>100 million budget + shitload for marketing >140 million

They're thinking merchandising is worth a pretty shekel.

Probably that they'll never make another Power Rangers movie again. If only they had made it good this could have been avoided.

>>83919369
Such a shame too, because out of all the 90s nostalgia flicks, this one was the best. Fuck Transformers and TMNT, why are they still making those?

>>83919482
>If only they had made it good this could have been avoided.
It was better than Transformers and TMNT, and they got sequels.

Guess lesbians don't like it.

>>83919604
>lesbians don't like elizabeth banks in tight clothing
Bull fucking shit.

>>83919604
There's nothing in the movie that confirms the yellow one was a lesbian. There's like one line that hints at it, but it isn't confirmed and the asian dude even has a crush on her.

>>83919509
It was bland and forgettable. Even Transformers isn't that. At least those movies have Peter Cullen's remarkable voice work. This shit was boring.

>and they got sequels

As far as Transformers goes, that's because it made assloads of money, fucktard.

File: 1480968300248.gif (1MB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x533px

>>83919687
>Even Transformers isn't that

>download movie
>play it
>first introduction to main characters is a talk about masturbating a bull
>delete movie

I watched this film on acid and thought it was the best fucking thing, shame a sequel seems unlikely

>>83919662
Zach asks her if she had boyfriend troubles. She says not exactly. Zach then asks if it was girlfriend troubles and she looks away like she doesn't want to talk about it. It's confirmed. They don't need to say it plain.
>>83919699
Are you implying I'm wrong or something?

>>83919809
>Are you implying I'm wrong or something?
Stating it directly, friend.

>>83919369
Best capeshit that proves normies want nostalgia pandering and big dumb action over character development.

>>83919829
If you don't think Optimus Prime is iconic and cool as shit and you don't enjoy his fight scenes you're beyond help at this point.

>>83919913
If only the character development in the movie was good.

>>83919913
No one gives a shit about character development in a visual medium retard, go read a book.

>>83919940
How does being iconic keep the movies from being bland?

File: 1470500749575.jpg (66KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 450x600px

>>83919913
This. It was really interesting to see a movie about the characters for a change.

>>83919369
I just watched this movie and I see a thread about it what the fuck
Did you see it recently by any chance OP?

>>83920006
Ah, I see now. You're retarded. Ok.

why would they make an extremely formulaic kids movie if the only ones who are interested in power rangers are in their 20s and 30s

>>83920098
No answer?

>>83920110
4/10. Low effort bait.

>>83920153
If you have an answer, by all means, post it.

>>83920110
bland
adjective
lacking strong features or characteristics and therefore uninteresting.

Is this movie any good ?

>>83920052
Considering it was released on streaming sites and torrent like a day ago, pretty sure lots of people ITT watched it now.

>>83920181
So slapping an iconic character onto it makes the movie interesting?

>>83919913
>transformers 1
>has character development and good action
>huge box office

>power rangers
>has character development and bad action
>small box office

It's almost like people want good action in ACTION movies.

>>83920183
If you like Power Rangers, you will like it. It's your marvel style capeflick mixed with breakfast club. Not sure if you watched Chronicle, but it's very similar.

>>83920183
no, it's like a 4/10 at best

>>83920255
Chronicle is one of my favorite movies.

>>83920171
3/10. Consecutive use of low effort bait.

>>83920258
Wow that's pretty generous

You being paid by Krispy Kreme?

>>83920276
>>83920181
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTV4FUlcIwQ
Garfield's an icon, why didn't his movie do well in the box office? Maybe popularity of a character is irrelevant when compared to the finished product.

>>83920269
Then by all means give it watch, it's one of my favorites too and I loved it. It felt like a sequel to Chronicle.

>>83920333
bait

>>83920319
Because Optimus Prime is actually good in the Transformers movies and Garfield is a poor choice of something to make a live action movie about to begin with.

>>83920347
Well it's lighter and softer than Chronicle but it does touch some of the same themes.

>>83920376
>Optimus Prime is actually good in the Transformers movies
About as good as Megan Fox.

>>83920414
So you haven't watched any of the Transformers movies. I guess I can't blame you. They're famous for being shit on and you strike me as someone who can't think for himself so I'm not surprised you've stayed away from them.

>>83920414
I like Prime as much as the next person, but he isn't a 10/10.

>>83920470
>you haven't watched any of the Transformers movies
I saw them. I guess this is what I should expect from anyone defending these crap heaps.

>>83920514
That's fair, but I'm not calling him attractive.

>>83920551
>I saw them once when they came out, didn't pay attention, and never again

Fixed it for you.

>>83919482
>If only they had made it good this could have been avoided.

Uh...it was good.

>>83920626
How many times do you watch shitty movies? This is a pretty interesting conversation.

>>83920208
That's not how logic works.Having a lack of iconic characters can make a movie bland and therefore uninteresting, but adding an iconic character, whilst making it not-bland, does not necessarily mean it is interesting. Regardless, the argument wasn't that the movie was uninteresting, but that it was bland. If it has an iconic character it is by definition not bland.

>>83920657
2/10. This is the third time you've laid out low effort bait. Can we go for 4?

>>83920741
>the argument wasn't that the movie was uninteresting, but that it was bland
>>83920181
>and therefore uninteresting
Is this how logic works?
>If it has an iconic character it is by definition not So Garfield, a Tale of Two Kitties is not bland.

File: gif 36.gif (871KB, 245x230px) Image search: [Google]

871KB, 245x230px

>>83920649

>>83920791
see>>83920376

>>83920895
But I was just told that having an iconic character kept it from being bland by definition. Which is it?

>>83920917
Where were you told that?

>>83920935
>>83920741
>If it has an iconic character it is by definition not bland.

>>83920791
I'm saying a movie can be non-bland and still be uninteresting, and you don't seem to be speaking english.
>>83920917
>>83920935
>>83920944
If an iconic feature doesnt come under your definition of a "solid feature" then idk what to tell you.

>>83920978
>you don't seem to be speaking english
The apparently two people replying to me seem to be operating on differing definitions of the words we're using, I'm just working with what I'm given.

>>83919699
>>83919809
>>83919829
>>83919940
>>83920006
>>83920098
>>83920110
>>83920181
This entire fucking time you both had opinions in your minds that would of made some sort of discussion and it took you all the way until here >>83920208 to get over your god damn meaningless one liner shitposts and actually have a discussion. You're the cancer ruining the board. Try speaking with words and not memes

>>83921048
What memes are you talking about?

>>83919913
Exceot the two aren't mutually exclusive, fucktard. Power Rangers is by no means literature but when it has good fight scenes its because the viewer is generally invested in them and theres no reason a movie cant do the same. Not having any action in a Power Rangers film when thats what all the character development serves to facilitate is unforgivable for the property.

>>83921048
Man, I can't have an actual discussion with a broken record.

>>83921071
muh >implying
meaning one sentence passive aggressive dismissal rather than using that fundamental disagreement to discuss ideas. Instead you guys have to exchange shitposts until one of you works up the courage to form an actual idea and not a passive aggressive "I disagree" comment.

>>83921136
The record wouldn't be broken if you wouldn't refuse to defend your opinions.

>>83919482
China still wouldn't have watched it even if it was good.

>>83921186
>muh >implying
Your implying? What are you trying to say?
>one of you works up the courage to form an actual idea and not a passive aggressive "I disagree" comment.
I did that, and the only thing I got in response were two people who couldn't agree on the definition of the word that was used to argue against me. Instead of addressing this, even after I pointed it out, I got >>83921048 which completely derailed it and diverted attention away from it.

>>83921187
Yes it would be.

>>83921273
You don't have anything to base that on, are you just doing this in hopes that it ends? Because closing the tab would get me to stop asking you to back up your opinions just as quickly.

>>83921248
Can you explain which part of the definition you think we're confused on?

>>83921315
One person is saying that icons make movies interesting and the other is saying that the Garfield movie isn't interesting. I don't see the point in repeatedly pointing this out, but I'm doing my best here.

>>83921357
I thought you were the Garfield guy. Garfield guy is an idiot.

>>83919369
I don't really care: i enjoyed more than most movies so whatever

>>83921295
Anon, I can't discuss these movies with someone who has seen them once and several years ago. I don't go into Rogue One threads talking about how shit it is because I saw it once when it came out and won't be seeing it again, so I've forgotten 80% of it by this point. Just stop.

>>83921389
I'm the guy who used Garfield as an example of why the argument of icons making movies good(which was used to defend Transformers) is bullshit. Am I the only one keeping track?

>>83921415
>and several years ago
Nobody claimed this but you. And you still haven't told me how many times you watch shitty movies.

>>83921389
You think the Garfield movie is interesting?

>>83921389
>>83921357
Actually wait, I meant to say whoever posted this
>>83920791
is an idiot.

>>83920319
Garfield failed because it is uninteresting, but the fact that it features Garfield means it isnt bland.

>>83921433
Again, you aren't fit to discuss movies you saw once several years ago. You can deny that, but it would make you a liar. Accept this and move on.

>>83921452
>Garfield failed because it is uninteresting, but the fact that it features Garfield means it isnt bland.
And this is when we get back(again) to opposing definitions confusing the apparently two people replying to me.
>>83920944
I think you need a break.

>>83921491
>you aren't fit to discuss movies you saw once several years ago
Who told you when I saw it?

>>83921452
Yeah, this>>83920791 is anti Transformers guy who thinks he's fit to discuss the movies at length even though he saw them once and several years ago.

>>83919369
Thank you god.

They were this close to making the Green Ranger a girl. We just spared this generation from having their Green Ranger be a girl power "Take that" to the original.Good job everyone.

File: 13958592736_a636e2977b_m.jpg (12KB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 240x180px

>In Space movie never

It hurts

>>83921516
>who told you when I saw it

You have heavily implied it with your blind hate of the movies. Deny it if you want, but you will be a liar if you do.

>>83921594
Either I saw it or I'm blind to it, which is it?

File: Kyu_07.png (345KB, 500x683px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 500x683px

>>83921549
Well, they already made Rita the original Green

And besides, they're gonna get a female green in the show anyway

>>83921637
>they already made Rita the original Green
That was one of the most interesting things the movie did, cool idea.

Wow some nerd is hardcore defending the transformers movies in here? Now I've seen everything

>>83921629
1/10. As far as I can tell that's at least your 4th use of low effort bait in this thread.
>only calmly asking simple questions
>repeatedly refusing to divulge important information

Keep it up.

>>83921795
What the hell are you talking about

>>83921803
Want some pizza?

>>83921841

talkin about some nerd hardcore defending the transformers movies

>>83921873
1/10. That's 5. Let's go for 6.

Again.

>>83921932
You don't like pizza?

>>83921923
Show me where that's happening.

>>83919369
>goldar was literally a pile of gold velvita
>they shit on a lot of the the things that made the show cool
>god awful costume designs

Just a couple reasons it sucked ass

>>83919482
>Probably that they'll never make another Power Rangers movie again

Yeah right. The same thing happened with MMPR The Movie back in the 90s and they STILL made another movie after that.

>>83921960

theres the dude yellin at the other dude because he only saw them once and apparently that makes him "unfit" to comment on how shitty they are. Just scroll up its the whole topic pretty much

>>83919506
>said nobody ever

>>83920106
$$$$$$$$$


$$$$$$$$$$

>>83921991
How is that hardcore defending? I'm not saying the movies are really good. I'm just saying they have some cool shit in them. That's it. To say they're completely shit is simply unreasonable and anyone who says that hasn't seen them in years and/or wasn't paying attention when he watched them.

It was worse than I expected even at 2x... If they wanted purely a PG audience and turned up the brightness it might have made sense. Instead we got pseudo grim dark bullshit with cliches out the ass and diversity quips cuz current year instead of stupid bad ass fighting shit. The fights were all trash and the ending transformation was stupid as fuck and made no sense.

>>83922064

Ive seen them recently, they are shiiiiiiiit

I miss the marathon

File: every1.jpg (131KB, 833x960px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 833x960px

>>83919482
>If only they had made it good this could have been avoided

I agree. A modern Power Rangers movie? That is actually a great idea. It's the perfect combination of Avengers and Pacific Rim. But they had to make it like Chronicle and they had to give the rangers and the zords an awful alien look, didn't they? They HAD to fuck it up. They fucked up the look and the feel of the movie. They deserved to flop.

>>83920052
Torrented it just a few hours ago. Haven't seen it yet though.

>>83919913
You can have both in one movie.

any webms of cgi Kimberly taking the plunge to the river or when she was out and all wet?

>>83919369
It was pure fucking kino though. Just saw it on torrent, but wish I had seen it in the theatre

>>83919506
Turtles was shit-canned too.