View Poll Results: Is Bumblebee worth watching in cinemas?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    30 88.24%
  • No

    2 5.88%
  • Unsure

    2 5.88%
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44

Thread: Please watch BUMBLEBEE in cinemas (NO SPOILERS)

  1. #11
    Join Date
    24th May 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    38,239

    Default

    It's not so much the content of the movie giving it a poor performance at the box-office... it's about the marketing. This is why most big movies spend more on marketing now than the actual movie (Bumblebee might have had a budget of 130million, but I read somewhere that it has to make 250-300million to make money... probably thanks to those global promo tours they had in most countries... except ours).
    For the actual marketing of the Movie, most of the trailers and TV ads I've seen focussed on the girl and the relationship between her and the car.... and I only saw one TV trailer that focussed on the robot fighting and special effects. If you spend a lot of money on certain elements of a movie and then don't promote it in your advertising, people aren't going to go see it, because they don't think there is any. We know its there because we are dedicated fans who have been following the production of the movie... but regular people who made up 99% of the billion dollar average of the first five movies, will think it is a drama, or more like ET than Transformers 1-5. It doesn't even market itself as "Transformers", with that word being absent on movie posters and advertising... so it isn't even cashing in on that multi-billion dollar brand name. Just calling it Bumblebee doesn't get the same word-association that a Transformers-Bumblebee would.

    And my third point - Bumblebee tried to market itself as a family movie, which is not where most movie money comes from. Only three of the top 20 highest grossing movies are PG or G (in Australia)... there is a reason why 85% of the highest earning movies are M rated, because the age demographics that are more likely to go to movies prefer to see something that isn't "kiddy friendly". Paramount in Australia had the option to have the movie rated M, but fought to have it PG... and it wouldn't have stopped parents taking their kids to it (most people I know still had their kids see the earlier ones), as they would have watched it and seen that it was kid-friendly.

    And my final point, is that if you have a greater proportion of your audience being young kids, it means less money being generated (after costs), as kids tickets are cheaper than adult tickets.
    A great movie doesn't guarantee a great return... and a great return doesn't guarantee that it is a great movie - as Transformers fans we know how much that is true, when comparing this one to the previous five.
    And sometimes, there is just no obvious or rational reason why a movie succeeds or fails. Just look at Avatar - I still don't get why that movie earned so much - us2.7billion... for a movie that wasn't that exciting or spectacular, and to me was very predictable. I think it was a good movie, but not great... certainly not great enough to have earned 30% more than the next biggest movie... and that only 7 movies earned above 50% of its total earnings.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    27th Dec 2007
    Location
    Chadstone, Vic
    Posts
    15,772

    Default

    There’s no question why Avatar made so much money: it was the first film in the modern 3D format. It was a new novelty and the 3D worked (for most people) and millions wanted to experience it. Then you add on that cinemas charged extra for the film because of the 3D experience and boom. (There is absolutely no need for the additional 4 or 5 sequels James Cameron wants to make though unless they introduce some other techno focal breakthrough).

  3. #13
    Join Date
    27th Dec 2007
    Location
    Sydney NSW
    Posts
    37,637

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KELPIE View Post
    The fact that they are flip-flopping on reboot or not reboot has me worried.

    I'd rather they just scrap the continuity and start again. (Bee with a normal face would be nice).
    This movie sorta leaves it open ended -- you can interpret it as a reboot or a prequel, it's up to you as an audience member. Live action TF continuity is a weird thing considering that they Bayformer films never much kept on continuity with each other.

    The AllSpark Cube is the source of all life on Cybertron. Megatron made an ancient deal with the Fallen and must kill Optimus Prime for the Fallen to rise again and use the Matrix to activate the Star Harvester. But he also made an ancient deal with Sentinel Prime where Megatron must keep Optimus Prime alive in order to use the Matrix to reactivate Sentinel who in turn will open the space bridge in order to bring Cybertron to Earth and enslave humanity. No wait, screw the Cube, it turns out that the Transformers were made by some fleshy pink aliens who seeded other planets with Cybertoni---, Transformium, in order to create more Transformers. No wait, screw that. It turns out that the Transformers were made by a hot metallic yet mentally unhinged goddess called Quintessa and Earth is Unicron which she wants to kill. Wait, so would the Star Harvester have reactivated Unicron? Why didn't Unicron activate when Cybertron came within orbit? Why does Optimus Prime's personality keep flip-flopping? Does he have some kind of multiple personality disorder? I... I don't even... I...

  4. #14
    Join Date
    19th May 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    890

    Default

    Critical reviews aren't necessarily an indicator of quality; they only show what a certain person subjectively thought of a movie. Likewise, critical aggregate scores only show what a small subset of people think of the movie. If a critic - or a bunch of critics - likes a movie, it doesn't mean any individual viewer will.

    Movies are art, and art is subjective. The things that people rate movies on - writing, acting, set design, editing, cinematography, score, VFX - are all appraised subjectively. The idea that a movie is 'objectively' good or bad has become a pet peeve of mine.

    People don't seem to know how Rotten Tomatoes works. I'm still trying to get my head around it myself, but a Tomatometer score is not an average score. The score is the percentage of reviewers who gave a movie a rating better than 3/5. It doesn't say what the reviewers' actual scores were. A movie can have an RT score above 90%, but many of those actual reviews could have been only 6/10. Likewise, an RT score of 30% could be composed largely of 5/10 reviews.

    Quote Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime View Post
    Live action TF continuity is a weird thing considering that they Bayformer films never much kept on continuity with each other.

    The AllSpark Cube is the source of all life on Cybertron. Megatron made an ancient deal with the Fallen and must kill Optimus Prime for the Fallen to rise again and use the Matrix to activate the Star Harvester. But he also made an ancient deal with Sentinel Prime where Megatron must keep Optimus Prime alive in order to use the Matrix to reactivate Sentinel who in turn will open the space bridge in order to bring Cybertron to Earth and enslave humanity. No wait, screw the Cube, it turns out that the Transformers were made by some fleshy pink aliens who seeded other planets with Cybertoni---, Transformium, in order to create more Transformers. No wait, screw that. It turns out that the Transformers were made by a hot metallic yet mentally unhinged goddess called Quintessa and Earth is Unicron which she wants to kill. Wait, so would the Star Harvester have reactivated Unicron? Why didn't Unicron activate when Cybertron came within orbit? Why does Optimus Prime's personality keep flip-flopping? Does he have some kind of multiple personality disorder? I... I don't even... I...
    Seriously, continuity is nowhere near as bad as some people seem to think; then again, that's probably what happens when you write movies one at a time instead of having an overarching plan.

    The 'Creators' aren't incompatible with the AllSpark - it's not inconceivable that they had a hand in creating the AllSpark. Quintessa could have been an ally or even a member of the Creators who had cybernetic enhancements; then again, the Guardian Knights called Quintessa 'the great deceiver', so take whatever she says with a grain of salt.

    The deal with the Fallen isn't incompatible with the one with Sentinel Prime. Megatron made a deal with Sentinel to defect and come to an agreement to end the war. At this time, the AllSpark was still present and hadn't been lost yet. When it was lost, there was a need to recover it, and when that was no longer an option, the idea of the Harvester came into play. When that was no longer an option and it became clear that Sentinel Prime couple be brought back into play, Megatron changed plans again.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    27th Dec 2007
    Location
    Sydney NSW
    Posts
    37,637

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnus View Post
    Seriously, continuity is nowhere near as bad as some people seem to think; then again, that's probably what happens when you write movies one at a time instead of having an overarching plan.
    Many stories are made without an overarching plan that doesn't create as massive a continuity headache as Bayformers. The MCU is unusual in that they sat down and formulated an overarching plan for their movies. Most people don't do that. The writers of Beast Wars made stuff up as they went along.
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnus View Post
    The 'Creators' aren't incompatible with the AllSpark - it's not inconceivable that they had a hand in creating the AllSpark. Quintessa could have been an ally or even a member of the Creators who had cybernetic enhancements; then again, the Guardian Knights called Quintessa 'the great deceiver', so take whatever she says with a grain of salt.
    See... I think the fact that fans have to try and make excuses is a sign of weak story-telling. It's not up to us to fill in plot holes. These glaring holes just shouldn't exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnus View Post
    The deal with the Fallen isn't incompatible with the one with Sentinel Prime. Megatron made a deal with Sentinel to defect and come to an agreement to end the war. At this time, the AllSpark was still present and hadn't been lost yet. When it was lost, there was a need to recover it, and when that was no longer an option, the idea of the Harvester came into play. When that was no longer an option and it became clear that Sentinel Prime couple be brought back into play, Megatron changed plans again.
    Plan A: kill Optimus Prime to bring back the Fallen and use the Matrix to activate the Star Harvester
    Plan B: manipulate Optimus Prime into using the Matrix to resurrect Sentinel Prime so that he can activate the Space Bridge

    Plan B can only work if Plan A never happens or utterly fails. What if Plan A failed and Optimus Prime was never resurrected? (there are several ways I can imagine this happening) Plan B becomes utterly useless. After centuries of planning -- planting an army of Decepticons on the Moon. Getting the humans to go to the Moon and retrieve the Pillars. All that plotting for nothing. Oh yeah, there's an army of Decepticons on the freakin' Moon! Why did we never see them used before? Searching for Megatron and the Cube -- activate the army! Searching for the Matrix and needing to activate and defend the Harvester -- activate the army! I remember watching DOTM in cinemas, and in the scene where the Decepticons emerge on the lunar surface I heard a guy say something like, "There was an army of Decepticons just lying there this whole time?!"

    It reminds me of the G1 cartoon continuity, but we know that that was because the writers didn't communicate with each other and that Sunbow never mandated an overarching canon. Plus it was just a kid's cartoon show, not a US$200 million per story series of Hollywood blockbusters. We saw the cartoon for free on TV vs having to pay for the price of a movie ticket. But even then, we still laughed at the G1 cartoon's continuity flaws as kids anyway.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    12th Jun 2011
    Location
    Gladstone
    Posts
    6,452

    Default

    If Bumblebee was releasing in a time that works better for me I'd go see it in the cinema. However, working retail there are two times of year I can't afford to take a day off. Christmas/BTS and Toy Sale. I'll probably see it on 4K UHD Blu-ray.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    5th Feb 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    3,270

    Default

    I'll probably watch it at home release.

    I liked TF07, and I didn't mind DOTM, but ROTF, AOE, and TLK were utter dogshit. This is likely to be a cinematic miss from me. I just don't have the confidence in the franchise at this point.
    I'm really just here for the free food and open bar.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    2nd Aug 2008
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    810

    Default

    I took my boys to see this last night, without giving away anything I would say it is definitely worth a watch on the big screen, even more so if your a fan of Transformers. Besides all the cool robots it stars one of the greatest humanitarians alive today in John Cena, supporting this movie not only grows the Transformers franchise but also helps spread the influence of a truly good person.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    27th Dec 2007
    Location
    Sydney NSW
    Posts
    37,637

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SharkyMcShark View Post
    I liked TF07, and I didn't mind DOTM, but ROTF, AOE, and TLK were utter (canine excrement). This is likely to be a cinematic miss from me. I just don't have the confidence in the franchise at this point.
    I've seen many reviews from people who hate Bayformers (especially the sequels) who had low expectations for Bumblebee but have walked away singing it praise. Here are some spoiler-free reviews from people who hated the other TF movies but have really enjoyed Bumblebee.
    The Flick Pick
    Chris Stuckman
    Jeremy Jahns
    I think it speaks volumes about the quality of this movie when the haters are singing it praise. I've said for years with Bayformers that the best way to silence your critics is to produce a good movie. This is what Knight has done. All we need now are people to actually go watch it! Otherwise if Paramount goes back to the same formula that we had for the Bayformer sequels then we'll have noone else to blame but ourselves.

    Is Bumblebee a perfect movie? No. But movies don't need to be perfect, they just need to be good. This is something that the MCU has generally used to their success - they're not about creating perfect movies, they're just about producing good movies. And just for comparison, here is how we OzFormers have rated Bumblebee against the last three films (I couldn't find the review threads for TF07 or ROTF).

  10. #20
    Join Date
    24th May 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    38,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime View Post
    (I couldn't find the review threads for TF07 or ROTF).

    We moved here in 2008, so there isn't a review topic for the 2007 movie.
    The 2009 movie poll is here - http://www.otca.com.au/boards/showthread.php?t=4721

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •