Tristar, was supposed to be on hold for as long as the American series continued).

The professional critics- http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/godzilla/ - didn't like it either.

The theater companies- who couldn't fill seats and were only allowed to keep something like 15% of the per-ticket-sales the first few weeks- weren't all too happy with it.

Trendmasters and other licensors- who lost money after the tepid response to the film failed to move their product- weren't too happy with it.

The retail companies like Toys R Us, KB Toys, Wal-Mart, etc. and their shareholders- who lost money because they had to clearance the Godzilla merchandise to get it to move- didn't think too fondly of it.

Taco Bell- who signed-on as a licensor after Burger King passed only to find nobody wanted their Godzilla tie-in merchandise and it wasn't doing anything for business- was pretty disappointed with it.


At their most successful the traditional Godzilla films have grossed over 3 to 4 times over their meager budgets, and even after the financial flop of Godzilla: Final Wars they continue to rake in royalties from the thriving collectibles industry.

In what way does any of that amount to "Godzilla98 was still the most successful Godzilla movie ever"?

AbsumZer0 wrote:

Milanion wrote:Godzilla98 was still the most successful Godzilla movie ever - even if you and Toho didn't like it.

Tristar - who made a ton internationally but didn't break even domestically when you factor in the 22 million spent on domestic marketing- were unhappy enough with it to cancel planned sequels and give Toho the go-ahead to restart their franchise a year later (which, per their contract with Tristar, was supposed to be on hold for as long as the American series continued).

The professional critics- http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/godzilla/ - didn't like it either.

The theater companies- who couldn't fill seats and were only allowed to keep something like 15% of the per-ticket-sales the first few weeks- weren't all too happy with it.

Trendmasters and other licensors- who lost money after the tepid response to the film failed to move their product- weren't too happy with it.

The retail companies like Toys R Us, KB Toys, Wal-Mart, etc. and their shareholders- who lost money because they had to clearance the Godzilla merchandise to get it to move- didn't think too fondly of it.

Taco Bell- who signed-on as a licensor after Burger King passed only to find nobody wanted their Godzilla tie-in merchandise and it wasn't doing anything for business- was pretty disappointed with it.


At their most successful the traditional Godzilla films have grossed over 3 to 4 times over their meager budgets, and even after the financial flop of Godzilla: Final Wars they continue to rake in royalties from the thriving collectibles industry.

In what way does any of that amount to "Godzilla98 was still the most successful Godzilla movie ever"?

Because, as even you said, "worldwide" it earned about 25 times more than any other movie in the franchise.

Taco Bell, Trendmasters, whatever - that's not the movie. The movie is the movie. It was successful as a movie. It was the most successful of the Godzilla movies.

I love that TF isn't my Star Wars. I love it yes, but I don't have the fanboy mind for it. Basically I'll just watch this movie with an open mind. It'll still suck, but not because the TF's don't look like their cartoon conterparts or their names were changed. As a matter of fact I'm loving these new design elements and think they work well for the screen.

I feel for alot of you though, I guess if they ever made a Star Wars TV show and Jabba was blue, thin, and had legs, I'd be pretty pissed too.

Milanion wrote:
Because, as even you said, "worldwide" it earned about 25 times more than any other movie in the franchise.

Taco Bell, Trendmasters, whatever - that's not the movie. The movie is the movie. It was successful as a movie. It was the most successful of the Godzilla movies.

Milanion wrote:
Because, as even you said, "worldwide" it earned about 25 times more than any other movie in the franchise.

Taco Bell, Trendmasters, whatever - that's not the movie. The movie is the movie. It was successful as a movie. It was the most successful of the Godzilla movies.

It also cost about 250 times more to make. Toho's most successful films typically cost around 10 million and earn 18-20 million, nearly twice what they spent on it and their low production costs mean lower investment risks. They, like most big-budget films in the U.S., make a large chunk of their profit off of licensing and royalties.

You can proclaim Godzilla a genuine success based solely on it's worldwide earnings, but you'd be looking at it with blinders on. The risk the investors took eventually paid off but after the negativity the film spawned and the failure of the licensors to generate a profit they wouldn't have touched a sequel. If it were a genuine success it would have spawned sequels as planned, not been the mocked stillbirth of a planned domestic franchise. It was a critical and financial flop and everyone but Tristar got hosed by it.

EDIT: By those same standards, Burton's Planet of the Apes would have been the most successful Planet of the Apes film.

AbsumZer0 wrote:Toho's most successful films typically cost around 10 million and earn 18-20 million, nearly twice what they spent on it and their low production costs mean lower investment risks.

So 10 million profit is better than 150 million?

AbsumZer0 wrote:The risk the investors took eventually paid off

So again, you point out that the movie was successful. What happened as far a future investment in a sequel is irrelavant.

AbsumZer0 wrote:It was a critical and financial flop and everyone but Tristar got hosed by it.

So the movie was a success for the company that made it, but that should be overshadowed by the bad profit margins experienced by third party merchandise licensors that had nothing to do with the actual movie itself?

You are trying to make a point by attempting to make irrelavant factors overshadow relevant factors.

Milanion wrote:
You are trying to make a point by attempting to make irrelavant factors overshadow relevant factors.

Of course. He's one of the ones running around trying to tell people that they arn't real Transformer fans if they like the new movie.

Milanion wrote:So 10 million profit is better than 150 million?

To an individual, no, but to a company, yes, because you're doubling your investment without the huge risk.

Milanion wrote:So again, you point out that the movie was successful. What happened as far a future investment in a sequel is irrelavant.

No, it isn't. If it were a small independent picture then yeah, it would be a success. When you're producing major big-budget summer blockbuster and everyone whose put trust in your property gets screwed while you make a profit primarily because you demand an exceedingly large percentage of the box-office take in the first two weeks (after which nobody is going to see it anyway because of poor word-of-mouth) you've screwed-up. Consider how many merchandise tie-ins Tristar has managed to get since Godzilla. Their biggest budgeted film since then has been what... Silent Hill with 50 million? They made their money but they screwed themselves and they're back to small-budget independent films because of Godzilla.

Milanion wrote:So the movie was a success for the company that made it, but that should be overshadowed by the bad profit margins experienced by third party merchandise licensors that had nothing to do with the actual movie itself?

You are trying to make a point by attempting to make irrelavant factors overshadow relevant factors

The movie was a financial success for the company that made it. It was a financial flop as far as anyone else involved was concerned, making it a commercial flop, and the damage it did to Tristar in terms of their reputations and corporations willing to work with them probably wasn't worth it.

They're not irrelevant. The licensees are a huge part of the movie industry as a whole. If you can't grasp the relevance of critical failure and the financial losses of the 2nd-party companies then you're probably the sort who still doesn't understand why a sequel was never made and thinks a Planet of the Apes sequel is going to be announced any day now.

Ironhidensh wrote:

Milanion wrote:
You are trying to make a point by attempting to make irrelavant factors overshadow relevant factors.

Of course. He's one of the ones running around trying to tell people that they arn't real Transformer fans if they like the new movie.

Where exactly did I ever say or infer that? Seriously, I'd like to know.

I'm sorry, but these designs are terrible. If I wanted to watch Gundam, Evangelion, and other Anime series styled robots, I'd watch those shows/movies. Frankly, this movie is a complete "flipping of the bird" to the original series ALL THE WAY through to what we see now with Cybertron and the BinalTech/Alternators toys. Bay and company have taken a cherished and treasured franchise and turned it into typical cinematic Hollywood dookie.

Terrible. Simply terrible.

Word.

AbsumZer0 wrote:To an individual, no, but to a company, yes, because you're doubling your investment without the huge risk.

Interesting. I manage a company branch, and this is news to me.

AbsumZer0 wrote:When you're producing major big-budget summer blockbuster and everyone whose put trust in your property gets screwed while you make a profit primarily because you demand an exceedingly large percentage of the box-office take in the first two weeks (after which nobody is going to see it anyway because of poor word-of-mouth) you've screwed-up.

Re-read that, and think of it from Tri-star's point of view.

AbsumZer0 wrote:They made their money but they screwed themselves and they're back to small-budget independent films because of Godzilla.

Just because they couldn't make another blockbuster as big as Godzilla, doesn't have anything to do with Godzilla. That's the company's fault for not investing in lucrative properties. Again, this has nothing to do with Godzilla's success as a movie - just you trying to associate failure with it.

AbsumZer0 wrote:The movie was a financial success for the company that made it.

Yep, end of sentence.

AbsumZer0 wrote:If you can't grasp the relevance of critical failure and the financial losses of the 2nd-party companies then you're probably the sort who still doesn't understand why a sequel was never made and thinks a Planet of the Apes sequel is going to be announced any day now.

I'm the sort that knows when someone blindly wants something to be considered a "failure" for personal reasons, even when confronted with the basic facts. Since you refuse to accept facts which are relavant, I think I'm done with this one.

American Godzilla made $379,014,294 worldwide, with a budget of $125 million.

Toho can make double their production costs, but TriStar made triple.

And making money is the only thing that can make a movie a financial success. And it made lots of money.

Milanion wrote:
I'm the sort that knows when someone blindly wants something to be considered a "failure" for personal reasons, even when confronted with the basic facts. Since you refuse to accept facts which are relavant, I think I'm done with this one.

And I'm the sort who knows when someone wants to believe something so badly they'll insist that everything but the one piece of information they think will prove their point to be 'irrelevant'.

Nearly every Hollywood rag, entertainment magazine, and news company has referred to the Tristar Godzilla as a 'flop' at some time or another.

"Despite slick computer special effects and a $125 million budget, U.S. studio TriStar's 1998 Godzilla was a colossal flop." -CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/ ... 7015.shtml

"The green monster was resurrected as a computer-generated creature in a Hollywood blockbuster five years ago but the $120m (£65.5m) film was a flop." -BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3529465.stm

"Some monsters just won't die, even when they flop on the big screen. Godzilla, that giant dinosaur that was seen ravaging New York this summer in the ultra-expensive Hollywood version of the Japanese cult classic, will return to the movies, this time with Japan's Toho Company."- CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/News/9812/14/showbuzz/

"Forget the abominable Godzilla imposed on the public two years ago by Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich. That state-of-the-art flop drained every ounce of fun from the franchise, replacing its adorable cheesiness with expertly computerized destruction." - St. Petersburg Times
http://www.sptimes.com/News/081800/Week ... _s_b.shtml

Google it and you'll find dozens more.

It was a flop. Tristar lost major industry credit over it. They were trying to get a piece of the summer-blockbuster pie and Godzilla was a major mis-step. The people involved in the film have admitted they made major mistakes. Believing otherwise doesn't change that.

None of those articles list or address any financial information other than the budget. Flop is used to describe the reviews, not the financials.

Try again.

Shadowman wrote:American Godzilla made $379,014,294 worldwide, with a budget of $125 million.

It's all right there. That's a $254,000,000 profit. Prove "that" as a financial failure.

Milanion wrote:None of those articles list or address any financial information other than the budget. Flop is used to describe the reviews, not the financials.

Try again.

flop /flɒp/ -verb, flopped, flop·ping, noun
–verb (used without object)

3. to be a complete failure; fail: The play flopped dismally.

Flop is being used to describe the film as a whole, not whether it made money. The argument isn't whether Tristar pulled a profit, they did. That, by itself, does not make a film a 'success'. In this case it wasn't a success, it was a flop. A sequel never could have gotten off the ground because after opening weekend it was DOA and nobody would have touched a sequel. That does not = success in the film industry.

"Biggest Flop 1998: "Godzilla." It got a tremendous amount of hype but the movie flopped so no one wanted the licensed products. It's always risky to license a movie because it can be a very expensive flop. Of course, if you go with a successful movie, you're golden. Movies about insects were a much better choice this year. * Hottest License 1999: unable to predict at this time, but it will probably be a movie "
-Selling to Kids (toy industry rag)
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_53710950

Milanion wrote:

Shadowman wrote:American Godzilla made $379,014,294 worldwide, with a budget of $125 million.

It's all right there. That's a $254,000,000 profit. Prove "that" as a financial failure.

COMMERCIAL FAILURE. AS A WHOLE. AS IN IN REGARDS TO THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY.

QuietStorm wrote:I'm sorry, but these designs are terrible. If I wanted to watch Gundam, Evangelion, and other Anime series styled robots, I'd watch those shows/movies.

These robots look NOTHING LIKE ANIME MECHA'S
ffs people, if you have no clue what you are talking about then don't talk!

Spoon wrote:

QuietStorm wrote:I'm sorry, but these designs are terrible. If I wanted to watch Gundam, Evangelion, and other Anime series styled robots, I'd watch those shows/movies.

These robots look NOTHING LIKE ANIME MECHA'S
ffs people, if you have no clue what you are talking about then don't talk!

yeah, I've never seen robots like these anywhere. I expect the closest they come to anime would be Evangelion, but even that's a pretty big stretch.

AbsumZer0 wrote:COMMERCIAL FAILURE. AS A WHOLE. AS IN IN REGARDS TO THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY.

I hate to break it to you, but you still have no "proof" - just circumstantial evidence as before.

Get a calculator. Subtract $125 million from $379 million. The number you get is called net profit.

Guess what, a movie doesn't fail financially when it makes a $254 million dollar profit on it's investment of $125m.

Also, I guess I'll be the one to break it to you, a $254m profit is better than a $10m profit.

The fact that you can't seem to grasp either basic concept is amazing.

If a movie doesn't make more than it's budget, it's a financial flop.

Look up, that is not the case here - it's the complete opposite.

Time to move on.

Milanion wrote:

AbsumZer0 wrote:COMMERCIAL FAILURE. AS A WHOLE. AS IN IN REGARDS TO THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY.

I hate to break it to you, but you still have no "proof" - just circumstantial evidence as before.

Get a calculator. Subtract $125 million from $379 million. The number you get is called net profit.

Guess what, a movie doesn't fail financially when it makes a $254 million dollar profit on it's investment of $125m.

Also, I guess I'll be the one to break it to you, a $254m profit is better than a $10m profit.

The fact that you can't seem to grasp either basic concept is amazing.

If a movie doesn't make more than it's budget, it's a financial flop.

Look up, that is not the case here - it's the complete opposite.

Time to move on.

If you regard every fact other than what the studio made as 'irrelevant', as you have. Meanwhile every industry analyst (people who, unlike you, actually make a living in the industry) have in hindsight taken all the factors you've deemed 'irrelevant' into account, like the fact that Tristar demanded a then-unheard of 80% of ticket sales for the first few weeks in the U.S. and other nations while ticket sales dropped 60% by the 2nd weekend, and almost universally declared the film a 'flop' or 'failure'. You can believe what you like but I personally feel they're more likely to know what it is they're talking about than some guy on a fan forum.

What do they care? They made a load of money, three times as much as they spent on the whole thing.

Doesn't matter what the critics think if the company has a hefty wallet after the whole ordeal.

you know, you can stop trying to prove that godzilla made a large profit at the box office, because nobody's denying it. the point absumzer0 is making is that, although it made a profit, it also significantly damaged tristar's credibility and power in the industry because it was so bad that nobody wanted the merchandise. as a result, the profit they made from the box office take on the film wasn't as much as they lost over the next few years because most big-time investors wouldn't come near them after that movie. hence, for tristar as well as everyone else concerned, the movie was a huge mistake.

to summarize, it was a financial success, but also proved to be a huge commercial flop. you guys are fighting two different arguments, and you're both right.

AbsumZer0 wrote:If you regard every fact other than what the studio made as 'irrelevant', as you have. Meanwhile every industry analyst (people who, unlike you, actually make a living in the industry) have in hindsight taken all the factors you've deemed 'irrelevant' into account, like the fact that Tristar demanded a then-unheard of 80% of ticket sales for the first few weeks in the U.S. and other nations while ticket sales dropped 60% by the 2nd weekend, and almost universally declared the film a 'flop' or 'failure'. You can believe what you like but I personally feel they're more likely to know what it is they're talking about than some guy on a fan forum.

I can only present the blatant facts so many times. If you can't accept them, that's fine, but I'm officially done wasting my time here.