Transformers One (2024) [No 3D Blu-ray] [Digital only - AVP]

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Hopefully Turbine handles the blu ray 3D release for this. That would be nice, agreed.

Some general info on the producer's thoughts on a sequel:


The biggest hurdle for a producer is the budget versus the audience numbers.
Budget $75–147 million
Box office attendance $124.2 million

Lower the budget by not blowing it on full celebrity casting? Or at least make the casting make sense, why'd they cast Black Widow but not have her voice the female spider transformer?

It's been a while since I've seen all the films but, despite the humor striking out for me, I could believe this is the 2nd best film in the franchise.

With how much motion blurring there was in 2D, I would be curious how this one looks on home bluray so I'd pick it up. Also, something seems wrong when a cartoon flick makes $124 million and it didn't turn a profit.

[SCS_Shoug]

Originally Posted by Just_Discovered_3D

Also, something seems wrong when a cartoon flick makes $124 million and it didn't turn a profit.

Crazy because 75m is a pretty modest budget for an animated movie of this caliber. Especially with this much detail, fantastic lighting, and just generally great animation from ILM of all people.

[WaverBoy]

The second best film in the franchise has bombed, despite good reviews. That’s too bad. The best film in the franchise (Bumblebee of course) was at least profitable, though not as much as the Bayfests. Never underestimate the power of a short audience attention span.

Looking forward to checking out Rise of the Beasts in 3-D to see what I think. And if Turbine ends up releasing Transformers One in 3-D I’ll definitely pick it up.

[Freakyguy666]

Originally Posted by WaverBoy

The second best film in the franchise has bombed, despite good reviews. That’s too bad. The best film in the franchise (Bumblebee of course) was at least profitable, though not as much as the Bayfests. Never underestimate the power of a short audience attention span.

Looking forward to checking out Rise of the Beasts in 3-D to see what I think. And if Turbine ends up releasing Transformers One in 3-D I’ll definitely pick it up.

Agree except hard to argue Bayfesf fans have a short attention span given the length of those movies…

[Jlardonio]

Originally Posted by SCS_Shoug

Crazy because 75m is a pretty modest budget for an animated movie of this caliber. Especially with this much detail, fantastic lighting, and just generally great animation from ILM of all people.

Originally Posted by WaverBoy

The second best film in the franchise has bombed, despite good reviews. That’s too bad. The best film in the franchise (Bumblebee of course) was at least profitable, though not as much as the Bayfests. Never underestimate the power of a short audience attention span.

Looking forward to checking out Rise of the Beasts in 3-D to see what I think. And if Turbine ends up releasing Transformers One in 3-D I’ll definitely pick it up.

I don't think it bombed in the box office.

As a kid's movie it did well, but it didn't make the patrons - parents with kids - want to return to watch it again.

I went to watch it in 3D and besides it being good in 3D the story was wacky and a bit juvenile.

I understand they want to call a new generation to watch the Transformers in the big screen... but they went in a wrong path and underwhelmed both parents and kids - and die hard fans - with this approach changing the lore, using a character from the Michael Bay franchise and killing him still in the early days of both Optimus Prime and Megatron is totally insulting.

For those issues I think the movie did too well.

[levcore]

It definitely bombed at the box office. I'm not surprised though, the trailers were dreadful.

[the13thman]

Given that it's an animated film aimed at kids I can't really complain that it was too cartoonish at times but I can see how the smiling Transformers on the poster would have put adults off. I managed to get a free ticket but I still had to pay to get to the cinema, part of me always wonders whether I should bother, especially when the screening is 2D. My brother usually comes if my wife doesn't want to go but he wasn't interested and she certainly wasn't.

Being solo I got a great seat, in the end I rolled my eyes a few times and I didn't like Megatron's voice actor or some of the plot points but I got used to the style and tone quickly, the visuals kept it interesting and as a lifelong Transformers fan I enjoyed watching it much much more than I thought I would. I would love to see it on 3D Blu-ray but as long as my memory of the film lasts I am not buying it flat unless it's used for a pound or two.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Just_Discovered_3D

Lower the budget by not blowing it on full celebrity casting? Or at least make the casting make sense, why'd they cast Black Widow but not have her voice the female spider transformer?

It's been a while since I've seen all the films but, despite the humor striking out for me, I could believe this is the 2nd best film in the franchise.

With how much motion blurring there was in 2D, I would be curious how this one looks on home bluray so I'd pick it up. Also, something seems wrong when a cartoon flick makes $124 million and it didn't turn a profit.

Transformers One
Budget $75–147 million
Box office $128.7 million
"Transformers One Director Josh Cooley & Producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura Discuss Their Animated Origin Story". Animation Magazine. Archived from the original on September 26, 2024. Retrieved September 16, 2024. "ILM's pageantry of pixels on display for this $147 million production is something audiences have never quite witnessed before."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_One

The producers/director team seemed eager to make more sequels, but that tends to only happen when enough audience members buy tickets in theaters to see it, which didn't happen in the numbers this film needed to get the green light for the sequel I'd guess.

Keeping costs down for new films in theaters these days can be a big benefit for the studio, I agree. It's been proven many times now, that celebrity star voices are not what get people to see animated CGI movies in theaters. It's the content, story and marketing that does all the work IMO. One example would be the movie Delgo. It had a big all-star voice cast of famous celebrities, and was one of the lowest grossing theatrical animated movies of all time, earning under $1 million dollars with a $40m budget back in 2006.

Delgo:
Starring Freddie Prinze Jr.
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Anne Bancroft
Chris Kattan
Michael Clarke Duncan
Louis Gossett Jr.
Eric Idle
Val Kilmer
Malcolm McDowell
Burt Reynolds
Kelly Ripa
Budget $40 million
Box office $694,782 – $915,840

If a popular voice cast drew in audiences, it would be worth spending the extra money to cast them, but I agree, it's not worth it. Just get professional voice actors who aren't getting over-paid to do the roles.

The trailers were not very good and mostly hinted at trying to be funny, but the movie was generally good, and the 3D mostly a range of medium 3D layers, with one brief scene with strong 3D during the Hologram scene with all the tiny particles forming characters. After that, it went back to medium layers even during action. Age of Extinction Transformers has much more strong 3D in that film.

[Jlardonio]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

The producers/director team seemed eager to make more sequels, but that tends to only happen when enough audience members buy tickets in theaters to see it, which didn't happen in the numbers this film needed to get the green light for the sequel I'd guess.

Keeping costs down for new films in theaters these days can be a big benefit for the studio, I agree. It's been proven many times now, that celebrity star voices are not what get people to see animated CGI movies in theaters. It's the content, story and marketing that does all the work IMO. One example would be the movie Delgo. It had a big all-star voice cast of famous celebrities, and was one of the lowest grossing theatrical animated movies of all time, earning under $1 million dollars with a $40m budget back in 2006.


If a popular voice cast drew in audiences, it would be worth spending the extra money to cast them, but I agree, it's not worth it. Just get professional voice actors who aren't getting over-paid to do the roles.

The trailers were not very good and mostly hinted at trying to be funny, but the movie was generally good, and the 3D mostly a range of medium 3D layers, with one brief scene with strong 3D during the Hologram scene with all the tiny particles forming characters. After that, it went back to medium layers even during action. Age of Extinction Transformers has much more strong 3D in that film.

Although the box office wasn't tripled comparing to the production costs it almost doubled it. That's a good indicator for an OK movie to me.

The sequels might still come and be more successful than this iteration if well done.

[WaverBoy]

Originally Posted by Jlardonio

Although the box office wasn't tripled comparing to the production costs it almost doubled it. That's a good indicator for an OK movie to me.

The sequels might still come and be more successful than this iteration if well done.

If the production budget was between $75 million and $147 million, and they only brought in $128.7 million, they didn’t break even. It bombed.

[Jlardonio]

Originally Posted by WaverBoy

If the production budget was between $75 million and $147 million, and they only brought in $128.7 million, they didn’t break even. It bombed.

It wasn't between 75 and 147 million. It was 75 million.

It didn't bomb. It would bomb if it wouldn't pay itself... it almost did twice as much. It would be better if it did 3 times but it is what it is.

[SCS_Shoug]

Originally Posted by Jlardonio

It wasn't between 75 and 147 million. It was 75 million.

It didn't bomb. It would bomb if it wouldn't pay itself... it almost did twice as much. It would be better if it did 3 times but it is what it is.

It bombed either way. General rule is that a movie has to gross 2-3x its budget to break even/make a profit to cover for marketing, distribution, and the percentage of ticket sales that go to theaters. And nowadays 2-3x is being rather generous.

[Jlardonio]

Originally Posted by SCS_Shoug

It bombed either way. General rule is that a movie has to gross 2-3x its budget to break even/make a profit to cover for marketing, distribution, and the percentage of ticket sales that go to theaters. And nowadays 2-3x is being rather generous.

I know that rhetoric, but we are discussing about an OK movie from a strong franchise from a strong toys company.

It is meant to be the first of a new trilogy. And by the numbers it did fine in the box office.

I'm just hoping that the next of this iteration is better instead of what this movie was... because although some funny moments - like what the13thman said and the 3D being good - it really sucked for most Transformers fans.

128 million for an OK movie from a strong franchise isn't bad.

[WaverBoy]

Originally Posted by Jlardonio

I know that rhetoric, but we are discussing about an OK movie from a strong franchise from a strong toys company.

It is meant to be the first of a new trilogy. And by the numbers it did fine in the box office.

I'm just hoping that the next of this iteration is better instead of what this movie was... because although some funny moments - like what the13thman said and the 3D being good - it really sucked for most Transformers fans.

128 million for an OK movie from a strong franchise isn't bad.

Regardless, it bombed at the box office. That is an inescapable fact. If you don’t break even, especially a film that’s part of a popular established franchise, you definitely bombed. That’s the very definition of a box office bomb. And the budget is listed in Wikipedia as between $75 million and $147 million.

[Jlardonio]

Originally Posted by WaverBoy

And the budget is listed in Wikipedia as between $75 million and $147 million.

So... Wikipedia is more right than IMDb?

[WaverBoy]

Originally Posted by Jlardonio

So... Wikipedia is more right than IMDb?

I wouldn’t say either of them would necessarily be more reliable than the other, but I’d probably trust Wiki over IMDb. In any case, even if it was only $75 million, they still wouldn’t have broken even, and it’s still a bomb, unfortunately. It deserved to do better.

[Jlardonio]

Originally Posted by WaverBoy

I wouldn’t say either of them would necessarily be more reliable than the other, but I’d probably trust Wiki over IMDb. In any case, even if it was only $75 million, they still wouldn’t have broken even, and it’s still a bomb, unfortunately. It deserved to do better.

I don't think that Hasbro is struggling for money and won't green light the remainder sequels due to what happened to Transformers One.

[SCS_Shoug]

Originally Posted by Jlardonio

I don't think that Hasbro is struggling for money and won't green light the remainder sequels due to what happened to Transformers One.

Hasbro just owns the IP. This is mostly Paramount's money, and they've already had a rough Transformers box office streak with Rise of the Beasts. And one of the film's producers directly said that the sequel's future is tied to if the movie is a success. Which it categorically isn't. It's also TO DATE the lowest grossing Paramount Transformers film. Even if we didn't have the WIDE range of possible budgets, it's still unfortunately a bomb, regardless of IP power. The only possibility I can think of that can save this movie like it (supposedly) did ROTB is toy sales, but I've heard nothing about this movie's merchandise line. We're in an era where a movie/show has a much lower chance of finding a second life on streaming compared to the peak of physical unless it's many years down the line or the perfect storm on social media happens so that's a bit more out of the question (plus we still don't know the release date for Paramount+, a service that's dying anyways.)

[bud_brigman]

Originally Posted by Jlardonio

I don't think that Hasbro is struggling for money and won't green light the remainder sequels due to what happened to Transformers One.

While it's Paramount's money (mostly), Hasbro has laid off a significant segment of its workforce from 2023 to 2024, and had a worse 3rd quarter this year than last, when they sunset some of their toy lines (intentionally taking a loss). So, yeah. They *are* struggling for money--unless you're the CEO who seems to be doing JUST fine.

[Jlardonio]

Originally Posted by bud_brigman

While it's Paramount's money (mostly), Hasbro has laid off a significant segment of its workforce from 2023 to 2024, and had a worse 3rd quarter this year than last, when they sunset some of their toy lines (intentionally taking a loss). So, yeah. They *are* struggling for money--unless you're the CEO who seems to be doing JUST fine.

Hasbro doesn't sell only Transformers toys.

The world economy is struggling for over a year now, some companies are better than most but I don't think Hasbro is on the rotten side.

The fact is... let's get back on topic because this subject is going circles.