New Rise of the Beasts TV Spot Shows Scourge against Optimus Prime and Cheetor Transforming

Hydrargyrus wrote:What in the world? Man’s just tryna say that it’s easier to relate to a character that looks like you, because race/ethnicity tends to run a little more than skin-deep. That shouldn’t be controversial.

THAT is the main problem. If you can only relate to a character that "look like you", you have a serious problem.

I've seem movies since ever.

I was Ripley fighting Aliens.
I was Axel Foley solving crimes in Miami.
I was Rambo, mowing down enemies.
I was a German Shepherd trying to find his way home.
I was a freaking TOASTER having a trippy journey.

If you want to "look at you", you narcissist, just get a mirror.

Frankly, I think this film is going to flop. I'm stoked for it myself, but no one I've talked to IRL even knows this movie exists. The thing has been barely marketed even though it was announced like two years ago. Hell, we got that first "teaser" back in December and then nothing until, what, like a few weeks ago until we finally got a "full" trailer? Furthermore, these trailers tells us absolutely nothing about the Maximals. Why are there suddenly animal Transformers? Chances are if you're under 30, you'll have no clue about what Beast Wars is and who these characters are. I used to work with a lot of teenagers who were self-professed big fans of Transformers, and none of them had any idea what Beast Wars was, and thought the idea was stupid when I explained it to them. There's also the notion that G1 fans (most of whom don't like these movies, anyway) are aging out of being regular theatre moviegoers, so I have to wonder who this film is even for. Hopefully kids will see this and immediately become fans of Ronnie Primal and Cheetor, but who knows?

TOO MUCH ENERGON! wrote:G1 fans (most of whom don't like these movies, anyway) are aging out of being regular theatre moviegoers . . .

We're not ageing out. We just aren't impressed by CGI explosion porn and shallow, ham-fisted identity politics, which is what this is shaping up to be.

We grew up watching movies that redefined genres. Star Wars. Raiders of the Lost Ark. Alien. John Carpenter's The Thing. The Terminator. Not the Disney-fied stripmined versions or "reimagined for modern audiences" nonsense they're trying to sell us now. We're not too old to go to the theater for a good movie. We're smart enough to spot a shit-show when we see it and not waste our money on it. Nursing homes are expensive.

Brokebot wrote:

TOO MUCH ENERGON! wrote:G1 fans (most of whom don't like these movies, anyway) are aging out of being regular theatre moviegoers . . .

We're not ageing out. We just aren't impressed by CGI explosion porn and shallow, ham-fisted identity politics, which is what this is shaping up to be.

Just like the Bay movies.

Brokebot wrote:

TOO MUCH ENERGON! wrote:G1 fans (most of whom don't like these movies, anyway) are aging out of being regular theatre moviegoers . . .

We're not ageing out. We just aren't impressed by CGI explosion porn and shallow, ham-fisted identity politics, which is what this is shaping up to be.

We grew up watching movies that redefined genres. Star Wars. Raiders of the Lost Ark. Alien. John Carpenter's The Thing. The Terminator. Not the Disney-fied stripmined versions or "reimagined for modern audiences" nonsense they're trying to sell us now. We're not too old to go to the theater for a good movie. We're smart enough to spot a shit-show when we see it and not waste our money on it. Nursing homes are expensive.

You can take that stance if you like, but statistically people DO age-out of the movie theatre experience by and large. How many movies does you grandmother and great-grandmother go to see per year? Way less than when she was 20. I love all those movies you mentioned (I'm pushing 40 myself), and completely agree with you about being unimpressed by CGI spectacle. One of my favourite moviegoing experiences of the past several years was walking into a movie theatre in the middle of the day and watching The Peanut Butter Falcon.

EDIT: Representation in media is not a bad thing. White people are not the only race on earth. Get used to it.

TOO MUCH ENERGON! wrote:Representation in media is not a bad thing. White people are not the only race on earth. Get used to it.

I never said it was, so stop trying to paint me as a racist. But when the skin color, gender identity, or sexual orientation of the cast is more important than the quality of the story, your movie will fail and deservedly so.

Brokebot wrote:

TOO MUCH ENERGON! wrote:Representation in media is not a bad thing. White people are not the only race on earth. Get used to it.

I never said it was, so stop trying to paint me as a racist. But when the skin color, gender identity, or sexual orientation of the cast is more important than the quality of the story, your movie will fail and deservedly so.

Amen.

Brokebot wrote:

TOO MUCH ENERGON! wrote:Representation in media is not a bad thing. White people are not the only race on earth. Get used to it.

I never said it was, so stop trying to paint me as a racist. But when the skin color, gender identity, or sexual orientation of the cast is more important than the quality of the story, your movie will fail and deservedly so.

I don't recall the director saying it's "more" important than all else. Just that it's one aspect of the movie that's important to him.

Sabrblade wrote:

Brokebot wrote:

TOO MUCH ENERGON! wrote:Representation in media is not a bad thing. White people are not the only race on earth. Get used to it.

I never said it was, so stop trying to paint me as a racist. But when the skin color, gender identity, or sexual orientation of the cast is more important than the quality of the story, your movie will fail and deservedly so.

I don't recall the director saying it's "more" important than all else. Just that it's one aspect of the movie that's important to him.

Go back to page 1 and read about his first interview. He literally stated that this movie was "made for black and brown people." I called it out back then, and of course was labeled a racist by a couple narrow minded idiots here.

Regardless, that's not even a problem for me, there were non-whites in all the other movies and it wasn't a problem. My problem is that yet again the Transformers story gets short-changed.

-Kanrabat- wrote:

Brokebot wrote:

TOO MUCH ENERGON! wrote:Representation in media is not a bad thing. White people are not the only race on earth. Get used to it.

I never said it was, so stop trying to paint me as a racist. But when the skin color, gender identity, or sexual orientation of the cast is more important than the quality of the story, your movie will fail and deservedly so.

Amen.

And people should be allowed to discuss it. If a hollywood studio makes a diversity obsessed cringe-fest and calls it a movie (or a TV show), people should be free to call it out for what it is. Deciding that you don't like certain truths doesn't make them UN-true, nor unnoticed by the population. Forcing silence isn't creating 'unity', it's applying control - and wandering dangerously close to "peace through tyranny" (to loop it back to Tranformers-talk).

That said? The movie will probably make lots of money - after all, you never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator...

DeathReviews wrote:That said? The movie will probably make lots of money - after all, you never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator...

It'll make money, but will it make enough to get into the black. This has a $200 million production budget. Add to that marketing, distribution, and the theater's cut, they'll have to clear $500 million or more to get out of the red.

Brokebot wrote:

DeathReviews wrote:That said? The movie will probably make lots of money - after all, you never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator...

It'll make money, but will it make enough to get into the black. This has a $200 million production budget. Add to that marketing, distribution, and the theater's cut, they'll have to clear $500 million or more to get out of the red.

Yeah, it needs at least $500 M, but the good news is that it doesn't need much more than that either. Unlike the other big films, like Indy, Little Mermaid, Elemental and even Spider-verse, the film is very merchandise/licensing heavy. So any marketing push will contribute to sale of all things Transformers, not just the movie. I think we saw from past stats that Hasbro doubles in revenu from toy sales during movie years. If the film can prosper as a paid commercial for more consumer products, then that can be enough to justify making more of them.

The Flash movie is in the same boat as that where it's also very licensing and merchandise heavy.

william-james88 wrote:

Brokebot wrote:

DeathReviews wrote:That said? The movie will probably make lots of money - after all, you never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator...

It'll make money, but will it make enough to get into the black. This has a $200 million production budget. Add to that marketing, distribution, and the theater's cut, they'll have to clear $500 million or more to get out of the red.

Yeah, it needs at least $500 M, but the good news is that it doesn't need much more than that either. Unlike the other big films, like Indy, Little Mermaid, Elemental and even Spider-verse, the film is very merchandise/licensing heavy. So any marketing push will contribute to sale of all things Transformers, not just the movie. I think we saw from past stats that Hasbro doubles in revenu from toy sales during movie years. If the film can prosper as a paid commercial for more consumer products, then that can be enough to justify making more of them.

The Flash movie is in the same boat as that where it's also very licensing and merchandise heavy.

Even the worst movies like AoE and TLK broke records.

So for a Transformers movie to fail, it should be done on purpose.

I'm also thinking it will have a rough weekend given it comes out at the same time as the Flash and Spiderverse. That is going to be a very busy movie weekend

-Kanrabat- wrote:Even the worst movies like AoE and TLK broke records.

So for a Transformers movie to fail, it should be done on purpose.

TLK was such a turd burger that it's been blamed for affecting Bumblebee, which only cleared $468M against a budget of $130M.

I'm thinking that the Beasties will have a good opening weekend, then will have a second week nosedive. Hasbro may profit from it, but the movie itself will be a box office failure or barely profit.

Oh yeah, I remember that TLK did "fail" thus the Bee Movie "reboot".

-Kanrabat- wrote:Oh yeah, I remember that TLK did "fail" thus the Bee Movie "reboot".

Isn't it amazing that it's considered a failure because it didn't break a billion dollars during its theatrical run? Did DoTM and AoE (the 2 billionaires) spoil Hasbro's accountants that much?

Also, I don't have the link but I just read that Mark Wahlberg asked for and got a $40 million salary for TLK after AoE made that billion.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Oh yeah, I remember that TLK did "fail" thus the Bee Movie "reboot".

Isn't it amazing that it's considered a failure because it didn't break a billion dollars during its theatrical run? Did DoTM and AoE (the 2 billionaires) spoil Hasbro's accountants that much?

Also, I don't have the link but I just read that Mark Wahlberg asked for and got a $40 million salary for TLK after AoE made that billion.

TLK is considered a failure because it lost money, only TF movie to do so.

william-james88 wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Oh yeah, I remember that TLK did "fail" thus the Bee Movie "reboot".

Isn't it amazing that it's considered a failure because it didn't break a billion dollars during its theatrical run? Did DoTM and AoE (the 2 billionaires) spoil Hasbro's accountants that much?

Also, I don't have the link but I just read that Mark Wahlberg asked for and got a $40 million salary for TLK after AoE made that billion.

TLK is considered a failure because it lost money, only TF movie to do so.

Seriously? Didn't it make close to a billion? The production costs couldn't be that high.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

william-james88 wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Oh yeah, I remember that TLK did "fail" thus the Bee Movie "reboot".

Isn't it amazing that it's considered a failure because it didn't break a billion dollars during its theatrical run? Did DoTM and AoE (the 2 billionaires) spoil Hasbro's accountants that much?

Also, I don't have the link but I just read that Mark Wahlberg asked for and got a $40 million salary for TLK after AoE made that billion.

TLK is considered a failure because it lost money, only TF movie to do so.

Seriously? Didn't it make close to a billion? The production costs couldn't be that high.

$605 million against a budget of $260 million. The Chinese market lost interest after AoE.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

william-james88 wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Oh yeah, I remember that TLK did "fail" thus the Bee Movie "reboot".

Isn't it amazing that it's considered a failure because it didn't break a billion dollars during its theatrical run? Did DoTM and AoE (the 2 billionaires) spoil Hasbro's accountants that much?

Also, I don't have the link but I just read that Mark Wahlberg asked for and got a $40 million salary for TLK after AoE made that billion.

TLK is considered a failure because it lost money, only TF movie to do so.

Seriously? Didn't it make close to a billion? The production costs couldn't be that high.

No, not close at all. And yes, production cost was ridiculously high, 40 M alone went to Wahlberg.

The only thing TLK succeeded at was finally convincing Hasbro to let go of Bay as director, like he wanted ever since DOTM.

william-james88 wrote:No, not close at all. And yes, production cost was ridiculously high, 40 M alone went to Wahlberg.

ah the joys of movie producers having to pay over-rated actors.

And by over-rated I mean, they could have slotted any generic actor into that role. There was nothing amazing about what he did. Most people will be going to see these movies for the Transformers, not the big name actors anyway.

Burn wrote:

william-james88 wrote:No, not close at all. And yes, production cost was ridiculously high, 40 M alone went to Wahlberg.

ah the joys of movie producers having to pay over-rated actors.

And by over-rated I mean, they could have slotted any generic actor into that role. There was nothing amazing about what he did. Most people will be going to see these movies for the Transformers, not the big name actors anyway.

Something that just can't get into the heads of those Hollywood pundits.
That's why we got Chris Pratt Mario.

The age of the Hollywood Superstar is over for years now, but Hollywood desperately wants it to come back. And the necromancy keeps failing.

There's been rumblings of a live action Multiverse through rumours and wishful thinking but it's finally officially mentioned. It is part of Unicron's official bio, where he is mentioned to be the most omnipotent "force in the multiverse." The bio also mentions his intention for the Terrocons to get a key that "opens a portal in space and time".

You can read all the bios below. Though please be aware that while they do come from Hasbro, some parts are just copy pasted from TF Wiki.

I'm honestly confused by the negativity to a movie not yet released. You go to the YT comments on these trailers (a place that platform creators will be quick to tell you is filled with negativity), and there's so much excitement. First of all, lets be honest, the '86 movie was really not the best quality, but it's remembered by how fun it was. We got burned by the live action movies, yes, but look at Bumblebee. Look at the creator's attitudes. They same to have at least understood the complaints about the robots not getting the focus. And the CGI and action look so much better via the trailers than what we've gotten before. I am so excited to see this movie, as a Beast Wars fan, as a Transformers fan. This may not be the best, but it looks like it'll at least be fun.

Looks like The Shroud is coming undone! Sorry Nexus!

Nexus Knight wrote:I'm honestly confused by the negativity to a movie not yet released. You go to the YT comments on these trailers (a place that platform creators will be quick to tell you is filled with negativity), and there's so much excitement. First of all, lets be honest, the '86 movie was really not the best quality, but it's remembered by how fun it was. We got burned by the live action movies, yes, but look at Bumblebee. Look at the creator's attitudes. They same to have at least understood the complaints about the robots not getting the focus. And the CGI and action look so much better via the trailers than what we've gotten before. I am so excited to see this movie, as a Beast Wars fan, as a Transformers fan. This may not be the best, but it looks like it'll at least be fun.

Youtube is the internet as a whole, and full of paid shills, studio employees, and bots. This forum is dedicated fans, many of whom have followed the franchise since it's beginning.

Glowing, anonymous, generic reviews on a public platform do not guarantee ticket sales and butts in theater seats or a good movie on the screen.

Interesting that the alt mode for Stratosphere is listed as the ROTF amalgamation of a few different aircraft (taken verbatim from TFWiki), whereas in ROTB he’s a C-119.

EvasionModeBumblebee wrote:Interesting that the alt mode for Stratosphere is listed as the ROTF amalgamation of a few different aircraft (taken verbatim from TFWiki), whereas in ROTB he’s a C-119.

That's why. Whoever wrote his card text just copy-pasted from the wiki.

william-james88 wrote:There's been rumblings of a live action Multiverse through rumours and wishful thinking but it's finally officially mentioned. It is part of Unicron's official bio, where he is mentioned to be the most omnipotent "force in the multiverse." The bio also mentions his intention for the Terrocons to get a key that "opens a portal in space and time".

A "multiverse" covers continuity issues caused by lazy writing. Every movie is in it's own universe, which is why they have a new origin on earth and a different history with every one.

Brokebot wrote:Youtube is the internet as a whole, and full of paid shills, studio employees, and bots. This forum is dedicated fans, many of whom have followed the franchise since it's beginning.

Glowing, anonymous, generic reviews on a public platform do not guarantee ticket sales and butts in theater seats or a good movie on the screen.

Fair on the first point, but once again... even since the beginning, it hasn't been that "good". As I pointed out, it's fun, but broken down, the cartoon and '86 movie had a lot of problems. The only good stories (not just merely fun) I've had in Transformers media are comics and about half the cartoons. Let's not pretend this "to sell toys" franchise has been good. With that said... I'm still excited.

Sidebar: My main point was pointing out the overwhelming negativity. It seems to be a reoccurring theme for new stuff on this site and it's rather depressing, tbh.

Nexus Knight wrote:

Brokebot wrote:Youtube is the internet as a whole, and full of paid shills, studio employees, and bots. This forum is dedicated fans, many of whom have followed the franchise since it's beginning.

Glowing, anonymous, generic reviews on a public platform do not guarantee ticket sales and butts in theater seats or a good movie on the screen.

Fair on the first point, but once again... even since the beginning, it hasn't been that "good". As I pointed out, it's fun, but broken down, the cartoon and '86 movie had a lot of problems. The only good stories (not just merely fun) I've had in Transformers media are comics and about half the cartoons. Let's not pretend this "to sell toys" franchise has been good. With that said... I'm still excited.

Sidebar: My main point was pointing out the overwhelming negativity. It seems to be a reoccurring theme for new stuff on this site and it's rather depressing, tbh.

Lord, I loved the original cartoon in spite of it's contradictions back in the day, but I can barely make it through an episode now without some level of cringe. I actually enjoyed the first movie, but it quickly spiraled downhill thereafter. It shows how a critical eye comes with age, I suppose.

A "multiverse" covers continuity issues caused by lazy writing. Every movie is in it's own universe, which is why they have a new origin on earth and a different history with every one.

The 'multiverse' concept has become a crutch used by lazy writers when they run out of ideas. Whenever a new writer comes into a franchise and wants to put 'their stamp' on it, they fall into this gimmick as a cheap way to ret-con that franchise. Instead of conforming to the stories as they have already been told, they merely write what they think is cool, then bat aside any complaints about continuity by saying 'multiverse!'

It's like every hack writer in Hollywood has become Lucy Lawless in the "Collector" episode of the Simpsons. "Uh - yeah. Well - whenever you notice anything like that... a, uh.... multiverse did it!"

"But in the previous movie, they CLEARLY said..."

"MULTIVERSE!!!"

DeathReviews wrote:

A "multiverse" covers continuity issues caused by lazy writing. Every movie is in it's own universe, which is why they have a new origin on earth and a different history with every one.

The 'multiverse' concept has become a crutch used by lazy writers when they run out of ideas. Whenever a new writer comes into a franchise and wants to put 'their stamp' on it, they fall into this gimmick as a cheap way to ret-con that franchise. Instead of conforming to the stories as they have already been told, they merely write what they think is cool, then bat aside any complaints about continuity by saying 'multiverse!'

It's like every hack writer in Hollywood has become Lucy Lawless in the "Collector" episode of the Simpsons. "Uh - yeah. Well - whenever you notice anything like that... a, uh.... multiverse did it!"

"But in the previous movie, they CLEARLY said..."

"MULTIVERSE!!!"

So what you're saying is, the G1 cartoon contradicted the G1 Marvel comics because the cartoon was made by "lazy writers" who came "into a franchise" and wanted "to put 'their stamp' on it" instead of "conforming to the stories as they have already been told" in the G1 Marvel comics, which both preceded the cartoon by four months and established the foundation that all Transformers fiction was built upon.

Sabrblade wrote:

DeathReviews wrote:

A "multiverse" covers continuity issues caused by lazy writing. Every movie is in it's own universe, which is why they have a new origin on earth and a different history with every one.

The 'multiverse' concept has become a crutch used by lazy writers when they run out of ideas. Whenever a new writer comes into a franchise and wants to put 'their stamp' on it, they fall into this gimmick as a cheap way to ret-con that franchise. Instead of conforming to the stories as they have already been told, they merely write what they think is cool, then bat aside any complaints about continuity by saying 'multiverse!'

It's like every hack writer in Hollywood has become Lucy Lawless in the "Collector" episode of the Simpsons. "Uh - yeah. Well - whenever you notice anything like that... a, uh.... multiverse did it!"

"But in the previous movie, they CLEARLY said..."

"MULTIVERSE!!!"

So what you're saying is, the G1 cartoon contradicted the G1 Marvel comics because the cartoon was made by "lazy writers" who came "into a franchise" and wanted "to put 'their stamp' on it" instead of "conforming to the stories as they have already been told" in the G1 Marvel comics, which both preceded the cartoon by four months and established the foundation that all Transformers fiction was built upon.

Yes, and no. The continuity (such as it is) of the G1 cartoon and movie should be its own self contained thing. The continuity as presented in the Marvel comics should be its own self-contained thing. So should the Bay movies. There's no need to put every transformers iteration into a blender, call it the multi-verse, and turn it into a frankenstein's monster. Which is usually what happens whenever writers give up on continuity and resort to the multiverse as a cheap gimmick to smorgasboard bits and pieces of things they liked from previous shows, and shoehorn them into 'their interpretation' of it.

Speaking of multiverses, I'd love to see a story where Baytimus goes to the G1verse, then start mercilessly murdering and massacring every Decepticons on sight, like a bloodthirsty psychopath.

Seeing the horror in the face of both and who withness the carnage would be quite entertaining.

i wonder if the the badguys win. unicron destroys the earth, goes into another alternate universe and gets stuck in the earth or something.

The marketing for this movie has been really good, and I enjoy the bio cards, even if we have some TFwiki copy/paste.

It also looks like Wheeljack may be absent from the opening, and only when they go south does he join the crew.

also like the implication that Scourge as he looks right now is the result of taking spare parts and replacing lost limbs, etc. with other beings parts. A true piecemeal of a physical being

After reading Mirage’s bio, I can totally understand why he would go on a joy ride the moment a human sat in his driver seat, being essentially trapped in a parking garage for the foreseeable future would have driven anyone crazy.

Sabrblade wrote:

DeathReviews wrote:

A "multiverse" covers continuity issues caused by lazy writing. Every movie is in it's own universe, which is why they have a new origin on earth and a different history with every one.

The 'multiverse' concept has become a crutch used by lazy writers when they run out of ideas. Whenever a new writer comes into a franchise and wants to put 'their stamp' on it, they fall into this gimmick as a cheap way to ret-con that franchise. Instead of conforming to the stories as they have already been told, they merely write what they think is cool, then bat aside any complaints about continuity by saying 'multiverse!'

It's like every hack writer in Hollywood has become Lucy Lawless in the "Collector" episode of the Simpsons. "Uh - yeah. Well - whenever you notice anything like that... a, uh.... multiverse did it!"

"But in the previous movie, they CLEARLY said..."

"MULTIVERSE!!!"

So what you're saying is, the G1 cartoon contradicted the G1 Marvel comics because the cartoon was made by "lazy writers" who came "into a franchise" and wanted "to put 'their stamp' on it" instead of "conforming to the stories as they have already been told" in the G1 Marvel comics, which both preceded the cartoon by four months and established the foundation that all Transformers fiction was built upon.

That's A new level of petty. Even for you. Comparing the situation between 2 continuities that were released literally months apart to a situation between continuities that took over a decade to come together is a bit of a stretch.

D-Maximal_Primal wrote:also like the implication that Scourge as he looks right now is the result of taking spare parts and replacing lost limbs, etc. with other beings parts. A true piecemeal of a physical being

Soooo...were they copying Mandroid's schtick? Or vice versa, since RotB was delayed? Regardless, nice to have a few synergistic parallels with the current TF cartoon.

Bumblevivisector wrote:

D-Maximal_Primal wrote:also like the implication that Scourge as he looks right now is the result of taking spare parts and replacing lost limbs, etc. with other beings parts. A true piecemeal of a physical being

Soooo...were they copying Mandroid's schtick? Or vice versa, since RotB was delayed? Regardless, nice to have a few synergistic parallels with the current TF cartoon.

I'm not really sure if anyone is really copying anyone.

Mandroid is scavenging Cybertronian parts to build himself from human to a superior being to wipe them out and save Earth from all Transformers.

Scourge was a bot who as time has gone on has suffered grievous injuries in the names of his goals and has used other deceased beings to rebuild himself, or even improve himself. He is sort of a mix between early IDW Megatron, Animated Lockdown, and G1 Galvatron (reformed by Unicron) it seems

While it has been said in the past, it does look like this new Transformers film is finally focusing mostly on robots. At least in the marketing, with this latest tv spot being mostly shots of the robots. And the robots transforming, no less, which is significant since previous films were criticized for obscuring and limiting transformations. In this new tv spot below, we see new shots of Scourge Transforming across rooftops and a big money shot of Mirage Transforming as he is creating holograms of his robot mode.

Are you hyped?

D-Maximal_Primal wrote:I'm not really sure if anyone is really copying anyone.

Except this stretch of the the thread was largely about the bio authors copying stuff from TFWiki, which is why I threw that out there.

william-james88 wrote:Are you hyped?

Nope.

Keep the expectations low, avoids disappointment, may result in pleasant surprise.

Burn wrote:

william-james88 wrote:Are you hyped?

Nope.

Keep the expectations low, avoids disappointment, may result in pleasant surprise.

Best way to deal with it.

ZeroWolf wrote:

Burn wrote:

william-james88 wrote:Are you hyped?

Nope.

Keep the expectations low, avoids disappointment, may result in pleasant surprise.

Best way to deal with it.

That's what I did for the recent D&D movie. My expectations were rock bottom.
I just saw it.
And ironically, it's the movie I had the most fun with this year!

ZeroWolf wrote:

Burn wrote:

william-james88 wrote:Are you hyped?

Nope.

Keep the expectations low, avoids disappointment, may result in pleasant surprise.

Best way to deal with it.

Pretty much.