Weekend Thread Sept 20th-22nd

[Eric Prime]

Just now, WorkingonaName said:

Everything on the internet is true.

 

[WorkingonaName]

23 minutes ago, vale9001 said:

Megan Fox Is a poetess now. She doesn't make trash movies anymore I fear

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The next Sylvia Plath.

[HummingLemon496]

6 minutes ago, AniNate said:

I mean even nostalgia isn't a guarantee. We saw how Indy 5 disappointed last year.

And The Flash lol

[CheeseWizard]

50 minutes ago, baumer said:

What's past is prologue. I didn't say just bring back Michael Bay I mean bring back Shia and Megan and Taye Diggs and Josh and Turturro. Bring back everything that people liked about Transformers 1-3.

People need to understand that Bay isn’t the solution here; he’s the problem. AOE and TLK hurt the franchise so much that the series would’ve died then and there if Bumblebee wasn’t already heavy into production. They’re still having to build back goodwill after he burned it all to ash. 

 

Every movie after revenge of the fallen had a much lower domestic gross than the last. 400mil, to 350mil, to 245mil, to 130mil. Towards the end, these movies were only kept alive by their international numbers, and especially China. And even then they were dramatically hurt by TLK. 
 

Hell, the only live action movies to not have a dramatically smaller domestic than the last were Bumblebee, which only had 3 million less than TLK, and Rise Of the Beasts, which was the first movie since Revenge of the Fallen to actually make more than its predecessor. Unless he can magically make a good movie again, bringing back Bay will do nothing but reset the goodwill back to zero. 

Edited 12 hours ago by CheeseWizard

[vale9001]

I see Transformers movies a something like Jurassic park. What people liked are the robots and what people like about Jurassic world are the dinosaurs (the movie with the old JP cast was the movie made less money of the new Trilogy). I don't think people care about the characters of 3 first movies of Transformers. 

 

They are not characters driven sagas like star wars, Harry Potter, lord of the rings or Indiana. There is no indiana Jones in that saga.The success was because of robots + bay.  

 

Edited 12 hours ago by vale9001

[Ryan C]

3 minutes ago, AnthonyJPHer said:

I feel that’s a little too cynical. Not every IP film is a nostalgic toy commercial, as you would put it. There are a lot of them, don’t get me wrong but there are good IP films. And there are IP films that flop big time 

 

100% with this

 

I understand being cynical about Hollywood making nothing but sequels, remakes, reboots of popular IP and it dominating most of what people see in the theater, but labeling every single IP film (legacy sequel or not) as a nostalgic toy commercial is (at least for me) just poor choice of words. Beyond the fact that not every film with a nostalgic connection works (Jem and the Holograms anyone?), it feels more like a label used to put down a film that (regardless of it being nostalgic) can be really damn good. 

 

There are plenty of great sequels and legacy sequels out there that both audiences and critics enjoy. Of course there are bad ones, but I'm legitimately getting tired of people saying that legacy sequels are explicitly nostalgia and have literally nothing else to offer beyond that. Not only that, but even saying "toy commercial" doesn't make sense for some legacy sequels. Would that mean Top Gun: Maverick is a NTC? 

 

I don't want to derail the thread, but I really wanted to say this for a while as someone who is willing to give all kinds of film a chance whether they be something like The Substance (which I'll be seeing in about an hour) or Beetlejuice Beetlejuice and could care less if one is a legacy sequel or not. I just want a good movie and that's enough for me.

[John Marston]

I see some people on the Internet blaming the Bay movies poisoning the well for why TFOne is flopping. Um, are we forgetting we had a live action TF movie last year that did fairly decently? TFOne is flopping because nobody is interested in an animated TF film. Especially after the first trailer which made it look like a kiddy film with cheap  animation 

[Eric Prime]

1 minute ago, Ryan C said:

 

100% with this

 

I understand being cynical about Hollywood making nothing but sequels, remakes, reboots of popular IP and it dominating most of what people see in the theater, but labeling every single IP film (legacy sequel or not) as a nostalgic toy commercial is (at least for me) just poor choice of words. Beyond the fact that not every film with a nostalgic connection works (Jem and the Holograms anyone?), it feels more like a label used to put down a film that (regardless of it being nostalgic) can be really damn good. 

 

There are plenty of great sequels and legacy sequels out there that both audiences and critics enjoy. Of course there are bad ones, but I'm legitimately getting tired of people saying that legacy sequels are explicitly nostalgia and have literally nothing else to offer beyond that. Not only that, but even saying "toy commercial" doesn't make sense for some legacy sequels. Would that mean Top Gun: Maverick is a NTC? 

 

I don't want to derail the thread, but I really wanted to say this for a while as someone who is willing to give all kinds of film a chance whether they be something like The Substance (which I'll be seeing in about an hour) or Beetlejuice Beetlejuice and could care less if one is a legacy sequel or not. I just want a good movie and that's enough for me.

I mean there are plenty of NTCs or legacy sequels or whatever I like and enjoy. I just wish they weren't the only movies making money. When 80% of every movie that's a hit consists of these kinds of franchise extensions and little for originality or movies that are designed to be one and dones? I mean...even though I like a good chunk of these movies, it's hard not to be a little miffed or cynical about it. idk idk idk 🤷‍♂️

[John Marston]

12 minutes ago, CheeseWizard said:

People need to understand that Bay isn’t the solution here; he’s the problem. AOE and TLK hurt the franchise so much that the series would’ve died then and there if Bumblebee wasn’t already heavy into production. They’re still having to build back goodwill after he burned it all to ash. 

 

Every movie after revenge of the fallen had a much lower domestic gross than the last. 400mil, to 350mil, to 245mil, to 130mil. Towards the end, these movies were only kept alive by their international numbers, and especially China. And even then they were dramatically hurt by TLK. 
 

Hell, the only live action movies to not have a dramatically smaller domestic than the last were Bumblebee, which only had 3 million less than TLK, and Rise Of the Beasts, which was the first movie since Revenge of the Fallen to actually make more than its predecessor. Unless he can magically make a good movie again, bringing back Bay will do nothing but reset the goodwill back to zero. 

 

 

you don’t necessarily need Bay but you need a director that can deliver large scale action with great FX. Those are the draws for a TF movie. Nobody really cares about the “lore”

of Transformers 

[emoviefan]

38 minutes ago, Ryan C said:

A Transformers legacy sequel bringing back Michael Bay, Megan Fox, and Shia LaBeouf is genuinally a terrible idea. 

 

Unlike what feels like the entire internet at this point, I'm not against legacy sequels, but a Transformers legacy sequel is probably one of the most shameless things a studio could ever greenlight. 

 

Beyond the fact that the Michael Bay Transformers movies are clearly products of their time (back when seeing action movies on such a big scale were an automatic event), there's no way you're gonna get either Megan Fox or Shia LaBeouf to come back. Both of them even said years ago that they didn't want to be in any more Transformers movies and combine that with LaBeouf's recent history, I just can't imagine a scenario where this would happen. 

 

Even with Michael Bay, I get the feeling that he just wants to move on from Transformers. This isn't a Beetlejuice Beetlejuice situation where Tim Burton chose to come back because maybe he could rediscover that joy of filmmaking again. Michael Bay still seems to enjoy making big dumb action movies, so unless he were desperate, there would be no reason for him to come back. 

 

I'm sorry, but there is no world where a Transformers legacy sequel is making $1B. Some things just aren't gonna happen.

 

Yeah Michael Bay pretty much was almost openly admitting  how  tired and full of contempt he had for the movies by the time he made the Last Knight. I think he has moved on and they would have to back up a dump truck full of money to come back. At the same time after how  poorly Ambulance did at the BO what is he going to do next?  After how well Twisters did DOM at least,  maybe he should do a Armageddon like disaster movie  If you do it globally and not just target middle America it would probably do well OS.

[Ryan C]

1 minute ago, Eric Prime said:

I mean there are plenty of NTCs or legacy sequels or whatever I like and enjoy. I just wish they weren't the only movies making money. When 80% of every movie that's a hit consists of these kinds of franchise extensions and little for originality or movies that are designed to be one and dones? I mean...even though I like a good chunk of these movies, it's hard not to be a little miffed or cynical about it. idk idk idk 🤷‍♂️

 

I honestly completely get being cynical about it (even I can be a few times), but at the end of the day, I do believe that most of our cynicism/frustration should go towards the studios and what they greenlight and not the actual films themselves. 

 

Heck, I would even point to the audience sometimes. I can't be upset or cynical at Universal for spending tentpole money to market a star-driven action comedy like The Fall Guy, but I can absolutely be cynical at the audience who say that these are the types of movies they want, but then never show up when Hollywood does make them.

[filmlover]

4 minutes ago, emoviefan said:

At the same time after how  poorly Ambulance did at the BO what is he going to do next? 

Maybe go the TV show route that Roland Emmerich has been forced to now that studios won't fund their action extravaganzas that are stuck in 1998 anymore.

[emoviefan]

5 minutes ago, Ryan C said:

 

I honestly completely get being cynical about it (even I can be a few times), but at the end of the day, I do believe that most of our cynicism/frustration should go towards the studios and what they greenlight and not the actual films themselves. 

 

Heck, I would even point to the audience sometimes. I can't be upset or cynical at Universal for spending tentpole money to market a star-driven action comedy like The Fall Guy, but I can absolutely be cynical at the audience who say that these are the types of movies they want, but then never show up when Hollywood does make them.

Don't get me started on the Fall Guy. The movie was a good fun star driven old school action comedy that got good reviews and the stars did everything in their power to get that message across and audiences just shrugged and said no thanks. The fact that it had really good legs meant that the audiences that bothered enjoyed it but are you going to do? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

[Eric Prime]

12 minutes ago, Ryan C said:

 

I honestly completely get being cynical about it (even I can be a few times), but at the end of the day, I do believe that most of our cynicism/frustration should go towards the studios and what they greenlight and not the actual films themselves. 

 

Heck, I would even point to the audience sometimes. I can't be upset or cynical at Universal for spending tentpole money to market a star-driven action comedy like The Fall Guy, but I can absolutely be cynical at the audience who say that these are the types of movies they want, but then never show up when Hollywood does make them.

Oh believe me, I'm #1 in blaming audiences for the cynical way I'm seeing things. They always claim they want originality and something new, but they always return to old favorites. People are just fake fr

[emoviefan]

3 minutes ago, Eric Prime said:

Oh believe me, I'm #1 in blaming audiences for the cynical way I'm seeing things. They always claim they want originality and something new, but they always return to old favorites. People are just fake fr

And if you think about it a movie does not even technically have to be original. The Fall Guy was based on a TV show but nobody under 45 knew or cared so it's basically a original.

[emoviefan]

30 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Maybe go the TV show route that Roland Emmerich has been forced to now that studios won't fund their action extravaganzas that are stuck in 1998 anymore.

Maybe they can co direct that Lawrence Of Arabia TV show nobody asked for.

[Ryan C]

13 minutes ago, Eric Prime said:

Oh believe me, I'm #1 in blaming audiences for the cynical way I'm seeing things. They always claim they want originality and something new, but they always return to old favorites. People are just fake fr

 

Yeah, but I also think there is a clear  distinction between people who maybe go the movies a few times a year/aren't obsessing about the current state of Hollywood and the people who constantly complain about Hollywood's reliance on sequels and franchise but never show up when Hollywood gives them something else. 

 

I would never get mad at the average person who goes to the movies a few times a year, see whatever they want to see, and don't complain about the state of cinema because it's clear that those people just want to go to the theater whenever they feel like it and don't live or die by movies. They have other things to worry about and I can understand that. 

 

On the other hand, I will absolutely be upset at the people (most of them online) who say that Hollywood is doomed, but actively do nothing to really change the current system. Instead, they either complain about the latest installment in a popular franchise they saw or obsess over how much a movie (original or not) flops. Those kinds of people are legitimately hypocritical and should be called out for that because they are doing nothing to actually help Hollywood and their obsession with IP. 

 

 

[CheeseWizard]

48 minutes ago, John Marston said:

 

 

you don’t necessarily need Bay but you need a director that can deliver large scale action with great FX. Those are the draws for a TF movie. Nobody really cares about the “lore”

of Transformers 

True, but the lore and the writing of the last 2 movies are the reason as to why they did better than TLK in spite of the damage it did (or at the very least not being garbage)
 

Hell, Rise of the Beasts did kinda do that…for the first half hour. I mean the best fight from the movie was Prime vs Transit, and it got CUT. If the producers and executives weren’t so determined to cram in the beast wars and unicron stuff from TLK, and just ran with the story Bumblebee set up, it might’ve done a lot better, AND cost less/looked better since they wouldn’t be trying to blend Metal robots into the jungle for 80% of the film

Edited 11 hours ago by CheeseWizard

[Taylor89]

3 hours ago, Eric Prime said:

Was shocked when I saw his name in the credits. Don't know what him and Plan B was doing over there.

 

They had a three years deal with WB.

[Taylor89]

3 hours ago, emoviefan said:

Oceans 11 was only 23 years ago.But it is what it is. The reviews say it is a decent passable watch but it's no Oceans Eleven and in this current theatrical marketplace that is just not good enough to get that 35+ audience off their ass to the theater to spend 10+ dollars a ticket.

 

Idk. If Bullet Train could do well with terrible reviews then I think wolfs could have opened with more than 20m too.