If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(FilmDrunk)   Michael Bay now accepting requests for what fans want in T4   (filmdrunk.uproxx.com) divider line 97
    More: Silly, Michael Bay  
•       •       •

1681 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Nov 2012 at 11:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-08 07:08:45 AM
Get together with the guy who directed Gunstar Heroes and let inspiration ride off each other.
 
2012-11-08 07:20:24 AM
prime.netau.net

More robot chicks? 

/I'd ride that, if you know what I mean....
 
2012-11-08 07:23:30 AM

Enemabag Jones: ekdikeo4
You mean T5 ?

McG made T4 a do-over anyway. At least Bay would make it an organized, glorious trainwreck with cool rock music and explosions.

/So when will Bay get Star Trek?


When Paramount looses every farking brain cell in...

...on second thought, I'm remembering "Generations" and "The Final Frontier"

He'll get the next Odd numbered movie.
 
2012-11-08 07:25:14 AM

MythDragon: [prime.netau.net image 850x801]

More robot chicks? 

/I'd ride that, if you know what I mean....


See, I look at that and think "where did the wheels go?".
 
2012-11-08 07:34:08 AM

dittybopper: MythDragon: [prime.netau.net image 850x801]

More robot chicks? 

/I'd ride that, if you know what I mean....

See, I look at that and think "where did the wheels go?".


Me too. They could have easily put them on her back and used them as a ducted fan jet pack. Who designs these things?
 
2012-11-08 07:34:27 AM
I'd like to see more swirling masses of metallic CGI which are barely intelligible as badly-designed giant robots and explosions which have no discernible cause.
 
2012-11-08 07:49:56 AM
"100% less Michael Bay."
 
2012-11-08 08:09:05 AM
Guermo del toro... or anyone else as a director
 
2012-11-08 08:29:09 AM
Oh just adapt the Kremzeek episode as a full feature film.
 
2012-11-08 08:37:17 AM

lewismarktwo: dittybopper: MythDragon: [prime.netau.net image 850x801]

More robot chicks? 

/I'd ride that, if you know what I mean....

See, I look at that and think "where did the wheels go?".

Me too. They could have easily put them on her back and used them as a ducted fan jet pack. Who designs these things?


I rather know where THIS goes:
www.imcdb.org
Seriously, a whole farking trailer. Just....gone.

Here's the actual toy w/ tires.
lekprapan.exteen.com
 
2012-11-08 08:51:28 AM
60+ posts and I'm the first?

The next Transformers movie should start with Shia LeBouf being killed in a very painful and gory manner. I don't really give a shiat what they do for the rest of the movie.
 
2012-11-08 08:53:46 AM

LDM90: I don't get the people who just want robot battles. Isn't that pretty much what we got? I want a story for once. The old cartoon had a cool story.


I liked when they just pumped oil into them.
seanblanchfield.com

More energon cubes!
 
2012-11-08 09:23:47 AM

simplicimus: How about, don't do it?

 
2012-11-08 09:59:38 AM
It would be nice if the next Transformers movie was a story about the actual Transformers and not a General Motors car commercial in which Shia LaBeef tries to get laid.

Just read the current IDW comics. That's G1 Transformers done right, for an adult audience.

/Till all are one
 
2012-11-08 10:00:39 AM
Mewr bewbs,
 
2012-11-08 10:04:01 AM
MaudlinMutantMollusk

A new director

^This.
 
2012-11-08 10:04:50 AM
Michael Bay now accepting requests for what fans want in T4


An opening scrawl that says

"In memory, of Michael Bay"
 
2012-11-08 10:14:52 AM

MythDragon: lewismarktwo: dittybopper: MythDragon: [prime.netau.net image 850x801]

More robot chicks? 

/I'd ride that, if you know what I mean....

See, I look at that and think "where did the wheels go?".

Me too. They could have easily put them on her back and used them as a ducted fan jet pack. Who designs these things?

I rather know where THIS goes:
[www.imcdb.org image 512x384]
Seriously, a whole farking trailer. Just....gone.

Here's the actual toy w/ tires.
[lekprapan.exteen.com image 692x337]


He leaves it behind. It serves as a kind of mini base, and even has a little rover guy (named "Roller" I think) that can operate independently. There were a few episodes in the old where the trailer was explained and used.

dittybopper: See, I look at that and think "where did the wheels go?".


Yeah, it's like they're not even trying. She also looks like a stiff breeze would knock her over. And it looks like instead of giving her any suggestive feminine curves, they went straight to "huge gaping vagina".
 
2012-11-08 10:17:49 AM

Ishkur: Take a cue from James Cameron (who has never been known to make a bad action movie),


So, you're the person James Cameron made "Strange Days" for?
 
2012-11-08 10:59:52 AM
How about not making a crappy movie out of an old toy/cartoon line? Hm? How about that?

/Except Real Steel, which was the best Rock-Em-Sock-Em Robots movie ever made.
 
2012-11-08 11:30:53 AM
He'll keep making them, and they'll keep funding them, so long as they keep making massive bank every freakin' time.

Transformers Budget - $150M
Transformers Gross - $710M (4.7x cost)

Transformers 2 Budget - $200M
Transformers 2 Gross - $836M (4.2x cost)

Transformers 3 Budget - $195M
Transformers 3 Gross - $1,124M (5.8x cost)

It's been a license to print money. Quality isn't a concern of Hollywood production companies. They want return, and Transformers delivers. At this point, it's not even considered high risk.
 
2012-11-08 11:54:40 AM
let's see.. T3 (45 mbps) + T1 (1.544 mbps). so about 46.544 mbps. hits head on floor
 
2012-11-08 12:00:58 PM
The original skins on the transformers and a plot would be nice.
 
2012-11-08 12:28:35 PM

MythDragon: lewismarktwo: dittybopper: MythDragon: [prime.netau.net image 850x801]

More robot chicks? 

/I'd ride that, if you know what I mean....

See, I look at that and think "where did the wheels go?".

Me too. They could have easily put them on her back and used them as a ducted fan jet pack. Who designs these things?

I rather know where THIS goes:
[www.imcdb.org image 512x384]
Seriously, a whole farking trailer. Just....gone.

Here's the actual toy w/ tires.
[lekprapan.exteen.com image 692x337]


There's a third-party company that makes a trailer for the big Masterpiece Prime that does all the usual stuff, but also has flip-down mirror panels to suggest the trailer can either camouflage itself, or shift into sub-space. Suggested by a few G1 scenes where its outlines glow when detaching or hooking up to Prime during transformation.
 
2012-11-08 01:15:37 PM

Khellendros: It's been a license to print money. Quality isn't a concern of Hollywood production companies. They want return, and Transformers delivers. At this point, it's not even considered high risk.


Of course the movies make money. But why can't they also have a decent story, forget a decent story but at least characters that you don't want to die? And action scenes that aren't incomprehensible? The Avengers did all of that and I'm sure it didn't cost any more. It just had talent behind it.
 
2012-11-08 01:19:34 PM

Mugato: Khellendros: It's been a license to print money. Quality isn't a concern of Hollywood production companies. They want return, and Transformers delivers. At this point, it's not even considered high risk.

Of course the movies make money. But why can't they also have a decent story, forget a decent story but at least characters that you don't want to die? And action scenes that aren't incomprehensible? The Avengers did all of that and I'm sure it didn't cost any more. It just had talent behind it.


The action scenes look like someone duct taped a camera to a mop handle and pimp slapped the lens.
 
2012-11-08 01:28:53 PM

lewismarktwo: The action scenes look like someone duct taped a camera to a mop handle and pimp slapped the lens.


Going back to The Avengers, just because it's a recent movie that it also has a lot of droids and aliens and CGI blowing up a city but you could make out what was going on. You knew who the good guys were and who the bad guys were and there was a sense of where everything was. Most importantly, you gave a shiat about the people involved. Michael Bay doesn't seem to grasp that.

And yes I understand that he spends his time off doing coke off of supermodels but that doesn't mean his work doesn't suck.
 
2012-11-08 01:30:56 PM

Mugato: Khellendros: It's been a license to print money. Quality isn't a concern of Hollywood production companies. They want return, and Transformers delivers. At this point, it's not even considered high risk.

Of course the movies make money. But why can't they also have a decent story, forget a decent story but at least characters that you don't want to die? And action scenes that aren't incomprehensible? The Avengers did all of that and I'm sure it didn't cost any more. It just had talent behind it.


That takes time, a search for talent and vision, and typically giving up some level of creative control to writers or directors who don't often follow the producer's safe appeal model. In short - it's riskier to go with story and character depth. Michael Bay produces big returns in a wide demographic arc like clockwork, and does it with 100% style, which is easy to measure and bank. No confusion. No worries about how a story works in the current political or social climate, no concern about swaths of your audience not "getting it". It's EASY, and a revenue return of 5x straight up on a two year investment will be taken, no questions, by any company and businessman on the planet. Fark depth and story. Who needs it? They've got cash to bank.

(that was painful to write, but it's 100% true, and the reason they do it)
 
2012-11-08 01:36:54 PM

Khellendros: (that was painful to write, but it's 100% true, and the reason they do it)


Are you in the industry? Because I know people who talk like that, except where you're deriding the opinions you wrote, they're serious.
 
2012-11-08 02:04:39 PM

Mugato: Khellendros: (that was painful to write, but it's 100% true, and the reason they do it)

Are you in the industry? Because I know people who talk like that, except where you're deriding the opinions you wrote, they're serious.


Nope, but I know how business minds works. Those guys that greenlight stuff aren't making decisions based on artistic merit, or how to make a "better" movie. They're making decisions based on return and risk - combinations of basic themes, pop characters that hook people, directors that attract, and headline names. It's a very formulaic view of things. Dumb plot, explosions, Michael Bay, and a nostalgic toy from the 1980's is an easy formula for cash. No risk, and they turn on far more of the audience then they turn off. They don't want to take risk by complicating it. 5x proven payoff scares anyone from changing the formula.

Low risk, high return. The suits will push that button until their hand rots off from age. It's not a good thing (for our brain), but it's what their job is.
 
2012-11-08 02:20:55 PM
I'd like to see the Decipticons win.

The Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie for a reason.
 
2012-11-08 02:29:50 PM

Mugato: Khellendros: It's been a license to print money. Quality isn't a concern of Hollywood production companies. They want return, and Transformers delivers. At this point, it's not even considered high risk.

Of course the movies make money. But why can't they also have a decent story, forget a decent story but at least characters that you don't want to die? And action scenes that aren't incomprehensible? The Avengers did all of that and I'm sure it didn't cost any more. It just had talent behind it.


Avengers had the same "find the cube" story as transformers 1
 
2012-11-08 03:01:24 PM

moothemagiccow: Mugato: Khellendros: It's been a license to print money. Quality isn't a concern of Hollywood production companies. They want return, and Transformers delivers. At this point, it's not even considered high risk.

Of course the movies make money. But why can't they also have a decent story, forget a decent story but at least characters that you don't want to die? And action scenes that aren't incomprehensible? The Avengers did all of that and I'm sure it didn't cost any more. It just had talent behind it.

Avengers had the same "find the cube" story as transformers 1


Yeah and Raiders of the lost ark was about a teacher looking for a box. It's how it's executed.
 
2012-11-08 03:31:31 PM
Terminator 4? multiple hot female liquid metal robots in a hot shapeshifting lesbo scene...
 
2012-11-08 03:33:02 PM
"I squashed a rumor that was on the internet last week. It was about Mark Walhberg [sic]. Mark was rumored to be staring in Transformers 4."

Mark Walhberg([sic] for two hours STARING AND SIC
 
2012-11-08 03:33:51 PM

Kit Fister: Terminator 4? multiple hot female liquid metal robots in a hot shapeshifting lesbo scene...


I was looking forward to terminator 4 and then found TFA.

/I cried a little
 
2012-11-08 03:37:23 PM

Khellendros: Nope, but I know how business minds works


I understand all that. I like to make the comment: Hey, when YOU spend upwards of $200 million over a period of 1-3 years and you only have the small window of a single weekend (maybe two) to make it all back and more, then you have right to complain about how Hollywood makes its blockbusters

I understand they want to maximize return. I understand they have marketers and demographers and psychologists studying audience viewing patterns and focus grouping everything from the hot female lead in skimpy shorts to the color tone of the movie poster (blue/orange again!). I get that they want to shoehorn as much market-crossover appeal as possible to appeal to eight year olds and grandmothers alike, so even though the totally awesome explosions go together with the cute relationship like pickles and peanut butter, they're still going to somehow make it work while throwing in a suspenseful government conspiracy subplot, a coming of age and/or redemption character arc, comic relief and toilet humor for 14 year olds, Checkov's guns and other stupid tropes, product placement of hot cars and soft drinks, and a steamy love scene in an exotic location because, god dammit, its not enough that testosterone-fueled, rockstar drinking fistpumping bros will see it, but their shoes-and-handbag obsessed girlfriends have to also.

I get all that.

That still doesn't mean the movie has to suck. It doesn't have to contain all those things or else it will lose money. It doesn't have to be a loud, noisy, 3+ hour overblown, confusing mess. Avengers and X-Men: First Class were two recent action movies that did the formula right: Great writing, great characters and interaction, excellent direction and cinematography that let you see what's going on, and a straightforward plot that didn't meander or get weighted down with extraneous bullshiat. So don't tell me Transformers can't be well done with the formula. The problem is not the material. The problem is Michael Bay -- he is a BAD filmmaker who makes BAD films, and the only people who like them are juvenile adolescents who's balls haven't dropped yet.

And we must accept that as a condition of the franchise. Some people just aren't good at making movies (Friedberg/Seltzer come to mind), and Transformers will never be decently made until Michael Bay hands the reigns to someone else or offs himself like Tony Scott.

We can only hope.
 
2012-11-08 03:59:22 PM

Ishkur: So don't tell me Transformers can't be well done with the formula. The problem is not the material. The problem is Michael Bay -- he is a BAD filmmaker who makes BAD films, and the only people who like them are juvenile adolescents who's balls haven't dropped yet.


Not trolling, just presenting things as the "suit":

(adjusts power tie) If that was true, it the last one wouldn't have made $1.123 billion. There aren't enough adolescents with money to fuel that kind of revenue. They truth is a farkton of people saw that movie, across all economic, age, gender, racial, geographic, and cultural arcs. The point is that we know how to make a movie that is simple, easy to make, requires little talent or analysis, is non-threatening, appeals to an extremely wide audience, lets us maintain control, hold all risk factors to a minimum, and make money hand over fist. We have a proven formula, and it's perfect for our bottom line. It's based on being dumb with no challenge. It's based on being all style with no character or plot. Your problem isn't Michael Bay, it's that people like him and pay $10 multiple times to see every one of his movies. Don't blame Bay, He's just doing what we pay him exorbitant amount of money to do well. (lights up cigar, adjusts power tie)
 
2012-11-08 04:24:12 PM

Khellendros: If that was true, it the last one wouldn't have made $1.123 billion.


And McDonalds sells more food than any other restaurant, doesn't mean the food is any good.

Don't confuse artistic achievement with commercial success. They are two entirely different things (and in some cases diametric opposites). You can release the next Ulysses or the next Harry Potter -- the latter will make you rich but the former will have you remembered hundreds of years from now.

The best art does both simultaneously.
 
2012-11-08 04:29:08 PM

Khellendros: The point is that we know how to make a movie that is simple, easy to make, requires little talent or analysis, is non-threatening, appeals to an extremely wide audience, lets us maintain control, hold all risk factors to a minimum, and make money hand over fist.


Yeah -- there is still a way to do all that and NOT have the movie suck. Avengers made way more money AND it's superior in every aspect of story and filmmaking. Why can't Transformers be more like the Avengers? ...because Michael Bay is a BAD filmmaker. He makes BAD films.

I don't have a problem with safe, dumb, no-risk, simple tropes and product placement making money. I just have a problem when it's done so badly.
 
2012-11-08 06:58:32 PM
Sky Lynx,
tfwiki.net

Tidal Wave,
thecarouselpodcast.files.wordpress.com

or Trypticon.
jebr0nie.files.wordpress.com

Devastator was impressive, but now give us a truly gargantuan Transformer. And actually have him do something this time.
 
2012-11-08 07:44:23 PM
 
2012-11-09 09:19:21 AM
homarjr

I'd like to see the Decipticons win.

The Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie for a reason.
Because g.l was 8,000 miles away during the majority of filming?
 
2012-11-09 10:11:33 AM

Ishkur: And McDonalds sells more food than any other restaurant, doesn't mean the food is any good.


Ishkur: Yeah -- there is still a way to do all that and NOT have the movie suck. Avengers made way more money AND it's superior in every aspect of story and filmmaking. Why can't Transformers be more like the Avengers? ...because Michael Bay is a BAD filmmaker. He makes BAD films.


I think we're in agreement, we just have a different perspectives on what is important from the suit's point of view. From the studio's point of view - QUALITY IS UNIMPORTANT. You keep talking about "artistic achievement" and "good film making" and "art", as if they matter to a Hollywood production company. They don't. They only matter as far as they make cash and boost stock price, and they've learned that quality isn't the easiest route to cash. In fact, quality only comes up when each company has to make their late year pitch for Best Picture Oscar (which is for the branding and publicity, not the artistic achievement). And those films are risky, and often lose big compared to the brainless Bay-stravaganzas.

To use your example above - McDonald's doesn't change to better food because their cheap, lazy formula for burgers has made them the most financially successful fast-food company is the history of the planet. Sure, their food tastes like a wet ashtray, but IT DOESN'T MATTER. Making better food takes effort, training, and moving from the lazy, well-known formula is risky. Better to keep it as it is, and keep scoring your safe billions. Nearly every time McDonalds has stepped up to change quality or formula for the better, they get murdered. Michael Bay is that safe formula. Why wouldn't people keep giving him money to make his shiat when he makes them billions like clockwork?

In short - feel free to enjoy your steak. Go to the great restaurants, enjoy the souffle. I hear Wolfgang Puck makes a great one. But McDonald's will always be around, and will always make more money. Because people like cheap crap, and business knows this.
 
2012-11-09 10:23:27 AM

homarjr: I'd like to see the Decipticons win.

The Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie for a reason.


So you're saying they need to keep George Lucas as far away from the film as possible? Because that's what made ESB good...it wasn't the "OMG, TEH BAD GUISE ARE WINNARS!" stuff, it was the fact that George was pretty much not involved.
 
2012-11-09 01:44:19 PM

fouronine: "100% less Michael Bay."


This!
 
2012-11-09 10:41:48 PM

Khellendros: From the studio's point of view - QUALITY IS UNIMPORTANT.


Sure it is. That's why Avengers made more money -- it was better. The Terminator was better because it was an interesting twist on the slasher genre during its golden period. Star Wars (the original) was better because it was a solid story, and it took its time telling it (the first 45 minutes has our heroes farting around in the desert, with barely any space action going on at all). But the real moments that define Star Wars are Luke staring at the double sunset while contemplating his destiny, Leia and Han's final kiss/words before he's frozen in carbonite, Obi Wan's sacrifice.... it might've made a lot of money without these things, but it wouldn't have impacted an entire generation like it did. Now, can you think of any iconic moment in Transformers, or do the movies just not give us those kinds of moments? ....and that is why Star Wars is enshrined in the Smithsonian and Transformers is not.

If you remove quality from the equation completely, you get bombs like Catwoman and The Core. No measure of cliches, tropes, marketing demographics and hack subplots shoved down the gullet of a terrible movie can salvage it. There are only so many ways to polish a turd.

So quality matters. Quality can make a stupid idea good ie: any hit based on an established premise, like Real Steel (rock em sock em robots) or Pirates of the Caribbean (a disney ride). Hell, quality is how cult classics are made. But lack of quality will not make any movie worth your $11.
 
Displayed 47 of 97 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report