Sorry for it being in YT format, the actual site, www.transformersmovie.com was reacting pretty slowly. It must be receiving a lot of traffic.
I still don't know what to think about the whole movie. I really get the feeling it's going to be really awesome or really crappy -- with NO inbetween.
(edited by Whattaburger on 30.6.06 1402) It's just a message board, people. Chill out. Now, go show your internet diapproval of me! YEA!
Originally posted by General ZodMichael Bay has yet to make a good movie. I can't believe this will be his first. Bummer.
Whoa whoa whoa. Don't ever dis THE ROCK like that again, young man.
To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
Hmmm... I really had no idea this movie is actually called "Transformers: Michael Bay"-- kind of a weird twist on the TF mythos, eh? [/sarcasm]
But seriously, I have a problem with the fact that toward the end of the trailer, the way Michael Bay's name appears below the "Transformers" title makes it seem like his name is indeed a part of the movie's title. Totally cringeworthy.
Unlike the trailer for "Spider-Man 3," which does a great job of, you know, actually building up the MOVIE, IMO this trailer just doesn't work specifically because of the point made above.
Originally posted by RKMtwinUnlike the trailer for "Spider-Man 3," which does a great job of, you know, actually building up the MOVIE, IMO this trailer just doesn't work specifically because of the point made above.
To be fair, though, the Spider-Man trailer is intended to hype up the movie, whereas this isn't. They probably aren't ready to show everyone what the transformers will actually look like yet, so there really isn't much movie footage they can show. All this teaser is meant to do is tease the concept. Unfortunately, at this point, that means that Michael Bay is probably the biggest name attached to the project.
You believe me, don't you? Please believe what I just said...
Originally posted by RKMtwinUnlike the trailer for "Spider-Man 3," which does a great job of, you know, actually building up the MOVIE, IMO this trailer just doesn't work specifically because of the point made above.
To be fair, though, the Spider-Man trailer is intended to hype up the movie, whereas this isn't. They probably aren't ready to show everyone what the transformers will actually look like yet, so there really isn't much movie footage they can show. All this teaser is meant to do is tease the concept. Unfortunately, at this point, that means that Michael Bay is probably the biggest name attached to the project.
I'll definitely agree with you on your points. And yeah, there certainly is a big difference between a teaser and a trailer. With that said, I really hope that over time, (with no pun intended) advertising for this particular movie won't make it seem as if "TF" is merely a vehicle for Michael Bay the way this teaser does. One MIGHT be able to get away with that if one's name happens to be Martin Scorcese or even Quentin Tarantino to some extent. Michael Bay? Not so much.
And who actually thinks, "DAMN! Michael Bay's directing that movie? I'm SO THERE!!!"
Sadly, you VASTLY underestimate the popularity of Bay's movies.
To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
Originally posted by oldschoolheroSadly, you VASTLY underestimate the popularity of Bay's movies.
What popularity? The Island was one of the biggest bombs of last year. Pearl Harbor was a gigantic disappointment in the eyes of many. The Rock came out over 10 years ago.
I think you undersestimate the widespread apathy and indifference to his movies.
I also don't like Bay's name in the title. Since when did Transformers become Michael Bay's intellectual property?
Is anyone even paying attention that one of the credited screenwriters was responsible for CATWOMAN?
Originally posted by The Vile1What popularity? The Island was one of the biggest bombs of last year. Pearl Harbor was a gigantic disappointment in the eyes of many. The Rock came out over 10 years ago.
I grant you that they aren't cinematic masterpieces by any stretch, but between "Bad Boys", "The Rock", and "Armageddon", you've got three all-time rewatchable movies, right there. Also, "Bad Boys II" was really good (the chase scenes were ESPECIALLY top-notch) until they had to go off into "Miami cops invade Cuba"-territory.
"Pearl Harbor" was pretty good but due to the subject matter and cheesy ending it is NOT rewatchable, IMO.
"You know what you need? Some new quotes in your sig. Yeah, I said it." -- DJFrostyFreeze
Gross receipts and rankings for Michael Bay's movies, listed earliest to most recent. Figures are not adjusted. Thanks to Box Office Mojo. (boxofficemojo.com)
TITLE DOMESTIC OPEN WKD ALL-TIME WORLDWIDE ALL-TIME (% OF DOM) RANK(DOM) RANK (WW) BAD BOYS $65,807,024 23.6 631 $141,407,024 N/A
THE ROCK $134,069,511 18.7 182 $335,062,621 126
ARMAGEDDON $201,578,182 17.9 68 $553,709,788 33
PEARL HARBOR $198,542,554 29.8 70 $449,220,945 62
BAD BOYS II $138,608,444 33.6 168 $273,339,556 183
THE ISLAND $35,818,913 34.6 1,304 $160,285,073 N/A
Originally posted by hansen9jOf course, this isn't accounting for DVD sales or worldwide revenue, but it also isn't accounting for advertising costs or the theatres' cuts.
Wait, HOW CAN YOU LEAVE THAT STUFF OUT? That's HALF A BILLION DOLLARS for the worldwide revenues alone and reeks of you spinning numbers to have them say what you want.
I'm not looking to become the Michael Bay-apologist, but I'd think that when you look at the total picture, ANYONE running the studios or making the films would take those numbers, even at 75% if you're factoring more costs (at a guess).
"You know what you need? Some new quotes in your sig. Yeah, I said it." -- DJFrostyFreeze
Originally posted by JayJayDeanWait, HOW CAN YOU LEAVE THAT STUFF OUT? That's HALF A BILLION DOLLARS for the worldwide revenues alone and reeks of you spinning numbers to have them say what you want.
I'm not looking to become the Michael Bay-apologist, but I'd think that when you look at the total picture, ANYONE running the studios or making the films would take those numbers, even at 75% if you're factoring more costs (at a guess).
If I included the worldwide without being able to account for the theatre cuts (usually 50%) and the advertising budget, I'd be spinning it the other way. I think that pitting domestic vs. production is a fair enough comparison, as I believe the others roughly cancel each other out.
Originally posted by JayJayDeanI grant you that they aren't cinematic masterpieces by any stretch, but between "Bad Boys", "The Rock", and "Armageddon", you've got three all-time rewatchable movies, right there. Also, "Bad Boys II" was really good (the chase scenes were ESPECIALLY top-notch) until they had to go off into "Miami cops invade Cuba"-territory.
"Pearl Harbor" was pretty good but due to the subject matter and cheesy ending it is NOT rewatchable, IMO.
Bad Boys, The Rock, and Armageddon sorry but I don't consider them rewatchable like say the Indiana Jones and Back To The Future films which I feel this movie should be more like.
Bad Boys 2, which I waited to see on cable is one of the worst action movies I've ever seen. I hate the style of how he shoots his movies, and The Island it finally backfired on Bay this time.
I hate his over-exaggerated colors, and his car fetishism. I get it Michael bay, YOU LIKE CARS!
Originally posted by hansen9jIf I included the worldwide without being able to account for the theatre cuts (usually 50%) and the advertising budget, I'd be spinning it the other way. I think that pitting domestic vs. production is a fair enough comparison, as I believe the others roughly cancel each other out.
You believe wrong, big-time. If all films relied on domestic versus production to turn a profit 80% would never make it into the black.
And Vile1, trust me, I feel the exact same way about Bay. Sadly we aren't representative of the general public. His name does hold some sway with people, and at this early jundture they may as well advertise the one selling point that's written in stone.
To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
You're way wrong about the theater taking a 50% cut domestically. They're lucky to take 20%, and they don't usually even get that much. The theater's cut of the film revenue is usually just enough to cover their operating expenses. They make all of their profit from the concession stand, which is why everything there costs a fortune.
Can I just say that I don't care how much a movie makes, I care if it is a good movie. Bad Boys was well bad. The Rock, while Bay's best film was still pretty dumb. Astroid Doom or whatever it was called was crap and Pearl Harbor was terrible. I'm sad it took me four movies to realize the problem is him and I have avoided his stuff ever since. Transformers will probably make a bazillion dollars but that doesn't mean it will be a good movie.
I understand why Dennis Haysbert wasn't brought back this season, but I found myself thinking how much more effective and emotional it would have been had David Palmer been forced to make the decision to strike the compound.