5150 Cruiser wrote: I can agree that many times contracts for films are made for multiple movies and when the first hits a certain profit margin, a sequel is automaticly green lit. But in this case, i still have a hard time believing that Hasbro did not at minimuim, write in the contract that they could revise as they saw fit between each movie based on one main point..
1.- This was all new. New to hasbro, New to Bay, new to the writers. No one knew how a live action movie would pan out on the big screen. It was a learning process. when you learning, your bound to make mistakes. Thus, you want to learn from them. SO for Hasbro to just up and sign a contract for three movies with zero say on how the end script/robot designs etc. pan out, makes zero sence.
As I stated, knowing Spielberg and Bay, I'm sure they wouldnt have signed up unless they had full creative control.
And given that, Hasbro would have had 2 choices, agree or find someone else.
And the truth is, Spielberg and Bay are good bets.Turn them down and theres a good chance you wont get anyone else, of that Caliber, to take the project.
I understand Hasbro does not do there own writing and outsource for this. But this isn't there first rodeo. Again, i'm not calling you a liar by any means, but i have a hrad time believing this is the standard contract for any comic book/toy brand movie adaption.
I'm not saying its standard, but its common when playing with the Big boys like Spielberg and Bay.
If I was Hasbro, I would have taken a shot with a l esser known director.But they wanted big names attached to the creative team.
Your right it is an opinion and i'm not saying it is the correct one. I was just using it as an example since it seemed to be a comon complaint from people that didn't like the movies. And your right that nor Habro, bay, Spilsberg or anyone envolved is going to take the dislikes of a very, very small portion of the fan base as a reason to make provisions. Right now there something like a 90% approval on Rotten Tomatoes and 93% on fandango. So while many might think there are problems, the majority say they got it right. (for the most part).
sad but true
Fair enough. But at this point more evidence is seeming to be pointing to it being a mistake.
I wouldnt call "Excuses" evidence.
Sorry but it seems unlikely that it was a mistake.they did several test screenings for the cast,creators and Hasbro, and at leat 2 for the public [selected persons]
I know from what the writers claim they informed all involved about the naming issue at the first screen test and at each that followed.And they expect us to believe that it still slipped buy all those guys.
No less they told us it would be fixed for the DVD release, but I heard Bay made a comment like "theres nothing to fix".
there are far better examples that one can use than one 2 sec. on screen name of a character.
it actually appeared 2 times on film, but thats not important.
And I'm not trying to cry "foul" or anything, I'm just showing it as an example that its likely Bay would have done vwhat he wanted.