TFARCHIVE FORUMS

another tf fan wrote:my un-scientific research has concluded that people really enjoyed it. The story was not hard to follow and the action/effects wowed audiences.

The story isn't hard to follow? Three viewings later, and the plot STILL doesn't make sense.

According to Box Office Mojo, Revenge of the Fallen in its 4th week came in at #3 behind Harry Potter and Ice Age 3 for the July 17-19 weekend and has a total U.S. gross of $363,808,123. It should break $400 million in the states.

ROTF makes $400 million domestic.
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=transformers2.htm

another tf fan wrote: The story was not hard to follow.

Don't know about that!

Neotyrant wrote:Looks like the movie did exactly what it was supposed to do: 1) It entertained, and 2) it made tons of money. Appealing to critics is probably a distant #3 but two out of 3 isn't bad I would say.

I think you had their aims in the wrong order:
1) Sell toys
2) Make money in it's own right
3) Set up a sequel

Anything else, like a cohesive storyline or good jokes, were bonuses. And hard to spot in the finished product

Lonewyrm wrote:1) Sell toys
2) Make money in it's own right

Are you out of your mind? What, you think the TF toyline regularly turns out $400m in THREE MONTHS? In just North America? You think Paramount are willing to underwrite a $200m budget with the primary objective of selling toys for Hasbro? Say what you like about the movie stuff, but from a driving force point of view the pattern very much seems to be Bay/Paramount calling the shots, with Hasbro following their lead. Hasbro wouldn't demand character models so complex they find it basically impossible to make toys of them.

I also saw very little in there to actively set up a sequel beyond what was left of Megatron and Starscream escaping. Indeed, the film seemed to completely shut down the Allspark plot thread, killed one villain and gave the other so many outright spankings that he could well spend the third film curled into a foetal ball weeping for his mother unit, realised Sam and Mikaela's relationship, rounded out Simmons' story, etc, etc. If for whatever reason the third one didn't happen, there wouldn't be a great many plot threads left dangling - mainly fanboy stuff.

EDIT: http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/cha ... ormers.htm =D That's just win...

Actually, the entire reason the movie was made was so that Hasbro could produce the Scout Class Nightbeat figure.

As for a sequal.... well, barring Unicron showing up, Megs, Screamer and their merry little band could simply want revenge. Or Barricade could be doing things to set the Earth up, subtly, for Decepticon supremacy. If Bay can do subtle, that is.......

There's a mile of difference between a film leaving space for a sequel and a film setting up a sequel. This is why the words are different.

Cliffjumper wrote:Are you out of your mind?

Eh, no, but thanks for enquiring.

Megatron says "This isn't over" or something to that effect before taking off, and Prime sends his message in a bottle into space again. I don't think that for a sequel to be set up there has to be unresolved threads, but Megatron alive is enough to set it up on his own.

The $400 million mentioned is gross revenue, out of which the film had to be made ($200 million budget, I don't know whether or not Bay brought it north of the film), the cinemas showing it have to be paid, etc.

The first one grossed 700 million, less a budget of 150m leaves 550m. Again, when calculating Hasbro's share, we have to deduct Paramount'sm, what goes to the cinemas, taxes and so on. By comparison, the toys and other merchandise yielded $480 million.

The movie, like the majority of official TF fiction, was licensed by Hasbro not to enrich the arts, but to drive toy sales.

Uh-huh. And worldwide is currently at $800m - a $600m gain on budget. Regardless of why Hasbro licensed it, the movie was made by Paramount to get box office. Without Paramount (or another movie studio) picking up the licence this wouldn't have happened. Therefore the driving force in getting the film made is the film studio - they're the ones picking up the license and putting together the budget, and they aren't doing that with the primary objective of selling toys for the people they've just purchased a license from.

Good strawman angle with the "enrich the arts" stuff, though, because that's exactly what I said. Plus the way you ignored the other stuff in favour of signposting that there are people still alive at the end of the film apparently mans one of the main objectives is to set up a sequel. I mean, one of the main points of Apocalypse Now is to set up a sequel, because Captain Willard and Lance are still alive when the end credits roll. See, we can all do glib bullshit arguments that mean whatever we want them to...

Cliffjumper wrote:Regardless of why Hasbro licensed it

Well I was talking about their aims.

Cliffjumper wrote:Plus the way you ignored the other stuff

Ignored what?
And I think what I said about the sequel being set up is valid. Megatron was the big bad in the first film, and didn't really get all those outright spankings. He did kill Prime this around, he got a hiding from powered-up prime alright, but lived to fight another day. The fact that he on his own survived, and was specifically threatening to return again is enough on it's own to set up a sequel. You don't need to heavily detail the nature of the next threat or adventure to set up a sequel. And obviously none of the parties making money from this film are going to want to kill the golden goose, another sequel was definitely part of the thinking behind the film.

Lonewyrm wrote:I think you had their aims in the wrong order:
1) Sell toys
2) Make money in it's own right
3) Set up a sequel

Depends on who you mean by "their." I doubt Paramount cares too dearly about whether or not a single toy is sold, aside from their relationship with Hasbro.

In fact, I'd say your number two might very well be Hasbro's number one. Think about how important the films' success is to the toyline.

Anything else, like a cohesive storyline or good jokes, were bonuses. And hard to spot in the finished product

Not hard to spot the opinion above. Plenty of people laughed and had a good time and didn't think too much about why there's two Mixmasters, tbh.

Lonewyrm wrote:And I think what I said about the sequel being set up is valid. Megatron was the big bad in the first film, and didn't really get all those outright spankings. He did kill Prime this around, he got a hiding from powered-up prime alright, but lived to fight another day. The fact that he on his own survived, and was specifically threatening to return again is enough on it's own to set up a sequel. You don't need to heavily detail the nature of the next threat or adventure to set up a sequel. And obviously none of the parties making money from this film are going to want to kill the golden goose, another sequel was definitely part of the thinking behind the film.

I think Cliffjumper hit the nail on the head on this. There's a difference between setting up a sequel and leaving the possibility for a sequel wide open for anything to happen.

Just as an example, the second X-Men film had a decent setting up for the sequel. It would have been a huge fumble if Jean Grey did not return as the Phoenix in the third. If you were to completely omit Megatron's "I'll be back!" shtick, it wouldn't change the possibilities for the third TF film one bit.

S_Windell wrote:I think Cliffjumper hit the nail on the head on this. There's a difference between setting up a sequel and leaving the possibility for a sequel wide open for anything to happen.

Just as an example, the second X-Men film had a decent setting up for the sequel. It would have been a huge fumble if Jean Grey did not return as the Phoenix in the third. If you were to completely omit Megatron's "I'll be back!" shtick, it wouldn't change the possibilities for the third TF film one bit.

I agree, there is a difference between setting a sequel up, and leaving the possibility open. The fact that there are transformers left at all means the possibility is there for a sequel. I never saw Apocalypse now, but I assume those two fellas being alive leaves the door open to tell a story about their life after the war or something.

But when Megatron does specifically say "This isn't over", the sequel is set up. Setting up a sequel doesn't mean the plot has to be defined. The flame in the water at the end of X2 set up Phoenix's arrival, but nailed nothing down about why she'd come or what she'd do. She could've come back as good Phoenix (Light Phoenix?), completely changing X3 without contradicting anything in X2. That's a fairly similar scenario, to my mind.

S_Windell wrote: Depends on who you mean by "their." I doubt Paramount cares too dearly about whether or not a single toy is sold, aside from their relationship with Hasbro.

In fact, I'd say your number two might very well be Hasbro's number one. Think about how important the films' success is to the toyline.

Hasbro. If they want the film to be successful to drive the toyline, that means the toys are their priority.

S_Windell wrote: Not hard to spot the opinion above. Plenty of people laughed and had a good time and didn't think too much about why there's two Mixmasters, tbh.

Whether it's funny or not is a matter of taste, but whether people thought about it or not doesn't reduce the number of Mixmasters. Or deal with any other inconsistencies

S_Windell wrote:Depends on who you mean by "their." I doubt Paramount cares too dearly about whether or not a single toy is sold, aside from their relationship with Hasbro.

In fact, I'd say your number two might very well be Hasbro's number one. Think about how important the films' success is to the toyline.



Not hard to spot the opinion above. Plenty of people laughed and had a good time and didn't think too much about why there's two Mixmasters, tbh.



I think Cliffjumper hit the nail on the head on this. There's a difference between setting up a sequel and leaving the possibility for a sequel wide open for anything to happen.

Just as an example, the second X-Men film had a decent setting up for the sequel. It would have been a huge fumble if Jean Grey did not return as the Phoenix in the third. If you were to completely omit Megatron's "I'll be back!" shtick, it wouldn't change the possibilities for the third TF film one bit.

Long story short, the Masters of the Universe movie of the 80s, live action with Dolph Lungrin by the by, left itself open for a sequel at the end of the end credits. Skeletor appears on screen and says "I'll be back!". But they were prolly ripping that off of Terminator and the like. Regardless, some movies do sequels whereas some don't. There are some sci-fi books that REALLY deserved to be made into movies that could be block buster hits, there is even a book called The Best Science Fiction Movies Never Made (could be off on the title), and from what little I have read of it, some ideas are still out there. I am actually kinda excited for the possibilities for a third Transformer installment. I just don't want a gas cloud to be Unicron (if the big baddie is used) like in the second Fantastic Four movie. I would probably walk out of the theatre if that happened truthfully.

Springer007 wrote:Long story short, the Masters of the Universe movie of the 80s, live action with Dolph Lungrin by the by, left itself open for a sequel at the end of the end credits. Skeletor appears on screen and says "I'll be back!". But they were prolly ripping that off of Terminator and the like. Regardless, some movies do sequels whereas some don't. There are some sci-fi books that REALLY deserved to be made into movies that could be block buster hits, there is even a book called The Best Science Fiction Movies Never Made (could be off on the title), and from what little I have read of it, some ideas are still out there. I am actually kinda excited for the possibilities for a third Transformer installment. I just don't want a gas cloud to be Unicron (if the big baddie is used) like in the second Fantastic Four movie. I would probably walk out of the theatre if that happened truthfully.

Yes, I understand all that. But what I'm saying is that there is a huge difference between Megatron saying "this isn't over!" or, for example, if (IF!) Unicron had made his presence in a post-credits clip. And that, as pedantic as it is, is the difference between saying there may or may not be a sequel and providing a jumping off point for it. Like I said above, you could completely excise Megatron's taunt and it wouldn't change anyone's speculation of what to expect from the next installment.

Didn't Highlander 2 teach you people anything?! You can make a 'sequel' out of any old story regardless of what comes before.

There can be only one....

Wildrider wrote:Didn't Highlander 2 teach you people anything?! You can make a 'sequel' out of any old story regardless of what comes before.

There can be only one....

And Prime's old montage quote: One shall stand one shall fall! And you made me snicker thinking of Transformers as immortals fighting to the very last :P

Transformers 3: here's a premise that will probably never happen - the villains do something to incapacitate the humans before those fleshbags can screw up their plans. Example: spread diarrhoea germs so that all the humans are on the toilet when the evil plan goes into action. The film-makers are keen on crude humour, after all.

snavej wrote:Transformers 3: here's a premise that will probably never happen - the villains do something to incapacitate the humans before those fleshbags can screw up their plans. Example: spread diarrhoea germs so that all the humans are on the toilet when the evil plan goes into action. The film-makers are keen on crude humour, after all.

I would say that that's incredibly base and juvenile, but the two extant films have proven that to be a fair possibility. Carry on.

snavej wrote:Transformers 3: here's a premise that will probably never happen - the villains do something to incapacitate the humans before those fleshbags can screw up their plans. Example: spread diarrhoea germs so that all the humans are on the toilet when the evil plan goes into action. The film-makers are keen on crude humour, after all.

every customer i talked to that has seen Transformers have told me in their opinion they prefer GI Joe due to the lack of juvenile and crude humor. the cursing and swearing are understandable because they are soldiers, but with the toilet humor of Transformers, I don't see how someone like Bay gets away with it because common sense wold dictate to me that parents would not want their children repeating some of the humor, but the same goes for the language of GI Joe. But still, this stuff is marketed for kids, and should be at least respected as a children's toy line. I will never truly understand Hollywood.

Springer007 wrote: I will never truly understand Hollywood.

If all your new ideas suck, remake something!

They haven't remade Brewster's Millions in a while.