Mark Wahlberg Confirms Return to Paramount Transformers 5

Wow. This is wonderful news. I can't wait.

Well, he is much more believable as a hero than Shia was. I will take it vs. the alternative.

I understand that a Transformers movie taking place on Earth pretty much means that humans are going to show up, and that we do have our key humans to the cast of characters, but what makes them so d@%n special where they get top billing over the REAL STARS that are in the movie. I swear, humans being given the main treatment in these movies is the equivalent of an Avengers movie focusing on Shield or a TMNT movie focusing on April O'Neil ( ). And with news that a whole new trilogy of films are planned, do you really think they learned their lesson at this point? Tying into this news, I honestly don't want to see Mark Whalburg's character or his daughter and smug@#& boyfriend again. Can we please get some Autobots and Decepticons with motives and individual goals instead of "RIVETING" side plots like "who's dating my daughter" or "who's gonna make big bucks off alien technology"? (And please don't try to tell me that all of that was necessary. As much as I don't like Transformers The Movie, At least the focus was on the Transformers.)

And yes, I agree Whalburg's Cade is "better" than Shia's Sam, but in the grand scheme of things, both are interchangeable, and most importantly, expendable.

Slashercon wrote:I understand that a Transformers movie taking place on Earth pretty much means that humans are going to show up, and that we do have our key humans to the cast of characters, but what makes them so d@%n special where they get top billing over the REAL STARS that are in the movie. I swear, humans being given the main treatment in these movies is the equivalent of an Avengers movie focusing on Shield or a TMNT movie focusing on April O'Neil ( ). And with news that a whole new trilogy of films are planned, do you really think they learned their lesson at this point? Tying into this news, I honestly don't want to see Mark Whalburg's character or his daughter and smug@#& boyfriend again. Can we please get some Autobots and Decepticons with motives and individual goals instead of "RIVETING" side plots like "who's dating my daughter" or "who's gonna make big bucks off alien technology"? (And please don't try to tell me that all of that was necessary. As much as I don't like Transformers The Movie, At least the focus was on the Transformers.)

There's a longstanding prejudice that animation is for children, and since the Transformers in these films are animated works (no matter how "realistic" they might be designed to look), they're viewed less as "characters" than the human actors are, as the human actors are live action and "real" people instead of "fake" cartoon creations.

I have a strong feeling that if the Transformers were real people in armored costumed suits instead of all-CGI, there'd be a better chance of them getting more focal characterization than they do now. Or, if the films were completely animated instead of in live action, then the chance would be even more likely. But then that gets back to the "cartoons are for kids" prejudice, and a lot of moviegoers don't want to watch "kids' stuff", preferring live action films instead, which also brings us back to how CGI characters in live action films aren't viewed in the same light as how live human actors in live action films are viewed.

We Transfans don't feel this same kind of prejudice because we are used to robots as human-like characters, having seen them depicted as such in our cartoons and comic books. The common moviegoer audience, however, is less used to such due to a lack of the same degree of material exposure that we fans have had, as most of that material is viewed as "kids' stuff".

What lesson is it they're suppose to be learning?

All the movies have been massive financial successes. That tends to say that the MAJORITY of the public like them. So what should they be learning? Because what they're doing is obviously working.

Burn wrote:What lesson is it they're suppose to be learning?

All the movies have been massive financial successes. That tends to say that the MAJORITY of the public like them. So what should they be learning? Because what they're doing is obviously working.

I quoted this as it's all true, and it's something that a lot lot of people ignore.

You may not like the movies but there is plenty of people out there who did and each film gas made more then they cost to make so they are like golden geese for hasbro.

Ask yourself: how many people would really go and see a humanless tf movie, how many average movie goers would see such a thing

Sabrblade wrote:

Slashercon wrote:I understand that a Transformers movie taking place on Earth pretty much means that humans are going to show up, and that we do have our key humans to the cast of characters, but what makes them so d@%n special where they get top billing over the REAL STARS that are in the movie. I swear, humans being given the main treatment in these movies is the equivalent of an Avengers movie focusing on Shield or a TMNT movie focusing on April O'Neil ( ). And with news that a whole new trilogy of films are planned, do you really think they learned their lesson at this point? Tying into this news, I honestly don't want to see Mark Whalburg's character or his daughter and smug@#& boyfriend again. Can we please get some Autobots and Decepticons with motives and individual goals instead of "RIVETING" side plots like "who's dating my daughter" or "who's gonna make big bucks off alien technology"? (And please don't try to tell me that all of that was necessary. As much as I don't like Transformers The Movie, At least the focus was on the Transformers.)

There's a longstanding prejudice that animation is for children, and since the Transformers in these films are animated works (no matter how "realistic" they might be designed to look), they're viewed less as "characters" than the human actors are, as the human actors are live action and "real" people instead of "fake" cartoon creations.

I have a strong feeling that if the Transformers were real people in armored costumed suits instead of all-CGI, there'd be a better chance of them getting more focal characterization than they do now. Or, if the films were completely animated instead of in live action, then the chance would be even more likely. But then that gets back to the "cartoons are for kids" prejudice, and a lot of moviegoers don't want to watch "kids' stuff", preferring live action films instead, which also brings us back to how CGI characters in live action films aren't viewed in the same light as how live human actors in live action films are viewed.

We Transfans don't feel this same kind of prejudice because we are used to robots as human-like characters, having seen them depicted as such in our cartoons and comic books. The common moviegoer audience, however, is less used to such due to a lack of the same degree of material exposure that we fans have had, as most of that material is viewed as "kids' stuff".

Sad but true. Even so, Frozen is the highest grossing animated "kids film" of all time, which if you check, made more money than Transformers Age of Extinction. Sure you have to factor in the franchise appeal and PG-13 rating, but it still says something. The main reason why I'm complaining is because I have witnessed great Transformers stories and characters in animated series, comics, and video games. I just want the same love and admiration put into a Transformers movie while properly translating it for a good screenplay. I wish this for a lot of properties, but Transformers more-so.

ZeroWolf wrote:

Burn wrote:What lesson is it they're suppose to be learning?

All the movies have been massive financial successes. That tends to say that the MAJORITY of the public like them. So what should they be learning? Because what they're doing is obviously working.

I quoted this as it's all true, and it's something that a lot lot of people ignore.

You may not like the movies but there is plenty of people out there who did and each film gas made more then they cost to make so they are like golden geese for hasbro.

Ask yourself: how many people would really go and see a humanless tf movie, how many average movie goers would see such a thing

People can be...for lack of better terms; iggnorant, gullible, and confused at times (people, as in general, don't shoot the messenger because I'm respectfully saying what people HAVE been and CAN be), BUT that doesn't mean that they should be treated as such. People learned to like the movies despite all their flaws already. Why not improve upon said flaws that many have with the films while engaging the viewers in to something with even grander possibilities? Whether that means actually cutting back on unnecessary "humor" or reversing the amount of screen time each species receives. What I'm saying, is that Hasbro and Paramount can make their cake, make money, and leave with even a higher level of "satisfied" customers (where even critics will give them positive reviews). What they're doing now whoever, is the lazy mundane road where they make money regardless. That what ticks me off too.

Also, I never said that the movies had to be humanless, but take a more subtle approach to human exposure. The Transformer/Human ratio isn't balanced as well as I feel it can be.

PS (I don't like to resort to name-calling, so if anybody is offended by my comments, I apologize, but in this forum I really wanted to get this off my chest about how I feel about the franchise going forward. And when you feel like other don't understand where you're coming from, you get frustrated. So again apologies. )

Slashercon wrote:People learned to like the movies despite all their flaws already. Why not improve upon said flaws that many have with the films while engaging the viewers in to something with even grander possibilities?

But what flaws? Are you speaking from your own perspective or from the perspective of the masses that went and made the movies the financial successes they were?

I'm not taking a dig at you, personally I think with each movie they've gotten worse and worse (I've only watched AoE once) and I firmly blame the writers. Even if I weren't a Transformers fan I think I'd still have trouble sitting through AoE.

But that's just me. Clearly there's millions of other movie goers out there that think otherwise. They like the movies for what they are, action movies that are a temporary escape from reality.

Burn wrote:

Slashercon wrote:People learned to like the movies despite all their flaws already. Why not improve upon said flaws that many have with the films while engaging the viewers in to something with even grander possibilities?

But what flaws? Are you speaking from your own perspective or from the perspective of the masses that went and made the movies the financial successes they were?

I'm not taking a dig at you, personally I think with each movie they've gotten worse and worse (I've only watched AoE once) and I firmly blame the writers. Even if I weren't a Transformers fan I think I'd still have trouble sitting through AoE.

But that's just me. Clearly there's millions of other movie goers out there that think otherwise. They like the movies for what they are, action movies that are a temporary escape from reality.

In your defense, though, AOE did the worst financially of the four domestically, with only the international screenings (especially in China) helping to boost its financial success back up to match with (and even overtake) the first three. So, that it did the poorest in its own country before getting help later does help your case about how AOE could be seen by the moviegoers as more of a downer than the other three.

Chiming in here, I found Wahlberg's character much more appealing than shia, and I actually very much enjoyed his character. He interacts well with the autobots and he is determined and dedicated, not dramatic. And he had good reasons to fight, and he showed himself a great ally with the ability to actually contribute usefully and intelligently. That and he could pull off the human with alien gun far better than most

Burn wrote:

Slashercon wrote:People learned to like the movies despite all their flaws already. Why not improve upon said flaws that many have with the films while engaging the viewers in to something with even grander possibilities?

But what flaws? Are you speaking from your own perspective or from the perspective of the masses that went and made the movies the financial successes they were?

I'm not taking a dig at you, personally I think with each movie they've gotten worse and worse (I've only watched AoE once) and I firmly blame the writers. Even if I weren't a Transformers fan I think I'd still have trouble sitting through AoE.

But that's just me. Clearly there's millions of other movie goers out there that think otherwise. They like the movies for what they are, action movies that are a temporary escape from reality.

Agreed. Since they are being made to generate money at the box office, they are certainly performing their intended purpose. Pleasing the biggest group of action movie goers is the purpose, not pleasing a handful of toy fans.

Sabrblade wrote:AOE did the worst financially of the four domestically, with only the international screenings (especially in China) helping to boost its financial success back up to match with (and even overtake) the first three. So, that it did the poorest in its own country before getting help later does help your case about how AOE could be seen by the moviegoers as more of a downer than the other three.

IMO, even with the faulty screenwriting, I thought AoE's biggest problem was its running time. It was just soooooooo loooooooong. 2 hours and 45 minutes IIRC. Add to that the previews and commercials, plus the time it takes to stand in line for tickets and concessions, and a family is at the theater for close to 4 hours. That's hard to manage, especially with children, so I think that had a lot to do with the poorer ticket sales of AoE in relation to its predecessors.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:AOE did the worst financially of the four domestically, with only the international screenings (especially in China) helping to boost its financial success back up to match with (and even overtake) the first three. So, that it did the poorest in its own country before getting help later does help your case about how AOE could be seen by the moviegoers as more of a downer than the other three.

IMO, even with the faulty screenwriting, I thought AoE's biggest problem was its running time. It was just soooooooo loooooooong. 2 hours and 45 minutes IIRC. Add to that the previews and commercials, plus the time it takes to stand in line for tickets and concessions, and a family is at the theater for close to 4 hours. That's hard to manage, especially with children, so I think that had a lot to do with the poorer ticket sales of AoE in relation to its predecessors.

Had it been kept closer to that initial running time of 2 hours 7 minutes, it may have been better, even going to 2 hours 17 minutes would not have hurt

D-Maximus_Prime wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:AOE did the worst financially of the four domestically, with only the international screenings (especially in China) helping to boost its financial success back up to match with (and even overtake) the first three. So, that it did the poorest in its own country before getting help later does help your case about how AOE could be seen by the moviegoers as more of a downer than the other three.

IMO, even with the faulty screenwriting, I thought AoE's biggest problem was its running time. It was just soooooooo loooooooong. 2 hours and 45 minutes IIRC. Add to that the previews and commercials, plus the time it takes to stand in line for tickets and concessions, and a family is at the theater for close to 4 hours. That's hard to manage, especially with children, so I think that had a lot to do with the poorer ticket sales of AoE in relation to its predecessors.

Had it been kept closer to that initial running time of 2 hours 7 minutes, it may have been better, even going to 2 hours 17 minutes would not have hurt

Yeah, with how long the movie was and all the stuff that was crammed into its story, AOE honestly felt to me like it was two (or even two and a half) completely separate movie scripts that were spliced together. One about the Autobots being on the run and hunted by Lockdown and Cemetery Wind, and one about KSI creating manmade Transformers whom Galvatron secretly manipulates. Then you got the even more vague stuff about the Creators and the Knights which felt like had come from yet another movie script (hence the "and a half" part).

It honestly felt as coherent as TF: Prime's "Darkness Rising" five-parter (which also has a similar "two different stories merged together" feel), and its length rendered it being more of a four-act movie than a three-act one.

Sabrblade wrote:

D-Maximus_Prime wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:AOE did the worst financially of the four domestically, with only the international screenings (especially in China) helping to boost its financial success back up to match with (and even overtake) the first three. So, that it did the poorest in its own country before getting help later does help your case about how AOE could be seen by the moviegoers as more of a downer than the other three.

IMO, even with the faulty screenwriting, I thought AoE's biggest problem was its running time. It was just soooooooo loooooooong. 2 hours and 45 minutes IIRC. Add to that the previews and commercials, plus the time it takes to stand in line for tickets and concessions, and a family is at the theater for close to 4 hours. That's hard to manage, especially with children, so I think that had a lot to do with the poorer ticket sales of AoE in relation to its predecessors.

Had it been kept closer to that initial running time of 2 hours 7 minutes, it may have been better, even going to 2 hours 17 minutes would not have hurt

Yeah, with how long the movie was and all the stuff that was crammed into its story, AOE honestly felt to me like it was two (or even two and a half) completely separate movie scripts that were spliced together. One about the Autobots being on the run and hunted by Lockdown and Cemetery Wind, and one about KSI creating manmade Transformers whom Galvatron secretly manipulates. Then you got the even more vague stuff about the Creators and the Knights which felt like had come from yet another movie script (hence the "and a half" part).

It honestly felt as coherent as TF: Prime's "Darkness Rising" five-parter (which also has a similar "two different stories merged together" feel), and its length rendered it being more of a four-act movie than a three-act one.

Pretty much my opinion too. Lockdown and Galvatron were 2 completely separate story lines that just mangled together and really should have been 2 different movies. both storylines would have benefited from that

There's nothing to suggest that it won't! but if this movie doesn't pick up from where the last one ended.....then i'm gonna be pissed!

btw hopefully we'll get to see Ultra Magnus, Blur & Kup in this one

You missed out Hot Rod

ZeroWolf wrote:You missed out Hot Rod

are we sure he's in it? in fact are we sure any of those will be in it?