DTR69 wrote:For a start there's the whole design and look of the transformers. This is another argument altogether, but if you look at all the iterations of the Transformers universes, they have eveolved alot over the years, and I am not a fan of most of them, but at the end of the day they are all obviously Transformers and maybe poorly designed, but they are obviously from the Transformers franchise.
I've been a Transformers fan for as long as I can remember and I've never liked the simplistic designs. They're supposed to be robots, but because the designs are so simple the cartoons always had to cheat with the transformations. Parts would shrink away to nothing while other parts would show up out of thin air. The movie designs are exactly what I've been wanting to see since G1. Transformers that look like they actually transform, instead of morphing from one form to another.
Lets look at some other franchises that have been brought to life.
Mortal Kombat Vs Street Fighter : Live Action movies.
Street Fighter was a big Budget flop compared to Mortal Kombat which was a lower budget attempt but which was more true to the Mortal Kombat franchise than the Street Fighter movie was to it's franchise. Both movies weren't great but Mortal Kombat gave better justice and represented it's franchise far better than Street Fighter which was modified and changed alot, and it was loosing and altering key elements which was it's downfall.
Super Mario Vs Tomb Raider : Live Action Movies.
Again Super Mario was totaly altered for the big screen where as Lara croft was recognisably Lara croft from the video game. If a franchise has key elements that won't work on the big screen then maybe it shouldn't be made for the big screen becuase then it's a different product altogether.
So basicaly the evidence shows that when a Live action movie of a franchise and stays true to the key elements from story to design and looks, then the finished product will have those elements that made the franchise popular in the movie, and if done well will make for a good film and a good representation of the franchise. When the elements are removed or altered drasticaly for the big screen then the evidence shows almost no good can come from it.
The movies are true to the key elements. Alien robots that change into vehicles are in a war that comes to Earth. The Autobots are the good guys and the Decepticons are the bad guys. Transformers has rarely been deeper than that.
The reason Bay altered the look we all know wasn't becuase the look wouldn't work on big screen, there are plenty of fan made cgi clips showing that it works fine, obviously there would be refinement, there are design features and limitations to the toys becuase they are toys, so people who say g1 wouldn't work are contradicting themselves and not realising that G1 is a concept, rather than some blocky toys, they have the best designs in the whole franchise it's just a pitty they had production limitations unlike todays incarnations. the same way the movie toys are altered becuase of limitations, is the same way the limitations in g1 designs and other TF universes, would be altered and removed when designed for big screen.
Bay didn't have faith in the look that transformers have lived with for all these years, and more importantly, he didn't have faith that Transforming robots would wow an audience, not unless you took that stement and put it on steroids. Bay made the transformers over the top, thousands of moving bits just to show off how far cgi has come. Even thedesigners said the transformation didn't make real sense, THe actual transformation was eye candy. The actual process is cut at one point , so the actual transformation wouldnt work, so there are 2 models one for the transformation to altmode, which just goes into a mess, and in the mess it's cut to another model which is a mess which transforms into the alternative mode. All that mess is just eye candy. And I would have been much more impressed with a design that had a working transformation and one that had less going on so you could actually focus on it's beauty. Just like the rest of the film constant flasing cut scenes is very flash but thats it, you don't get a chance to admire and take in all the effects.
You seem to be hung up on the designs. I don't see how changing the designs of the Transformers is any different from Ironman. Have you seen what his suit looked like in the early comics? It was horrible, it looks like plumbing parts on yellow spandex. That would look awful in a live action movie.
And yes to everything else you have said. I think I actually enjoyed the movie a bit more than you, but as a Transformers movie I hated it. ANything with giant robots no matter how poorly designed they are has some enjoyment factor for me. But I saw so much potential in the concept of a Transformers live action movie, and Bay didn't deliver. Why can't people who like the movie accept the fact that bay can't deliver on something he is no good at. Just becuase people love/like the film doesn't mean they have to defend bay. If I was to slate Germany, you don't defend Hitlers actions. Hitler is factualy a bad man, you can not argue that point, so when you defend bay you automaticaly loose the argument. When people say that people who hate what bay has done are ignorant, it's not an opinion you are challenging it's a fact. And people are hating the fact that Bay has underwhelmed them with the movies.
The fact that alot of people could have done a better job than Bay, means that people are justified with wanting to see better results. It's so odd that people who are making these comments are on a Transformers FanSIte and they obviously have a passion for TransFormers, but are quite happy to settle for rubbish. On top of settling for less, why attack people who are passionate about wanting the best from a franchise that they love.
Right here you're stating opinions as fact. You're telling us that the movies are factually bad and we shouldn't like them.
Lastly, it's us people who are the so called haters of the movie, that are actualy being respectful and polite. It's the people who love the movie that are calling the haters names and saying they are worng about having an opinion, especialy when certain opions are almost fact. At least us haters can explain ourselves and break it down. And the reason we write so much waffle is becuase you all clearly don't get it, it's not an argument we are looking for. And why are we wrong for having an opinion just becuase it's different from yours. And why are facts and opinions being blurred.
I've seen far more insulting, condescending, hyperbolic posts from those who hate the movies than from those who liked them. Things like "These movies are cinematic abortions", "If you like them you aren't a real fan", "I could make a better movie in my sleep" and worse.
We should expect more, I don't want to enjoy a Transformers Live action movie, I want to be blown away.
You're expecting too much. Something is always going to fall short when you set your sights way too high.
You are totaly missing the pint and missinterpreting what I'm saying.
1: I'm not saying that the movies are bad full stop and that no one can like them. I even stated that I enjoy watching them. But the difference is as action movies they are fun, but as far as Bay is concerned, and his represenation of transformers, it's a fail. It's not about people enjoying the movie, it's about the fact that it could of been more true to the franchise with less of Bays influence.
2: Of course Ironmans suit has evolved and so has transformers, but the evolution isn't in keeping with the franchise. Look at the masterpiece line, see how that is refined, it's still from blocky g1 toys, but refined. The live action movie transformers don't transform, read what the designers have said about there transformation, it's all show, they cant technically go from one form to the other. The live action transformations have moving parts just to show off, it's totaly unecessary, and they actualy make the design weaker, as skimpy parts break off alot easier than fewer thicker parts, they should just transform as much a sthey need to no more and no less. The g1 cartoon isn't part of my defence as thats why I wanted a live action movie, becuase the way the cartoon cut corners etc.And as for morphing, why does bumblebee have the power to transform from one car to another in a second, and the same for all of them when they land and choose an alt mode, they can all magicaly morph, but they then have to mechanicaly move parts to transform, why don't they do there morphing trick again. Thats cutting corners. Bay or whoever couldn't think of a way to fit that showed how they got there alt modes, so they just magicaly change.
3: I'm not expecting to much, I was blown away from the animated movie.
Again all the points you make I have explained already, thats why I write so much becuase I'm covering all angles.