Hasbro movie universe

Money, violence, sex, computer graphics, scatalogical humor, racism, robots designed to be rednecks but given European accents, and maybe another sequel to the saga... what's not to love? TF m1, Revenge of the Fallen, Dark of the Moon and now Age of Extinction.
User avatar
Dominic
Supreme-Class
Posts: 9331
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:55 pm
Location: Boston
Contact:

Hasbro movie universe

Post by Dominic »

And, here is the link.

http://www.newsarama.com/27191-g-i-joe- ... iries.html


I am not conceptually against the idea of uniting different properties, either on screen or in comics. But, I am *very* skeptical about how well this is going to turn out.
User avatar
Onslaught Six
Supreme-Class
Posts: 7023
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:49 am
Location: In front of my computer.
Contact:

Re: Hasbro movie universe

Post by Onslaught Six »

My guess is: Not well.

EVERYONE wants a "cinematic universe" now. It's the new Hollywood buzzwords. The problem is, most of them don't realize that there's only ever been two successful "cinematic universes" (that are outright stated to be such); and that's Marvel and Kevin Smith. In both cases, the only reason these two universes work is because they are made entirely of great parts. Yes, the Avengers films and crossovers are great, but at the core we had the very good Iron Man film from 2008 and the pretty okay Hulk film from the same year. (Say what you will, it has "solid MCU" written all over it, and delivered in all the ways 2003 Hulk failed.) Almost any MCU single character film can be an enjoyable ride just on its own, with rare exception (especially accounting for taste; I'm not too into the Thor movies but that's because I'm just not too into Thor); comparatively, there has yet to be a Hasbro film that approaches the level of even the worst MCU films (Iron Man 2 and 3, Thor 1 and 2, Hulk). Shit, the closest they've gotten is GI Joe 2, and that movie got ruined in the editing room. (The original cut is much better, but was only available officially through an obscure exclusive Blu-Ray or something. Thankfully it is easily pirated.)

That said, there is plenty of potential. MASK probably has the most, especially if it's anything like the modernized take from that comic that everyone loves to attach to this news story. (Some idiots keep saying it was "Mad Max" inspired, but somehow people reporting on 80s toy franchises have never seen an 80s film in their life. The comic's version of MASK is clearly Robocop inspired. It even takes place in Detroit.) Micronauts is a hard sell and it's a property that most don't know or understand the details of, and it's got Robotech levels of Americanization bullshit to cut through to its original Microman roots. (Still, a properly tongue-in-cheek sentai-esque movie would be a good direction to go.) I don't know enough about Visionaries to say whether or not it could work, although my money is on no.

ROM being in control of Hasbro is a travesty. That character should be in the MCU if anything.
BWprowl wrote:The internet having this many different words to describe nerdy folks is akin to the whole eskimos/ice situation, I would presume.
People spend so much time worrying about whether a figure is "mint" or not that they never stop to consider other flavours.
Image
User avatar
JediTricks
Site Admin
Posts: 3849
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:17 pm
Location: LA, CA, USA

Re: Hasbro movie universe

Post by JediTricks »

ROM is getting a new series with IDW, so that's never gonna be in the MCU.

I predict this won't work, the MCU was built to be good stand-alone movies before anything else and they fill a specific niche audiences want. Nobody is looking for these Hasbro brands to be movies, MASK is my jam but without a driving vision to keep it from being yet another bland origin story, it's going to be a bland origin story that nobody wants to see. Audiences don't want Micronauts and Visionaries, and they surely won't get that GI Joe is in the same boat. This is cart before the horse thinking.
Image
See, that one's a camcorder, that one's a camera, that one's a phone, and they're doing "Speak no evil, See no evil, Hear no evil", get it?
User avatar
Dominic
Supreme-Class
Posts: 9331
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:55 pm
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Hasbro movie universe

Post by Dominic »

Hasbro's biggest problem with their movies is that the movies are bad.

There were people looking forward to "Rise of Cobra" in 2009. (Not kidding. I met many of them.) Ditto for "Transformers". The problem is that the best of Hasbro's movies have very little re-watch value. And, they cannot be recommended as *good*. I sat through the four TF movies and 2 Joe movie because I know the franchises. (But, I *never* said they were good, even to other fans.)

"MASK" has the potential to be a great movie, a great franchise. And, it could be made to work with TF and/or Joe. But, Hasbro does not have (nor has it hired) the talent to make it work. Bay makes generic action movies. The "Transformers" movies are action movies with better branding and merchandising that most of the genre.

"Visionaries" could also work as a movie. (I recall it arguably being the best Sunbow cartoon. But, those memoris are nearly 3 decades old.)

there has yet to be a Hasbro film that approaches the level of even the worst MCU films
I do not think that there is that much of a gap.

The best TF movies (3 or 4) are not that far behind "Iron Man 3" (which has more than its share of idiotic plot points).

Shit, the closest they've gotten is GI Joe 2, and that movie got ruined in the editing room. (The original cut is much better, but was only available officially through an obscure exclusive Blu-Ray or something. Thankfully it is easily pirated.)
What was removed in order to "ruin" "Retaliation"? (I say "ruin" in quotes because "ruin" implies "degraded from a higher state", and I am skeptical that "Retaliation" had a higher initial state.)
User avatar
Shockwave
Supreme-Class
Posts: 6205
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Hasbro movie universe

Post by Shockwave »

MASK would actually make sense as a Joe/TF crossover movie. The GI Joes start using TF technology to upgrade their vehicles. It's an interesting premise. I know nothing of Visionairies so I got nothing on that. Having said that, Hasbro's CU has not had talent working on it and I was already looking forward to a day when Bay and Co were no longer working on the movies. Now it just seems like we're in for a cinematic inundation of these things. Ugh. Up next, Tranformers Origins: Bumblebee. :roll:
User avatar
JediTricks
Site Admin
Posts: 3849
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:17 pm
Location: LA, CA, USA

Re: Hasbro movie universe

Post by JediTricks »

Dominic wrote:Hasbro's biggest problem with their movies is that the movies are bad.

There were people looking forward to "Rise of Cobra" in 2009. (Not kidding. I met many of them.) Ditto for "Transformers". The problem is that the best of Hasbro's movies have very little re-watch value. And, they cannot be recommended as *good*. I sat through the four TF movies and 2 Joe movie because I know the franchises. (But, I *never* said they were good, even to other fans.)

"MASK" has the potential to be a great movie, a great franchise. And, it could be made to work with TF and/or Joe. But, Hasbro does not have (nor has it hired) the talent to make it work. Bay makes generic action movies. The "Transformers" movies are action movies with better branding and merchandising that most of the genre.

"Visionaries" could also work as a movie. (I recall it arguably being the best Sunbow cartoon. But, those memoris are nearly 3 decades old.)
GI Joe Retaliation was alright, shouldn't have been held back a year.

there has yet to be a Hasbro film that approaches the level of even the worst MCU films
I do not think that there is that much of a gap.

The best TF movies (3 or 4) are not that far behind "Iron Man 3" (which has more than its share of idiotic plot points).
You got me there, I forgot that IM2 and IM3 are part of the MCU. IM3 is well thought of, which I don't get, doesn't seem deserved at all unless you're taking it as the 5th Lethal Weapon film it is.
Image
See, that one's a camcorder, that one's a camera, that one's a phone, and they're doing "Speak no evil, See no evil, Hear no evil", get it?
User avatar
Onslaught Six
Supreme-Class
Posts: 7023
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:49 am
Location: In front of my computer.
Contact:

Re: Hasbro movie universe

Post by Onslaught Six »

JediTricks wrote:ROM is getting a new series with IDW, so that's never gonna be in the MCU.
Yes, because Hasbro owns him now. Which is the travesty. (Plus, you say "never" right now, but a year and a half ago people said we would "never" see Spiderman in the MCU.) I realize the current arrangement means it's likely to not happen, but my point is that ROM should have never been allowed to fall into Hasbro's IP hands in the first place. (How the hell can Hasbro own ROM but I am literally buying a comic called "Venom: Space Knight?" You know what, forget it, I don't care.)
Dominic wrote:There were people looking forward to "Rise of Cobra" in 2009. (Not kidding. I met many of them.)
Hell, I was one of them. I'll still defend that movie, too--it may not be an ideal iteration of GI Joe as a franchise, but that movie holds up to technical scrutiny more than any of the Bay TF films, and even its most cringey "humour" is still miles ahead of TF's "let's make masturbation, weed and statutory rape jokes" level. Retaliation is actually even better at this though; of all the Hasbro movies, it damn near approaches respectable.
"Visionaries" could also work as a movie. (I recall it arguably being the best Sunbow cartoon. But, those memoris are nearly 3 decades old.)
Honestly, the biggest flaw is that motherfucking INHUMANOIDS isn't a part of this. What I wouldn't give for a live action CGI D-Compose on the big screen.
The best TF movies (3 or 4) are not that far behind "Iron Man 3" (which has more than its share of idiotic plot points).
Honestly, my problem with the TF films more and more is less "there are some arguably stupid plot points" and more "the humour is entirely forced and inappropriate in tone." When Tony Stark makes a joke, it is 9/10 funny, relevant to the situation, and appropriate for the tone of the movie.

In IM1, when Pepper first "catches" Tony in the Iron Man suit, he says, "Let's face it, this is not the worst thing you've caught me doing." It's clever, it's appropriate for his character, and most importantly, it aims higher up. Pepper doesn't catch Tony and say, "Oh my God, Tony, are you masturbating?! You know what, we don't have to call it that. We can call it Iron Man's Happy Time." Nobody in the MCU gets high on pot brownies. For all the arguments about how much or how little screen time or character development Black Widow is getting, we never get an intentional upskirt shot of ScarJo, and we never get a scene where Hawkeye and Captain America argue over who gets to rescue her. (That literally happened in TF4 in case you forgot.) We don't see endless shots of military jargon-spouting bullshit and shots of faceless troops mobilizing like it's an Army recruitment commercial. This is the kind of shit that makes me embarassed to like Transformers; that someone sees these things and says, "Oh, that's what you like?"
What was removed in order to "ruin" "Retaliation"? (I say "ruin" in quotes because "ruin" implies "degraded from a higher state", and I am skeptical that "Retaliation" had a higher initial state.)
Actually, a LOT. Most of it are weird connective tissue in action scenes that actually make it clearer what's going on; Firefly actually has a huge part in the final escape scenes that got cut to shit, for example. The other thing is a lot of character building stuff that got axed for reasons I'll never understand--one of the biggest complaints I saw from military nutballs (who always care about useless bullshit like "Lady Jaye technically outranks Roadblock according to the 1985 filecards, why isn't she the leader?") was that Flint has no reprimand for replacing the foreign flag with a GI Joe flag in the opening sequence; the next scene in the extended/original cut is the entire cut bar sequence (which showed up in some trailers and even the finished film's end credits, what the fuck!) where Roadblock literally reprimands Flint for disobeying orders and jeopardizing the mission. The other big cut scene was one in the makeshift base in the gym where Roadblock and Flint argue; Flint thinks Roadblock is going too far and Roadblock is like "I watched everybody die and I'm gonna make President Zartan pay." Which is also more character development for Flint. Without these two scenes, Flint comes off kind of as a cipher in the finished film; he's just another army guy who does stuff.

It's still by no means perfect, but the added footage only adds up to maybe 10-15 extra minutes in total and really does add to the movie. If the release hadn't been delayed for a year because Avengers (I refuse to believe anything else) and the final theatrical cut had been this one, I think the reception would have been a lot stronger.
BWprowl wrote:The internet having this many different words to describe nerdy folks is akin to the whole eskimos/ice situation, I would presume.
People spend so much time worrying about whether a figure is "mint" or not that they never stop to consider other flavours.
Image
User avatar
Dominic
Supreme-Class
Posts: 9331
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:55 pm
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Hasbro movie universe

Post by Dominic »

You got me there, I forgot that IM2 and IM3 are part of the MCU. IM3 is well thought of, which I don't get, doesn't seem deserved at all unless you're taking it as the 5th Lethal Weapon film it is.
The fact you outright forgot about two whole movies kind of exemplifies my biggest complaint about the Marvel movies as a whole. As somebody else said a while ago (either Prowl or O6), the Marvel films have a base level of "not sucking". That is fair. But, they are also not terribly memorable.

Yes, because Hasbro owns him now. Which is the travesty. (Plus, you say "never" right now, but a year and a half ago people said we would "never" see Spiderman in the MCU.) I realize the current arrangement means it's likely to not happen, but my point is that ROM should have never been allowed to fall into Hasbro's IP hands in the first place. (How the hell can Hasbro own ROM but I am literally buying a comic called "Venom: Space Knight?" You know what, forget it, I don't care.)
"Rom" is a broken license, like "Go-Bots". The characters are owned by one company (Marvel in this case), but the character models are owned by another. This is why all of the Space Knights have been redesigned (explained on page by the armor being repaired/rebuilt). Stuff developed and used at Marvel belongs to Marvel, hence the Venom book. But, Venom is not likely to see other Knights using old armour.

Hell, I was one of them. I'll still defend that movie, too--it may not be an ideal iteration of GI Joe as a franchise, but that movie holds up to technical scrutiny more than any of the Bay TF films, and even its most cringey "humour" is still miles ahead of TF's "let's make masturbation, weed and statutory rape jokes" level.
The more crass elements of Bayformers are arguably why those movies have been more successful. Bay's single greatest advantage is an ability to identify what a large segment of the audience wants. It arguably says more about movie goers than Bay. (This is a poor defense. But, it is something to consider.)

Not sure that TF is appreciably more deficient in technical terms than the Joe movies. Both, have a few good moments and plenty of bad ones.


For all the arguments about how much or how little screen time or character development Black Widow is getting, we never get an intentional upskirt shot of ScarJo, and we never get a scene where Hawkeye and Captain America argue over who gets to rescue her. (
Pretty sure there is a (plot relevant, but still avoidable) strip sequence in one of the Iron Man or Captain America movies. She is not twerking her way in to battle, but Johansen partially disrobes on camera.

At least the butt-shot of the girl in TF4 was followed by a joke about how everybody who enjoyed it was a scumbag (which at least demonstrated that Bay knows it was sleazy). I am

We don't see endless shots of military jargon-spouting bullshit and shots of faceless troops mobilizing like it's an Army recruitment commercial.
That might be a trade-off. Bay gives the military time to shine in return for access. (He is known to have an excellent working relationship with the military. Product placement like the scene where the Air Force mobilizes against Scorponok cannot hurt that dynamic.)

Actually, a LOT. Most of it are weird connective tissue in action scenes that actually make it clearer what's going on; Firefly actually has a huge part in the final escape scenes that got cut to shit, for example.
He was supposed to be a Joe, right?

the next scene in the extended/original cut is the entire cut bar sequence (which showed up in some trailers and even the finished film's end credits, what the fuck!)
Cut scenes being in trailers or credits happens. "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" (one of the greatest movies ever) deliberately used part of a cut scene to mislead audiences about the tone and direction of the movies. (And, there was another part of that scene that *really* should have been in the movie. The cries and feelz man......)

one of the biggest complaints I saw from military nutballs (who always care about useless bullshit like "Lady Jaye technically outranks Roadblock according to the 1985 filecards, why isn't she the leader?") was that Flint has no reprimand for replacing the foreign flag with a GI Joe flag in the opening sequence;
That is a legitimate complaint. If the movie and characters are supposed to be military themed, that should be reflected on screen/page.

But, movie Roadblock and Lady Jaye are not comic/card Lady Jaye and Road Block.
User avatar
JediTricks
Site Admin
Posts: 3849
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:17 pm
Location: LA, CA, USA

Re: Hasbro movie universe

Post by JediTricks »

What is Hasbro trying to achieve with this shared movie universe? Their Transformers films are films that the toy-buying target audience can't see and shouldn't see, same with GI Joe 1. Are they going to continue making toy-based movies for people 17 and up (mostly with the minds of 14 and down) and selling product to children?

Onslaught Six wrote:
JediTricks wrote:ROM is getting a new series with IDW, so that's never gonna be in the MCU.
Yes, because Hasbro owns him now. Which is the travesty. (Plus, you say "never" right now, but a year and a half ago people said we would "never" see Spiderman in the MCU.) I realize the current arrangement means it's likely to not happen, but my point is that ROM should have never been allowed to fall into Hasbro's IP hands in the first place. (How the hell can Hasbro own ROM but I am literally buying a comic called "Venom: Space Knight?" You know what, forget it, I don't care.)
I can safely say never on ROM in the MCU because there's no real demand, it's a handful of older fanboys and nobody else, not worth prying a character loose from Hasbro's clutches with greased cash. The Venom Space Knight is a loving homage/parody title. The reason Hasbro owns ROM is because Hasbro bought Parker Bros who was the producer of ROM, it's the same way Marvel doesn't own the GI Joe ARAH characters or Transformers characters despite creating their fictions - it was work for pay.
Hell, I was one of them. I'll still defend that movie, too--it may not be an ideal iteration of GI Joe as a franchise, but that movie holds up to technical scrutiny more than any of the Bay TF films, and even its most cringey "humour" is still miles ahead of TF's "let's make masturbation, weed and statutory rape jokes" level. Retaliation is actually even better at this though; of all the Hasbro movies, it damn near approaches respectable.
:shock: :? Technical scrutiny? That first GI Joe was so bad on every level, and that's coming from one of the few defenders of the sequel. Do you mean its in-universe technical stuff or its moviemaking technical stuff? I would deny either, even with Bayformers being the benchmark.
Honestly, my problem with the TF films more and more is less "there are some arguably stupid plot points" and more "the humour is entirely forced and inappropriate in tone." When Tony Stark makes a joke, it is 9/10 funny, relevant to the situation, and appropriate for the tone of the movie.

In IM1, when Pepper first "catches" Tony in the Iron Man suit, he says, "Let's face it, this is not the worst thing you've caught me doing." It's clever, it's appropriate for his character, and most importantly, it aims higher up. Pepper doesn't catch Tony and say, "Oh my God, Tony, are you masturbating?! You know what, we don't have to call it that. We can call it Iron Man's Happy Time." Nobody in the MCU gets high on pot brownies. For all the arguments about how much or how little screen time or character development Black Widow is getting, we never get an intentional upskirt shot of ScarJo, and we never get a scene where Hawkeye and Captain America argue over who gets to rescue her. (That literally happened in TF4 in case you forgot.) We don't see endless shots of military jargon-spouting bullshit and shots of faceless troops mobilizing like it's an Army recruitment commercial. This is the kind of shit that makes me embarassed to like Transformers; that someone sees these things and says, "Oh, that's what you like?"
Well said. I don't think that's the TF films' biggest problem, but it's a biggie (and you highlighted several, none of which are the top of my list, yet they all rate highly as massive flaws).

Actually, that gives me a thought, I'll post at the top.
Actually, a LOT. Most of it are weird connective tissue in action scenes that actually make it clearer what's going on; Firefly actually has a huge part in the final escape scenes that got cut to shit, for example. The other thing is a lot of character building stuff that got axed for reasons I'll never understand--one of the biggest complaints I saw from military nutballs (who always care about useless bullshit like "Lady Jaye technically outranks Roadblock according to the 1985 filecards, why isn't she the leader?") was that Flint has no reprimand for replacing the foreign flag with a GI Joe flag in the opening sequence; the next scene in the extended/original cut is the entire cut bar sequence (which showed up in some trailers and even the finished film's end credits, what the fuck!) where Roadblock literally reprimands Flint for disobeying orders and jeopardizing the mission. The other big cut scene was one in the makeshift base in the gym where Roadblock and Flint argue; Flint thinks Roadblock is going too far and Roadblock is like "I watched everybody die and I'm gonna make President Zartan pay." Which is also more character development for Flint. Without these two scenes, Flint comes off kind of as a cipher in the finished film; he's just another army guy who does stuff.
Ugh, Flint. Casting ruined Flint before any of these cuts. I can see why they'd cut anything to do with him.
It's still by no means perfect, but the added footage only adds up to maybe 10-15 extra minutes in total and really does add to the movie. If the release hadn't been delayed for a year because Avengers (I refuse to believe anything else) and the final theatrical cut had been this one, I think the reception would have been a lot stronger.
They wouldn't pay an exorbitant fee to do post-production 3D conversion and do reshoots just to avoid missing an embarrassing release date. They knew the movie was too much fanservice and not broad enough for general appeal, plus they had this talent in Channing Taters whose name had become huge since the first movie and wanted to exploit it with a few more scenes. The irony is that they would have been fine with fanservice and shouldn't have even worried about keeping OR losing Tatum, Duke could have been in a coma again or off on a different adventure or even captured for part of the film, people who wouldn't have seen it on opening day would have gotten buzz about it being a fan movie and seen it anyway because people are generally sheep now and are hoping to get in on the next big thing.

Dom wrote:The fact you outright forgot about two whole movies kind of exemplifies my biggest complaint about the Marvel movies as a whole. As somebody else said a while ago (either Prowl or O6), the Marvel films have a base level of "not sucking". That is fair. But, they are also not terribly memorable.
Bullspit. I remember clearly most of the MCU: IM, Incredible Hulk (which is becoming more re-absorbed into the MCU with Civil War film), Thor, Cap 1, Avengers, Ant Man, Avengers 2 and Cap 2 (being lesser-than sequels that somehow get a lot of buzz), Thor 2 (which in some ways was better than Thor), Agent Carter, Agents of SHIELD, Daredevil, and Jessica Jones. I forgot about IM2 and 3 because ugh, and Guardians because I just didn't really dig it or hate it but it's very disconnected.

The more crass elements of Bayformers are arguably why those movies have been more successful. Bay's single greatest advantage is an ability to identify what a large segment of the audience wants. It arguably says more about movie goers than Bay. (This is a poor defense. But, it is something to consider.)

Not sure that TF is appreciably more deficient in technical terms than the Joe movies. Both, have a few good moments and plenty of bad ones.
Bay's films are hucksterism at its finest, he knows how to make films look massive and epic, he throws in lowest-common-denominator humor and characterization, he uses the same script and character beats every time, and gets away with it by changing settings to fool an audience that has been trained to actively try not to think about their entertainment. The fact that ROTF made that much money proves how bad it is.
That might be a trade-off. Bay gives the military time to shine in return for access. (He is known to have an excellent working relationship with the military. Product placement like the scene where the Air Force mobilizes against Scorponok cannot hurt that dynamic.)
Bay uses jingoism when it sells, always has, but now that China is becoming a significant financial component he's eschewing jingoism for international appeal, even shooting alternate cuts for them.
Image
See, that one's a camcorder, that one's a camera, that one's a phone, and they're doing "Speak no evil, See no evil, Hear no evil", get it?
User avatar
Dominic
Supreme-Class
Posts: 9331
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:55 pm
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Hasbro movie universe

Post by Dominic »

What is Hasbro trying to achieve with this shared movie universe? Their Transformers films are films that the toy-buying target audience can't see and shouldn't see, same with GI Joe 1.
I see your point about Bayformers, but I know more than one parent who is perfectly fine with their kids (10 and under) watching Bayformers. Not sure what was so objectionable in the first Joe movie. (It was more kid friendly than the sequel.)

I think that the apparent push for "shared universe on screen" (among various companies) is a result of Marvel's success with that principle. People see that it is working for Marvel, but are not quite sure how or why it is working.
Post Reply