As mentioned in a previous review ( "Transformers 3": The General of the Shorty, the pinnacle of the series ), it was the woes of "Transformers 5" that prompted me to look back on the goodness of "Transformers 3", and decided to In this article, I will specifically talk about how I personally feel about the collapse of the entire live-action "Transformers" series. As written in the title, this series has gone through a long ten years (2007-2017), and naturally there is a process from "rising the Zhulou" to "the building collapsed", and then think of the "banquet guests". Brilliant and very intriguing.
Although "Transformers" is a big IP, the live-action adaptation came from an accident. Producer Don Murphy originally planned to put another IP "Special Forces" of Hasbro on the big screen. Unexpectedly, he encountered the war of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, so he used "Transformers" at the suggestion of Hasbro. ” series instead. The first "Transformers" in 2007 is indeed quite good, especially the real realization of those robots that we used to face the cartoon YY when we were children with computer CG. When the Autobots led by Optimus Prime showed the details of the deformation one by one, I am afraid that most of our male fans would have goosebumps. Now it seems that "Change 1" is so simple, pure and beautiful.
However, certain "seeds" that would negatively affect the future were also planted at that time. Executive producer Steven Spielberg had suggested "a boy and a robot" as the focal point of the story, but director Michael Bay and the writers disagreed, and they got their hands on "Special Forces" Some inspirations have greatly increased military-oriented elements, and at the same time, combined with the American theme, it has almost become a military recruitment advertisement and weapon display of the US military, and has been added to the subsequent sequels, which has led to chain reactions in many other aspects. Spielberg's voice is still in my ears, but it has become one of the footnotes of the failure of the "Transformers" series.
If the focus of the story and characters is not enough to cause a fatal blow, then starting from "Change 3", a bottle of "poison wine" from the East has gradually eroded into the texture of this series. The high box office of the first two films in China made some Chinese companies smell business opportunities, so there were those abrupt placement advertisements. When it came to "Change 4", not only did the embedded Chinese corporate advertisements intensify to three times that of the previous one, but also Chinese companies directly participated in the production of the film as co-producers. For Paramount, it is a good thing to have Chinese investors to invest, not to mention the huge Chinese market behind it. Taking "Change 4" as an example, the advertising placement fee of Chinese companies has reached tens of millions of dollars. In addition to the box office and derivative sales, the revenue in the Chinese market alone allows the producer to recover four-fifths of the cost.
But the capital game itself is a double-edged sword, especially for both parties who are just starting to cooperate. Although the U.S. side attached great importance to the Chinese market, they did not have a clear idea of how to develop its business at the time. Therefore, how to absorb Chinese enterprises and Chinese capital has become a direction of Paramount's "research and exploration", and this process needs to be carried out through the cooperation of one film after another. The fact that Chinese capital becomes a partner will inevitably increase the right to speak in the production. However, due to the cultural differences between China and the West, the integration of Chinese elements is very rigid, which not only affects the reputation of the film around the world, but also many local Chinese audiences. Don't buy it. Unfortunately, the first "guinea pig" was precisely "Change 4" (of course, with this previous lesson, "Mission Impossible 5", which Paramount cooperated with Chinese capital, was obviously much better).
Transformers, on the other hand, is a franchise. In an era of lack of good scripts, series is often the safest and least bad choice for major studios. Maybe all series of movies will inevitably come to an end, but as long as the producers have reliable core content and dare to innovate and change, they can still greatly extend the life of such movies. So in the process of the "Transformers" series continuing to degenerate, does Paramount have a chance to correct its mistakes? There must be. For example, throw away the bottle of Chinese-owned "poison wine". It is a pity that the temptation of money is too great, and my heart is ten thousand reluctant. For another example, change the director. Currently relatively stable series of movies such as "Mission Impossible", "Fast and Furious", "Star Wars" and so on have changed a lot of directors. The new director may bring a different style and philosophy, which may be beneficial to the development of the entire series. But goose, Michael Bay is still there until "the building collapses", who is still a producer.
So, let's focus on Michael Bay. As the director who is directly responsible for the success or failure of every movie, Michael Bay is definitely to blame. In the film review of "Change 3", I mentioned some of his characteristics (such as high-speed chase shots, fragmented violent aesthetics, and sporadic fast-cut editing), but these are personal styles, not good or bad. point. The factors that affect him the most are personality factors, such as "love dazzling skills", excessive pursuit of hot special effects and dazzling shots. He was born in commercials and MV shooting, and he paid special attention to these eye-catching parts, and Michael Bay has always had blockbuster feelings. He once said: "I hope to make a movie, and then everyone will call it the most blockbuster movie of the year. It feels so cool."
Another example is "no morals". In order to sell advertisements, the plot and narrative can all be sidelined. In fact, in his early films, the narrative ability was not so bad, and "Stone Shattering" is even a very classic action film. However, starting from "Doomsday" and "Pearl Harbor" (especially the latter), there have been more and more commercial elements, but the plot has become weaker and weaker, and more and more obsessed with the old three things that he is good at (explosion, Wide-angle, slow-motion), making the film extremely long, but the really nutritious parts are few and far between.
In the "Transformers" series, his characteristics are vividly displayed. Every movie has a similar pattern over and over. The first one grabs the "tinder", the second one grabs the "energy matrix", the third one grabs the "transmission column", the fourth one grabs the "seed", and the fifth film grabs the "seed" again. Played "Merlin's Staff". At the same time, his obsession with technology and special effects has led him to an outrageous level of contempt for narrative and audience experience throughout the series. The story is bloated with too much stuff, the narrative is almost torn apart, and filled with blatant ad placements and cheesy jokes that are thought to be humorous but embarrassingly boring.
Taking this "Change 5" as an example, Michael Bay claimed in the publicity that the screenwriters of "A Beautiful Mind", "Iron Man", "Black Hawk Down" and "Lost" constitute a luxurious screenwriting team, but the actual effect is almost zero. You can see some small ideas and ideas, but there is no organic connection, and it looks messy. The main line of the film seems to be intentionally designed to be a decryption route similar to "The Da Vinci Code", but the whole process seems to have no brain-burning ingredients, and it can be done with the aura of the protagonist. On the contrary, there are a lot of stupid paragraphs. The most impressive one is that the United States actually prepared two negotiating tables in a serious manner when negotiating with Megatron, and let several lawyers sit in a row to negotiate with each other. Compared with the two, the costume battle depicting the knights of King Arthur's Round Table at the beginning of the film is even better.
In the final analysis, the film should have a little artistic and humanistic pursuit after all. Let's take "Change 5" as an example. The setting of the two human protagonists seriously lacks humanistic spirit, ignores people's subjective initiative, and people's pursuit of dignity and destiny, but grafts success into some ancient, illusory pedigree inheritance. Even because of the introduction of myths and legends, even the core of the first four - Transformers itself is no longer important. The final battle was reduced to a collection of various wide-angle and various spectacle shots. Both robots and humans became dispensable vassals, with only aesthetically fatigued special effects, but they could not mobilize the audience at all. Emotions.
Then the problem comes again. Since Michael Bay is so bad and so unpopular among audiences and film critics, why is he still standing? The reason is also very simple. He is good at using highly conceptual themes, prefers big scenes and beautiful shots, and has an "explosive" technique as his traditional art. Most of these three tricks are just "Tu Yile". of ordinary viewers will naturally feel that the ticket is well worth the money. For one thing, Michael Bay's works are still good at the box office overall, and they can always make more money on a limited budget. The market likes it and can help the boss make money. Which studio doesn't like such a director? If it weren't for the five movies that completely smashed the franchise's brand name, Paramount's money would continue to make money, and the legendary fourteen sequels would not have died without a hitch.
A few words at the end. Why is "Transformers", whose reputation is getting worse and worse, still popular in China? The "junk movie" in the mouth of film critics can actually grab a total of 5.3 billion box office from us. Is it because the audience is also trash? No, the audience will cheer for this series one by one. On the one hand, it is due to feelings, and more importantly, the choice is too narrow. Domestic film? It has always had a bad reputation; other foreign blockbusters? It doesn't seem familiar. From the perspective of entertainment and leisure, "Transformers" has become the safest choice. If we go further, in the final analysis, domestic high-quality movies are too scarce, and those so-called filmmakers who are so-called cats and dogs just want to get a share of the market, but the construction of the most important film industry system is progressing slowly. A large number of overseas "junk movies" can make a lot of money in China, who is to blame?
As for "Transformers", it is a classic that contains the most wonderful memories of our generation. Step by step, it has become the worst model for the series of movies. Perhaps it is also a worthy of pondering in the history of movies.
♑
View more about Transformers: The Last Knight reviews
