Transformers: Rise of the Beasts

[MrBlud]

Michael Bay’s five movies already “poisoned the well” for Transformers as far as audience expectation goes. They’ll look for the three V’s, vulgarity, violence, visuals.

If you stray from that (like Bumblebee) EVEN IF you’re the better movie (like Bumblebee) you’re going to underperform (like Bumblebee) because that’s not what audiences have been conditioned to want from a Transformers movie.

 

[Steevy Maximus]

Michael Bay’s five movies already “poisoned the well” for Transformers as far as audience expectation goes. They’ll look for the three V’s, vulgarity, violence, visuals.

If you stray from that (like Bumblebee) EVEN IF you’re the better movie (like Bumblebee) you’re going to underperform (like Bumblebee) because that’s not what audiences have been conditioned to want from a Transformers movie.

Like I said back when it came out: I think Rise of the Beasts did an excellent job balancing those audience expectations while not indulging to baser elements the “Bay films” frequently gravitated towards. And I think the improved US box office is reflective of that.


Speaking of Box Office…Despite getting chopped down to 322 locations, the per location average is still surprisingly strong. The film could easily mosey along for a couple more weeks, though I think domestic gross is going to land somewhere around $157 million. Worldwide still has yet to see reports from Japan and I’m sure some markets are slow in reporting, but I expect the film to putter out around $440 million.
I’m already seeing some sites calling the film a failure, but I think that analysis lacks context: While the world wide gross will end up less than Bumblebee (around $468 million in 2018), I still don’t feel it “fair” to call this one a failure.

This is the first post-Covid franchise release in a market that is STILL not as robust as it was in 2018/19. While the WW numbers are going to be about $30 million less than BB (itself not even marketed as a Transformers film, which may have been a factor), the US domestic numbers is going to be $30 million better than BB’s result. And that doesn’t factor in the back end from streaming purchase and rentals, the inevitable physical media sales, or the ancillary licensing or toy royalties.

What makes Transformers come off as even LESS a failure is the broader market comparison. This summer has been a KILLING FIELD for major film releases. In terms of the US domestic box office, even films that “made more money” are coming out behind thanks to massive budgets. Fast X crashed to $150 million (though, the HUGE international results may offset that). Elemental, Ruby Gillman, and Indiana Jones join Flash in being certifiable flops and even The Little Mermaid is only on track to break even.

Could Transformers be called a “disappointment”? Probably. Relative to the competition? I think Paramount would rather a Transformers level disappointment compared to Indiana Jones or Flash.

 

[LBD "Nytetrayn"]

It's over.

Spoiler

Sorry, had to, not sorry.

 

[Superomegaprime]

What makes Transformers come off as even LESS a failure is the broader market comparison. This summer has been a KILLING FIELD for major film releases. In terms of the US domestic box office, even films that “made more money” are coming out behind thanks to massive budgets. Fast X crashed to $150 million (though, the HUGE international results may offset that). Elemental, Ruby Gillman, and Indiana Jones join Flash in being certifiable flops and even The Little Mermaid is only on track to break even.

Could Transformers be called a “disappointment”? Probably. Relative to the competition? I think Paramount would rather a Transformers level disappointment compared to Indiana Jones or Flash.

Killing field, it pretty much seems like Highlander, but then Indi 5 was expected to flop, while the Flash was expected to make some money but, it underwelmed rapidly, the other releases from Disney haven't done well, from what I gathered in total of looses in cinemas this past year, its amounting to over a billion dollars, so really, its been a crowded summer and a lot of subpar stuff and people chosing to spend their money carefully, thou I know the surprise hit was Sound of Freedom and that's going to come out in the international markets over the next couple of weeks, of course, Disney is likely kicking themselves with that film as it was meant to be a Fox release and they opted not to release it and bury it, but not deep enough! With Transformers, its hard to say if its truly a disapointment with a couple of markets yet to open, but it has made its money back, sure it never set the box office on fire, thou some stuff in the film should of been left on the cutting room floor and to be honest, some of the lines are kind of cringy, mainly from the human cast in my view, of course, I also think, the film kind of lacked a bit of a idenity to really make it stand out from what come before, so I think going forwards, Paramount would be wise to keep the budget tight and maybe slightly less than ROTB of course, focusing primarily upon the robot cast would help, even in the final battle, have one v one fights instead of battling armies of mindless drones, but that simply my view.

 

[UndeadScottsman]

"Keeping the money tight" runs in opposite of "Focusing on the robot cast" given every second they're on screen costs VFX money.

There's a reason there's always a human cast in these things.

 

[lastmaximal]

I couldn't disagree more with the "less humans more Transformers" stances, even regarding ROTB. The human element should always be a part of these narratives for various reasons. Of course it's best if done well, but even done middlingly is better than to not have it.

 

[lastmaximal]

Michael Bay’s five movies already “poisoned the well” for Transformers as far as audience expectation goes. They’ll look for the three V’s, vulgarity, violence, visuals.

If you stray from that (like Bumblebee) EVEN IF you’re the better movie (like Bumblebee) you’re going to underperform (like Bumblebee) because that’s not what audiences have been conditioned to want from a Transformers movie.

Ehh, idk. I agree with how his formula has poisoned the well, but it's less that people want the same crap from new product and more that people have come to associate the films as a whole with that crap, to the point where any new product is preemptively dismissed as more of the same, and it'll take a WHILE to erode that.

I don't think people rejected Bumblebee or anything so much as many might have just not checked it out, or checked it out and didn't seem it impressive enough to warrant renewed attention.

 

[UndeadScottsman]

Yeah, TLK tanking probably did more damage to Bumblebee's box office than the scope of the film did. Maybe if they had made a clean, clear break from the Michael Bay stuff, but it was still same same weird faced, radio-talkin' Bumblebee.

 

[Sabrblade]

Speaking of Michael Bay, according to this interview at Variety with Paramount CEO Brian Robbins, while Bay may no longer be directing these films, it turns out he still has final say on everything that goes into these movies, and has the power to veto anything he doesn't agree with.

After a Decade in Limbo, Brian Robbins Is Giving Paramount a Makeover With ‘Ninja Turtles,’ Tom Cruise and ‘Gladiator 2’

Paramount Pictures CEO Brian Robbins explains the film studio's new look, with "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem" and a "Gladiator" sequel.

variety.com

Robbins calls it having “a big idea.” And in the case of the latest “Transformers” film, that eureka moment was to have G.I. Joe enter the robots’ cinematic universe, bringing together two of Paramount’s biggest franchises. But that required Robbins to convince Hasbro, the toy company behind both sets of characters, and producers Steven Spielberg and Michael Bay, to let the studio bring the worlds together. And Bay’s approval was tricky, because he was worried that merging the series would cheapen the other “Transformers” movies. “I called him 50 times,” Robbins says. “I would not let him off the hook. And when he finally stopped dodging my calls, we got him to sign off.”

 

[Haywire]

Transformers needs human characters for the same reason that Doctor Who needs human companions: there needs to be someone in-story to explain things to when the audience needs some background. Otherwise, the Autobots or The Doctor are just explaining things to themselves (or making Marvel Comics-style info dump statements) for no real reason.

If VFX was the only hurdle, the Autobots could spend most of the movie in vehicle mode. Knight Rider did it for 4 seasons back in the 80s; KITT was absolutely a full character in the show, and I'm pretty sure never once needed CGI to do it.

 

[UndeadScottsman]

Knight Rider wasn't about KITT though, he was a supporting character. The main character was Michael Knight i.e. David Hasselhoff. K.I.T.T. was basically the C3PO/R2D2 of that series: The robot helper for the main character.

"They can just stay in vehicle mode" is the kind of suggestion that sounds good on paper, but I highly doubt it'd play well with audiences without still having to rely on human characters.

 

[PrimalxConvoy]

I'm looking forward to the animated film, as then we can finally have a film with less humans and more robots, which for me is much more preferable to the live action films. I think the main reason we haven't had a fully TF-centred film is due to budget. It would cost too much to have a fully CG TF film at this point.

 

[Haywire]

Knight Rider wasn't about KITT though, he was a supporting character. The main character was Michael Knight i.e. David Hasselhoff.

I'm sure a lot of viewers tuned in for The Hoff, but I know that back when it was airing, I watched for KITT. (And watched Airwolf, and the Transformers, Gobots, and Pole Position cartoons; I can guarantee I remember more about the non-human characters in all of those) (and, yes, I consider The Lady a character, even though she never speaks a line of dialog)

"They can just stay in vehicle mode" is the kind of suggestion that sounds good on paper, but I highly doubt it'd play well with audiences without still having to rely on human characters.

And in a movie titled Transformers, nobody wants them to stay in vehicle mode. However, as a counterpoint to:

"Keeping the money tight" runs in opposite of "Focusing on the robot cast" given every second they're on screen costs VFX money.

The Transformers characters can have screen time and even character development without always using expensive VFX money. Yes, they will need human characters to play off of, but my point was that Transformers don't need VFX for every minute of screen time. They just need to be treated as characters and not just props that show up for the Bayhem sequences.

 

[PrimalxConvoy]

I'm sure a lot of viewers tuned in for The Hoff, but I know that back when it was airing, I watched for KITT. (And watched Airwolf, and the Transformers, Gobots, and Pole Position cartoons; I can guarantee I remember more about the non-human characters in all of those) (and, yes, I consider The Lady a character, even though she never speaks a line of dialog)

And in a movie titled Transformers, nobody wants them to stay in vehicle mode. However, as a counterpoint to:

The Transformers characters can have screen time and even character development without always using expensive VFX money. Yes, they will need human characters to play off of, but my point was that Transformers don't need VFX for every minute of screen time. They just need to be treated as characters and not just props that show up for the Bayhem sequences.

Yes, I agree somewhat. There was that scene in the ROTB where Optimus and BB meet each other incognito and communicate via light flashes, horns and engine revs. I rather liked that bit.

 

[MrBlud]

The IDW Holomatter avatars are tailor made to increase robot characterization without running up the VFX budget yet remain almost wholly unused.

 

[Sabrblade]

The IDW Holomatter avatars are tailor made to increase robot characterization without running up the VFX budget yet remain almost wholly unused.

Or even better, just make a Tokusatsu adaptation of Masterforce.

 

[Superomegaprime]

Or even better, just make a Tokusatsu adaptation of Masterforce.

Or just take ideas from Masterforce, like the Headmasters, not saying have kids be the headmasters but the idea that they have some kind of element that creates the transforming suit around them or they could be Headmasters that pretend to be human and when they need their larger bodies, the human form opens up to reveal the inner robot and they transform and the human shell closes back up and moves to safety acting seperately from the core robot, yet they are still the same character!

 

[MrBlud]

I feel like the GI Joe stuff is going to wind up very much like what happened at the end of ROTB but with the whole Autobot cast.

 

[CoffeeHorse]

The IDW Holomatter avatars are tailor made to increase robot characterization without running up the VFX budget yet remain almost wholly unused.

Honestly, I get it. Holomatter avatars would allow more characterization, and make the robots more relatable, but I think Paramount purposefully does not want that. Paramount wants the robots to be big. They're over our heads in every sense. Holomatter avatars would make them too relatable.

 

[Sabrblade]

Honestly, I get it. Holomatter avatars would allow more characterization, and make the robots more relatable, but I think Paramount purposefully does not want that. Paramount wants the robots to be big. They're over our heads in every sense. Holomatter avatars would make them too relatable.

Not only that, but I realize now that the idea of Transformers adopting the forms of humans and turning back into giant robots whenever it's fightin' time would give the impression of them being less like "giant alien robots from outer space" and more like "human superheroes that can morph their bodies into giant robotic forms".