Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Watched Transformers 3 last night, which found to be ok, apart from the new pointless bint Anyway I was watching the Agent Simmons character and wondered if there would be legs in him getting his own spin off? I just think his character is quirky and with his bodyguard "dutch" I think it could be quite interesting. Silly idea or not?

Spock "They are dying Jim."
Kirk "Let them die."

TF4 and TF5 are all but confirmed.

I liked TF3 except for that part where they were flying around like...er...flying squirrels. That was a deal breaker. Never mind the fact that they somehow escaped a building that was tossed on its side.

The whole 'take back chicago' scene reminded me of the end Kingdom hearts two.

Platuan4th wrote:TF4 and TF5 are all but confirmed.

Multimillion dollar fight scenes that literally made me yawn are not a good thing. That movie was barely worth the $1.50 rental on redbox.

The Transformers films receive overwhelmingly negative responses, from both the critics and the general public. Despite that, each film has made loads of money.

The huge box office for the entirely terrible second movie could have been explained by the goodwill built up by the fairly decent first movie, but the third film still grossed $350 million despite being gak and following on from the gak second movie.

To Hollywood studio execs, that's a great thing. If you've got a property that people will get out and pay to watch even when it's crappy, you've cut your risk down a whole lot. We're going to keep seeing these things roll out for a long time.

Samus_aran115 wrote:I liked TF3 except for that part where they were flying around like...er...flying squirrels. That was a deal breaker. Never mind the fact that they somehow escaped a building that was tossed on its side.

This.

And also this -

The only thing TF3 was good for is counting unnecessary lens flares.

A drinking game could be made out of it, but liver death and alcohol poisoning isn't worth it.

Have to say I didn't have a problem with it in general. The FX were awesome but just too much, it was hard to take it all in. At the end of the day it's a movie based on some toy robots and to actually add the depth that they have is pretty impressive.

When you hear an audience whooping and shouting "Yeah!" at a preview screening of Ghost Rider 2, then I think we can say the film execs actually know their business

The deal breaker for me:

sebster wrote:The Transformers films receive overwhelmingly negative responses, from both the critics and the general public. Despite that, each film has made loads of money.

The huge box office for the entirely terrible second movie could have been explained by the goodwill built up by the fairly decent first movie, but the third film still grossed $350 million despite being gak and following on from the gak second movie.

To Hollywood studio execs, that's a great thing. If you've got a property that people will get out and pay to watch even when it's crappy, you've cut your risk down a whole lot. We're going to keep seeing these things roll out for a long time.

I understand when a movie is panned but well received by audiences and does well, but I still don't get how a franchise can almost universally reviled both critically and generally and still do so well financially. It is mind boggling.

I like TF 2 and 3. I don't understand the hate.

I haven't seen the 3rd one. I am doing the right thing. Only if you ignore it will it die.

Ahtman wrote:I understand when a movie is panned but well received by audiences and does well, but I still don't get how a franchise can almost universally reviled both critically and generally and still do so well financially. It is mind boggling.

It is really weird. Maybe the execs have finally perfected the formula for getting people to keep turning up for sequel after sequel, no matter how little they like and however ripped off they feel afterwards. Like KFC did years ago with their chicken.

Or maybe they don't know, and were really worried when they lurched into production of Transformers II without a finished script, and all but panicked when they saw the incomprehensible mess that was the final movie. I know Bay was sounding very defensive in a lot of the press releases in the build up to the release of the second movie. Then, despite being completely terrible, it made a stupid amount of money. So they made a third terrible movie, and it made money again. Maybe they understand as little as us about why people keep going to see these things, but they figure as long as the money keeps rolling in they won't question it.

Frazzled wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:TF4 and TF5 are all but confirmed.

Multimillion dollar fight scenes that literally made me yawn are not a good thing. That movie was barely worth the $1.50 rental on redbox.

I could have told you that before you rented. First one sucked, second one sucked, third one is not a charm in cinema.