Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

MINDVVIPE wrote:*picks up gauntlet*
Downloading now.

I'd say it was nice knowing you ... but ... i'm not a nice person. Instead I shall offer this.

May you rip your eyes out and stuff them in your ears to save you from the crap fest that is Gabriel!

Burn wrote:

MINDVVIPE wrote:*picks up gauntlet*
Downloading now.

I'd say it was nice knowing you ... but ... i'm not a nice person. Instead I shall offer this.

May you rip your eyes out and stuff them in your ears to save you from the crap fest that is Gabriel!

Jokes on you, I already did that from watching DOTM! OOHH!! and we've come full circle
I'll be sure to let you know what I think after watching. Did you see it intoxicated in any way?

Rodimus Prime wrote:Any ideas why RotF was almost even in US domestic and foreign totals ($400 mil and $430 mil respectively, IIRC) and DotM is so lopsided (around $350 mil and $735 mil respectively). Was RotF not released in China like DotM was?

DotM performed better than ROTF in almost every country it was released in (which is roughly about 70 countries.) It all adds up to making it seem disproportionately bigger.

Here's a little something for the critics. http://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-movies ... ost5085233

user named Ford on the Blu-ray.com forums wrote:I think the fact that the movies are based on a toy that is targeted to 8 year olds sort of makes it immune to any criticism. In fact, if a critic even bothers to write anything about these films, he really loses all credibility. They aren't made to win awards, advance the medium (well, except for the special effects department) or spark debate. Sometimes you just do **** for fun.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Autobot032 wrote:Here's a little something for the critics. http://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-movies ... ost5085233

user named Ford on the Blu-ray.com forums wrote:I think the fact that the movies are based on a toy that is targeted to 8 year olds sort of makes it immune to any criticism. In fact, if a critic even bothers to write anything about these films, he really loses all credibility. They aren't made to win awards, advance the medium (well, except for the special effects department) or spark debate. Sometimes you just do **** for fun.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The fact that it's a movie means it can be criticised till everyone is dead from lack of breath, regardless of where it originated from (saying anything otherwise is plain stupid, especially given the fact that when the movies were made, there was a ton of lore outside the back of the action figure box to add to the movie, like shows and comics).By this reasoning, you cannot say Transformers is a good movie either, since it is immune to any criticism, meaning anyones opinion on it is equally true, or equally false.
I'm all for fun in a movie, but unlike most people here, I'm not won over by eye candy alone. I guess I'm one of the few who thinks Transformers on a live-action scale deserves better than the "summer special effects blockbuster".

Must I remind people over and over again that tons of movies were made that started as comic book characters? I don't think comics were targeted to adults to begin with.

MINDVVIPE wrote:Must I remind people over and over again that tons of movies were made that started as comic book characters? I don't think comics were targeted to adults to begin with.

Heres a side note from a comic book historian.

The first "comic book" was not intended for children.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

MINDVVIPE wrote:Must I remind people over and over again that tons of movies were made that started as comic book characters? I don't think comics were targeted to adults to begin with.

Heres a side note from a comic book historian.

The first "comic book" was not intended for children.

Neither was looney toons, but that's where it formed the majority of its audience. Spiderman was made for teens to relate to.

MINDVVIPE wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

MINDVVIPE wrote:Must I remind people over and over again that tons of movies were made that started as comic book characters? I don't think comics were targeted to adults to begin with.

Heres a side note from a comic book historian.

The first "comic book" was not intended for children.

Neither was looney toons, but thats where it made its audience, and thats where it targeted itself once it was realized who desired to buy/read them.

Not quite.

Looney toons original audience was largely an adult movie goer back in the 1940's.

And they were quite popular.

Looney toons gained a kids its audience when they were placed on TV, in the mid 1960's.Thats around 20 years later.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

MINDVVIPE wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

MINDVVIPE wrote:Must I remind people over and over again that tons of movies were made that started as comic book characters? I don't think comics were targeted to adults to begin with.

Heres a side note from a comic book historian.

The first "comic book" was not intended for children.

Neither was looney toons, but thats where it made its audience, and thats where it targeted itself once it was realized who desired to buy/read them.

Not quite.

Looney toons original audience was largely an adult movie goer back in the 1940's.

And they were quite popular.

Looney toons gained a kids its audience when they were placed on TV, in the mid 1960's.Thats around 20 years later.

Fair enough. But the show was initially targeted to adults to market sheet music and phonograph records, just like Transformers initially being used to market the toys. There really isn't any point trying to decide what exceptions we can apply to a current day movie. Its a movie, and it stands to be criticized by whoever watches it.

MINDVVIPE wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

MINDVVIPE wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

MINDVVIPE wrote:Must I remind people over and over again that tons of movies were made that started as comic book characters? I don't think comics were targeted to adults to begin with.

Heres a side note from a comic book historian.

The first "comic book" was not intended for children.

Neither was looney toons, but thats where it made its audience, and thats where it targeted itself once it was realized who desired to buy/read them.

Not quite.

Looney toons original audience was largely an adult movie goer back in the 1940's.

And they were quite popular.

Looney toons gained a kids its audience when they were placed on TV, in the mid 1960's.Thats around 20 years later.

Fair enough. But the show was initially targeted to adults to market sheet music and phonograph records, just like Transformers initially being used to market the toys. There really isn't any point trying to decide what exceptions we can apply to a current day movie. Its a movie, and it stands to be criticized by whoever watches it.

with that I completely agree.

MINDVVIPE wrote: Seriously?
Blade: The movie focuses on blade. The story is Blade coming to terms with himself, overcoming his guilt, and killing the big bad guy.
The Matrix: The movie focuses on Neo, overcoming his sense of obscurity and realizing he is something more.
Akira: The movie focuses on Tetsuo, and his rage coupled with bad timing, and turning into more than he wanted to become, and ultimately killing the ones he cared about.
The animated Transformers movie: The movie focuses on Optimus, Hotrod, Megatron/Galvatron, Unicron. NOT spike witwicky. The focus is on the autobots, overcoming unbeatable odds, making new friends, and finding hope. It also adds to the lore with Unicron, the Matrix, and the continuation of Primes. Don't even BEGIN to compare this movie with the new movies, as it has done way more for the lore than the live action movies have.

While you are correct on a few notes about the focus on some of these movies, there's one major problem when comparing these movies to the live action Tf movies. There Live action.
Blade, Matrix, were fully live. Akira and the 86' TF movie were both all animated. (I think Akira was animated? Never scene it) There was no complicated CGI mixed with live action scenes. Since the for meantioned movies didn't have this complicated mix of man and machine, there is no excuse not to have the primary screen time to be on the characters the movies were based on. Humans were animated just like bots in the oringal TF movie. Its not going to cost anything extra like it does in the new TF movies. Those CGI bots take alot of money (and time) to create. Alot more. Since it cost more to create, there time on screen needs to be spent wisely.
Now i'm not saying all there screen time was well used. other than looking bad ass, I agree 100% that schockwave's character was for the most part was wasted. He could have killed someone, engaged in better battles, or at least talked clear. But unfortunutly, all the small talk and chit chat had to be kept to a minimum. For the most part I think they achieved that. Could they have for gone the driller, Decepticon clones, and con ships for more Dr. Phil time with the bots? Sure. But you know what? They weren't meant for the fans enjoyment. They were meant to intise the general public. Give the movie going audience something bigger and badder than what was scene in the last movie. If you have another $50 million to contribute to the movie budget, than i'm sure the'd love to accomodate your vision of a Tf movie. I know that sucks, but thats life with summer block buster movies. But no matter how bad you think they are, they could have been 10 times worse. We could have had an equivlent to the movie adaption of "Doom".

Am I the only one here who's a fan of both TFs AND Harry Potter?

Skywarp64 wrote:Am I the only one here who's a fan of both TFs AND Harry Potter?

Nope. Just watch out for the blind faithers though, they won't like you liking anything other than TF's.

Skywarp64 wrote:Am I the only one here who's a fan of both TFs AND Harry Potter?

If thats you cup of tea then cool. i tried watching the first HP movie but couldn't get past the first half hour or so. For me HP falls in the same catagory of Twilight and LOTR movies. I never understood the large apeal of these movies. I'm not dogging them, just not my cup of tea.

The movies appealed to those who read the books. Two of which were well written, the other is just a fanfic by a woman that's still trying to live out her teenage years through a pedofile vampire and a girl into beastiality and necrophelia.

5150 Cruiser wrote:

Skywarp64 wrote:Am I the only one here who's a fan of both TFs AND Harry Potter?

If thats you cup of tea then cool. i tried watching the first HP movie but couldn't get past the first half hour or so. For me HP falls in the same catagory of Twilight and LOTR movies. I never understood the large apeal of these movies. I'm not dogging them, just not my cup of tea.

I'm liking all of them: TF's, Harry Potter, LOTR and Twilight. Although of the latter I've seen only the first and New Moon.

And don't criticize me!

You just admitted to liking Twilight, we won't criticise you, we will however shun you.

Burn wrote:You just admitted to liking Twilight, we won't criticise you, we will however shun you.

Well, I guess I can take that.

And don't get me wrong: I like it, but not crazy 'bout it.

I tend to not like Twilight that much, though I admit that's mostly because the vast majority of the internet doesn't.

Skywarp64 wrote:I tend to not like Twilight that much, though I admit that's mostly because the vast majority of the internet doesn't.

I don't like it because it bores me and the vampires don't kill people like they're supposed to.