Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

SlyTF1 wrote:Well I don't care about a script, or actors, and the designs in the movies are perfect IMO, I just want something that distracts me from my miserable life; and for that all I want is stuff blowing up.

There is nothing about this sentence that doesn't make me facepalm. Which part makes me facepalm more? Is it that you care about nothing that actually makes a movie? Or is it that you continue to think your life is miserable despite the face that I have, personally and repeatedly, told you it's your own damn fault as well as giving you advice on how to fix it?

Surprise! It's both.

RhA wrote:no, the problem lies in what you personally wanted, not in what we should have gotten.

Not at all.

Despite the franchises menial beginnings as a toyline, the brand as grown up with its audience, sure we have pleanty of kid friendly silly stories, but we have also gotten some wonderful, in depth , stories over the years with wonderful amounts or character development.

The brand deserved to have its best qualities reflected in a motion picture.A film should have taken all that has been the best over the years and take a step up.

That is what we should have gotten, that is what the brand deserved.

Now, I'll admit, the films were enjoyable in a "roller coaster" kind of way.But they could have made a better appeal to what the brand has become.

SlyTF1 wrote:I just want something that distracts me from my miserable life; and for that all I want is stuff blowing up.

believe me, that I can understand, but I find a greater amount of distraction when I get a good stor and good acting with my explosions.

how tasty is a a peace of raw chicken with out cooling it in seasoning ???

RhA wrote:no, the problem lies in what you personally wanted, not in what we should have gotten.

Firstly, how precisely does one determine "...what we should have gotten"?

Secondly, the qualities that sto_vo_kor_2000 appears to be seeking in a finished Transformers film - consistent narrative, emotional depth, character development, polished dialogue and so on - are generally considered to be measures of cinematic excellence. Why would we not, as Transformers fans, desire for a Transformers-branded film to feature such measures?

JOP wrote:

RhA wrote:no, the problem lies in what you personally wanted, not in what we should have gotten.

Firstly, how precisely does one determine "...what we should have gotten"?

Secondly, the qualities that sto_vo_kor_2000 appears to be seeking in a finished Transformers film - consistent narrative, emotional depth, character development, polished dialogue and so on - are generally considered to be measures of cinematic excellence. Why would we not, as Transformers fans, desire for a Transformers-branded film to feature such measures?

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

RhA wrote:no, the problem lies in what you personally wanted, not in what we should have gotten.

Not at all.

Despite the franchises menial beginnings as a toyline, the brand as grown up with its audience, sure we have pleanty of kid friendly silly stories, but we have also gotten some wonderful, in depth , stories over the years with wonderful amounts or character development.

The brand deserved to have its best qualities reflected in a motion picture.A film should have taken all that has been the best over the years and take a step up.

That is what we should have gotten, that is what the brand deserved.

Now, I'll admit, the films were enjoyable in a "roller coaster" kind of way.But they could have made a better appeal to what the brand has become.

SlyTF1 wrote:I just want something that distracts me from my miserable life; and for that all I want is stuff blowing up.

believe me, that I can understand, but I find a greater amount of distraction when I get a good stor and good acting with my explosions.

how tasty is a a peace of raw chicken with out cooling it in seasoning ???

Excuse the gargantuan quote.

I do not claim that either of you can't want something. That's your call. My point is that you should not speak about what 'we should have gotten', because when I read something like that I feel like you're telling me that I should want somethin else in a movie. Can I please pick for myself what I like? Thank you.

All your arguments revolve around you personal tastes. You want more character delevopment, less explosions, less potty humor and that's fine. You need to be able to speak about preferences, that's what we're here for. But you cannot state with a straight face that everyone should want what you want and that's why I say;

no, the problem lies in what you personally wanted, not in what we should have gotten.

ps. Stovokor stated that 'we should have gotten', I replied to it.

JOP wrote:Firstly, how precisely does one determine "...what we should have gotten"?

I base it on taking the best of what we have gotten over the years and at least expecting that much.

Secondly, the qualities that sto_vo_kor_2000 appears to be seeking in a finished Transformers film - consistent narrative, emotional depth, character development, polished dialogue and so on - are generally considered to be measures of cinematic excellence. Why would we not, as Transformers fans, desire for a Transformers-branded film to feature such measures?

Exactly

RhA wrote:Excuse the gargantuan quote.

I do it all the time

RhA wrote: I do not claim that either of you can't want something. That's your call. My point is that you should not speak about what 'we should have gotten', because when I read something like that I feel like you're telling me that I should want somethin else in a movie. Can I please pick for myself what I like? Thank you.

All your arguments revolve around you personal tastes. You want more character delevopment, less explosions, less potty humor and that's fine. You need to be able to speak about preferences, that's what we're here for. But you cannot state with a straight face that everyone should want what you want and that's why I say;

no, the problem lies in what you personally wanted, not in what we should have gotten.
ps. Stovokor stated that 'we should have gotten', I replied to it.

Very well said. And i agree that what it all boils down to is personal prefferance. What one conciders the best of the franchise, doesn't nessasarly equivilet to what someone else does.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

JOP wrote:Firstly, how precisely does one determine "...what we should have gotten"?

I base it on taking the best of what we have gotten over the years and at least expecting that much.

What exactly detirmes the best? That is the point I believe RHA is trying to make.
Again, what exactly is "The best we have gotten over the years" without being subjective?

What you concider "The best" doesn't mean the next person is going to feel the same way.

5150 Cruiser wrote:Very well said. And i agree that what it all boils down to is personal prefferance. What one conciders the best of the franchise, doesn't nessasarly equivilet to what someone else does.

Again, what exactly is "The best we have gotten over the years" without being subjective?

What you concider "The best" doesn't mean the next person is going to feel the same way.

Exactly. Another way to look at it is this way:

Come at this issue from the toy standpoint.

Kids are the primary audience, always have been, always will be, nothing's going to change that. We come in at a very distant second. Kids want Bumblebee and Optimus Prime. Those two are their heroes. We, as adults and collectors, can't stand another one of those two. Not at all. Yet majority rules and says "MUST MAKE MOAR! NAO!" and majority vote wins.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." "Or the one."

The movie contents are accepted by the majority (by that I mean, people in general, not the fandom.) and either you're on board or you're not. If you're not, sorry. Nothing we can do. There are other options to enjoy, give it a whirl.

Or...you can continue to tighten that sphincter until it folds you in half.

I hope you don't mind me replying to this out of order, but...

RhA wrote:Stovokor stated that 'we should have gotten', I replied to it.

Agreed.

RhA wrote:I do not claim that either of you can't want something. That's your call. My point is that you should not speak about what 'we should have gotten', because when I read something like that I feel like you're telling me that I should want something else in a movie. Can I please pick for myself what I like? Thank you.

I understand your point - I truly do - but I believe you are interpreting sto_vo_kor_2000's comment in an excessively literal manner. Certainly, one could argue that the phrase "...We should have gotten" is more than a little hyperbolic; but it's a far cry to consequently deduce that svk2K intends to choose our opinions for us!

As for svk2K's point that we should perhaps expect more from the live-action films; I ask again: why not? The measures under discussion - character development, emotional depth, and so on - are hallmarks of cinematic excellence. Why should we, as fans, not want the Transformers films to succeed along a critical axis, as well as those of financial outcome and raw entertainment value? To what end specifically would we seek to 'pick for ourselves' a film that is marred with narrative flaws, or stilted dialogue?

(So we are clear: I am not disputing the personal choices of fans to seek something else in their Transformers film experience; but I do not, at this time, understanding the underlying logic supporting said choices - and I would very much like to.)

5150 Cruiser wrote:Again, what exactly is "The best we have gotten over the years" without being subjective?

That statement was made by sto_vo_kor_2000, and is therefor for svk2K to qualify. Insofar as I have been discussing the issue however, it has been in (loosely-defined) terms of inserting narrative coherence, character development, emotional depth and so forth into a franchise in which these things have either been notoriously lacking or poorly handled.

Now, I would like to respond to Autobot032's comment, as I feel this rather gets at the crux of the matter:

Autobot032 wrote:Kids are the primary audience, always have been, always will be, nothing's going to change that. We come in at a very distant second. Kids want Bumblebee and Optimus Prime. Those two are their heroes. We, as adults and collectors, can't stand another one of those two. Not at all. Yet majority rules and says "MUST MAKE MOAR! NAO!" and majority vote wins.

If I understand correctly, the argument here could be paraphrased as "Your personal desires as a Transformers fan, regarding the Transformers brand, are secondary to the desires of the intended audience" - whether in regard to the proliferation of Bumblebee toys, or catering films toward the modern movie-going populace.

What I wonder is this: why should we assume that the desires of a given section of fans, and the desires of the intended audience, are at all times mutually exclusive?

For instance: let us assume that a given Transformers film is 70% 'good'. Now, let's imagine that a talented writer was hired to polish the script, reconcile a few plot holes, and smooth out some of the more clunky dialogue. At this point, the film moves up to 80% 'good'. At what point during this process were the needs of the Bumblebee-obsessed children's toy market, or the summer blockbuster crowd, harmed and hindered?

If there is indeed a Transformers 4 on the horizon, I would very much like for it to feature a script of significantly higher quality than Transformers 1, 2 and 3. Such a script would greatly enhance my enjoyment of the movie, and other viewers like myself; and yet would not in any way detract from the enjoyment of a more traditionally-(explosively)-minded audience. So why oppose the desire for a higher quality of writing?

JOP wrote:Now, I would like to respond to Autobot032's comment, as I feel this rather gets at the crux of the matter:

What I wonder is this: why should we assume that the desires of a given section of fans, and the desires of the intended audience, are at all times mutually exclusive?

No one's saying they can't both happen, just that that's usually how it works. Hasbro's main concern is making money. Always has been, always will be. Both sides can't win always and whatever side will make them guaranteed money and a lot of it, will always win.

JOP wrote:For instance: let us assume that a given Transformers film is 70% 'good'. Now, let's imagine that a talented writer was hired to polish the script, reconcile a few plot holes, and smooth out some of the more clunky dialogue. At this point, the film moves up to 80% 'good'. At what point during this process were the needs of the Bumblebee-obsessed children's toy market, or the summer blockbuster crowd, harmed and hindered?

Wait... um... I'm a tad confused here. The movie and the toys have nothing to do with each other, other than promotion and tie ins. What toys Hasbro designs and produces, have nothing to do with the script or the process of constructing the film. Uh...what point were you trying to make here? I'm not being funny, I'm genuinely confused.

As for the summer blockbuster crowd... What about the TF franchise doesn't work for that mold? Action? Check. Overblown? Check. Special effects, bad dialogue, excessive running time? Check.

The toys were brought up as a different way to approach the comparison. Not stating that the toys and movies directly affected each other. Though, it should be said that toys have no effect on the movie's conception. Quite the opposite, in fact.

JOP wrote:If there is indeed a Transformers 4 on the horizon, I would very much like for it to feature a script of significantly higher quality than Transformers 1, 2 and 3. Such a script would greatly enhance my enjoyment of the movie, and other viewers like myself; and yet would not in any way detract from the enjoyment of a more traditionally-(explosively)-minded audience. So why oppose the desire for a higher quality of writing?

I think you're being a tad unfair and unkind, honestly. Orci, Kurtzman and Rogers laid the groundwork for the first film. Orci and Kurtzman are well known hacks with not an original idea between the two of them, they more or less admitted they've built an empire on the works of others. Rogers had a hand in the Halle Berry Catwoman film. (No more needs to be said, on that one. lol)

Then, during ROTF, all the writers decided to go on strike and Bay had BIG people and BIG money to answer to. He was just as much of a victim as we were. The writers strike still pisses me off to this day. What did work about ROTF, was Kruger's handiwork. What didn't, can be chalked up to Orci & Kurtzman.

Orci & Kurtzman stepped down, Kruger took over full time and he delivered the most down to Earth and realistic of the the three movies. If a spaceship had crashed on the Moon, we most certainly would've raced to be the first to find it. If the aliens in that ship destroyed Chicago and tried to take over the world, the disaster we saw on screen would've been quite close to reality.

I'm not sure why people are so hard on DOTM, when it's considered, by many including critics, to be the best story of the trilogy. Some call it outlandish and silly, but most agree that it's closer to reality than the first two.

Kruger is definitely on the right track and it shows. The movie did well, not just for it's visual effects, but for it's story. I liked the first film when I first watched it, but I started to notice how boring it could be. ROTF, while clearly not perfect, was a lot more fun and action packed. DOTM came along and changed how I saw the entire film franchise. It had none of the boredom of the first film, but all of it's wow factor. It had all the action and wall to wall excitement of the second film, but not many of it's flaws. They really did save the best for last.

I'm not opposed to better writing, but I'm also not expecting it to be overwhelmingly Oscar material either. I guess it's because I'm a realist.

I see the entire TransFormers franchise as it is: A toy that spawned a cartoon, comics and some movies. Sure, it can grow, evolve and spread it's wings, I have no problem with that, but let's face it, this all started with some toys. I'm going to treat it as such.

And let's face it, a lot of us still love G1. G1 had some of the most silly, hokey, over the top storylines EVER. On rare occasions did G1 rise above itself and wow. Same with Beast Wars, though I have to give Beast Wars some credit. I mean, Code Of Hero is a jaw dropper. However, I do think 2.5 hours of Code Of Hero would wear thin on people's patience as well.

Either way, no one's going to be fully pleased 100% of the time. It's impossible. So Paramount, Hasbro, Bay and company are going to go for the path of least resistance, work with a formula proven to work and rake in the dough. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If I wanted Optimus to spout Shakespeare, I'd probably go read a fanfic. I have varying tastes when it comes to my entertainment, but when it comes to TransFormers...I just want Rock 'Em, Sock 'Em Robots on steroids, part elevntyseven.

Autobot032 wrote:Orci & Kurtzman stepped down, Kruger took over full time and he delivered the most down to Earth and realistic of the the three movies.

Based on a story from an 80's cartoon. I wouldn't give the man that much credit for that simple fact alone.

JOP wrote:For instance: let us assume that a given Transformers film is 70% 'good'. Now, let's imagine that a talented writer was hired to polish the script, reconcile a few plot holes, and smooth out some of the more clunky dialogue. At this point, the film moves up to 80% 'good'. At what point during this process were the needs of the Bumblebee-obsessed children's toy market, or the summer blockbuster crowd, harmed and hindered?

That's the thing. Because it doesn't affect the garnering of the main audience, it's therefore a lesser focus of the big wigs. And so less money will go into it. You honestly couldn't pay them enough to get them to hire whoever would have a great script or great script-editing abilities. Furthermore, editing the script would require more time. Time is money, and we know they're on a deadline to milk it while the getting's good.

To get a truly fantastic film I honestly think we need a smaller budget. Yes, I said it. I think the fans would either have to make it (Lord knows enough of us know how, it's just finding the time to volunteer to it), or Hasbro would have to hire a smaller, very devoted development team, where Hasbro would be taking a far higher risk of not making their investment back, and this money/project would be taking money away from projects like the Generations line.
Thankfully they did that with the games, and eventually we got Luxoflux and High Moon, who I couldn't be happier for (I guess in Luxoflux's case, sadder for...what with them being disbanded or going out of business or whatever happened to them). TT was honestly the last Devs I wanted to hear when the first game came out, but they redeemed themselves somewhat on it, in my eyes (shows you how lowly I held them in esteem).

NatsumeRyu wrote:To get a truly fantastic film I honestly think we need a smaller budget. Yes, I said it.

The first movie had a (comparatively) smaller budget. Turns out, CGI is expensive. Turns out, that's why there was so little screen time for the actual robots.

NatsumeRyu wrote:I think the fans would either have to make it (Lord knows enough of us know how, it's just finding the time to volunteer to it)

Someone suggested this around the time of the first movie. The response was, more or less, it would never work because we'd never be able to agree on anything long enough to do it.

JOP wrote:I understand your point - I truly do - but I believe you are interpreting sto_vo_kor_2000's comment in an excessively literal manner. Certainly, one could argue that the phrase "...We should have gotten" is more than a little hyperbolic; but it's a far cry to consequently deduce that svk2K intends to choose our opinions for us!

As for svk2K's point that we should perhaps expect more from the live-action films; I ask again: why not? The measures under discussion - character development, emotional depth, and so on - are hallmarks of cinematic excellence. Why should we, as fans, not want the Transformers films to succeed along a critical axis, as well as those of financial outcome and raw entertainment value? To what end specifically would we seek to 'pick for ourselves' a film that is marred with narrative flaws, or stilted dialogue?

(So we are clear: I am not disputing the personal choices of fans to seek something else in their Transformers film experience; but I do not, at this time, understanding the underlying logic supporting said choices - and I would very much like to.)

JOP wrote:That statement was made by sto_vo_kor_2000, and is therefor for svk2K to qualify. Insofar as I have been discussing the issue however, it has been in (loosely-defined) terms of inserting narrative coherence, character development, emotional depth and so forth into a franchise in which these things have either been notoriously lacking or poorly handled.

thank you very much, You did a better job of wording my point then I did

Autobot032 wrote:Exactly. Another way to look at it is this way:

Come at this issue from the toy standpoint. [snipped for space]

Your analogy doesnt really fit because these films werent targeted at kids.

The movie contents are accepted by the majority (by that I mean, people in general, not the fandom.)

and while this point has merit, it falls short of hitting the target.

I'm not saying these films "sucked more then anything that has sucked before".......they were fun rides, but they werent great.And yes, the general audience accepted the film, and much of the fan base didnt.But it was possible to make a film[s] that could have done a better job at pleasing both.

You cant tell me these films wouldnt have been accepted by more goers and just basically better with a more consistent narrative, at least some more emotional depth and character development, better polished dialogue and far better good from the main cast.

Autobot032 wrote:No one's saying they can't both happen, just that that's usually how it works. Hasbro's main concern is making money. Always has been, always will be. Both sides can't win always and whatever side will make them guaranteed money and a lot of it, will always win.

And they would have made more money with better "character development, emotional depth, and so on".........and I doubt it would have cost them more

As for the summer blockbuster crowd... What about the TF franchise doesn't work for that mold? Action? Check. Overblown? Check. Special effects, bad dialogue, excessive running time? Check..

that same crowd have loved summer block buster films that had, "better character development, emotional depth, and so on" ............I seriously doubt they would have rejected the tf films if they did a better job in any of the categories in discussion here.

I'm not opposed to better writing, but I'm also not expecting it to be overwhelmingly Oscar material either. I guess it's because I'm a realis

And I dont believe anyone here said they wanted or expected an "overwhelmingly Oscar" level film.I know I haven, I'm a realist too, all I expected was that they at least deliver the equivalent of the better aspects of the fictions that came before and of what we have seen in other films in the same basic genre.

if we were talking crime/gangster films,we could day "I wasnt expecting an other The Godfather, but we could have at least gotton an other Carlito's Way."

I see the entire TransFormers franchise as it is: A toy that spawned a cartoon, comics and some movies. Sure, it can grow, evolve and spread it's wings, I have no problem with that, but let's face it, this all started with some toys. I'm going to treat it as such.

the thing is that it has already, and long ago,grown past just being toys, the fiction has long since evolved past just being a means to sell toys, it has all ready spread its wings and flown far above just being a extended commercial to sell the toys.

Over the years we have gotten quite a few wonderful stories with better examples of all the categories I have listed here.

I dont see how it can be wrong to have expected at least that much.

If I wanted Optimus to spout Shakespeare,

again, I dont see anyone here asking for that level of writting

I thought I responded to this earlier.....

RhA wrote:Excuse the gargantuan quote.

I do not claim that either of you can't want something. That's your call. My point is that you should not speak about what 'we should have gotten', because when I read something like that I feel like you're telling me that I should want somethin else in a movie. Can I please pick for myself what I like? Thank you.

All your arguments revolve around you personal tastes. You want more character delevopment, less explosions, less potty humor and that's fine. You need to be able to speak about preferences, that's what we're here for. But you cannot state with a straight face that everyone should want what you want and that's why I say;

no, the problem lies in what you personally wanted, not in what we should have gotten.

ps. Stovokor stated that 'we should have gotten', I replied to it.

as has been pointed out by an other [thumbs up to JOB] your taking my statement far too literally.My point wasnt to tell others what to want in a film or in life, but to point out that that we have gotten better [in some categories] from other examples of TF fiction, and other fictions made to film in similar genres, and we should have gotten at least as much.

5150 Cruiser wrote:Firstly, how precisely does one determine "best"

What is the best would differ from 1 person to the next, but determining good acting, good writing and a consistent narrative is quite easy to judge.

...what we should have gotten"?

to quote JOP
"consistent narrative, emotional depth, character development, polished dialogue" and good acting from the main cast.

I base it on taking the best of what we have gotten over the years and at least expecting that much.

What exactly detirmes the best?

see above

NatsumeRyu wrote:That's the thing. Because it doesn't affect the garnering of the main audience, it's therefore a lesser focus of the big wigs. And so less money will go into it.

I seriouly doubt it would have cost them any more cash to do what we have been suggesting.

The same writers could have done a better job, they proved that with Trek09

First you retract the statement that you're telling people what they should want

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:My point wasnt to tell others what to want in a film or in life

and afterwards you claim exactly that:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:but to point out that that we have gotten better [in some categories] from other examples of TF fiction, and other fictions made to film in similar genres, and we should have gotten at least as much.

So it's not about what we should want in life, but you're only dictating what we should want in movies?

Or maybe I misread you wrong and there is something promised to you that never got delivered. When I personally expect something strongly, it's promised to me. Then I can saefely say that i should be getting something.

I believe Michael Bay promised us a version of TF's we've never seen before. Which is exaclty what we got. By my defnition that's what we should have gotten and, wait for it... Have gotten.

-edit- I'm not angry, BTW. It irks me that intelligent boardmembers sometimes get lost in personal preferences and project that as something we all should want. I may take things literally, but you know, text does not have a facial expression.

RhA wrote:First you retract the statement that you're telling people what they should want

I retracted nothing, you took my post far to o literally...........which you seem to be doing again.

So it's not about what we should want in life, but you're only dictating what we should want in movies?

speaking about what we should have gotten is not the same as spesking about what one might want.

Or maybe I misread you wrong and there is something promised to you that never got delivered.

I would say thats the case of many films........film creators alwasys make promisis that they cant always deliver, but thats just a biproduct of the buisness.

I believe Michael Bay promised us a version of TF's we've never seen before. Which is exaclty what we got. By my defnition that's what we should have gotten and, wait for it... Have gotten.

Bay did promise beter writing/story with TF 2...........and he didnt deliver.Now, had he tried and failed I wouldnt fault him.But the evidence suggest he didnt even try.Now, maybe you casn blame that on the writers strike and schedule constraints.....but I find that to be cop out excuses.

I dont fault him for the same in the 3rd film.............it seems they at least tried to do better, even thou I feel they fell short of the target.

-edit- I'm not angry, BTW. It irks me that intelligent boardmembers sometimes get lost in personal preferences and project that as something we all should want. I may take things literally, but you know, text does not have a facial expression.

no worries bud, I tend to misread people all the time.Its just a hazard of message board talks.

JOP wrote:inserting narrative coherence, character development, emotional depth and so forth into a franchise in which these things have either been notoriously lacking or poorly handled.

Someone obviously never saw G1 season 1, TFTM, Beast Wars seasons 2&3, Beast Machines, Animated, or Prime.

cotss2012 wrote:

JOP wrote:inserting narrative coherence, character development, emotional depth and so forth into a franchise in which these things have either been notoriously lacking or poorly handled.

Someone obviously never saw G1 season 1, TFTM

Both of which were notoriously lacking in narrative coherence, character development, emotional depth and so forth.

Well, unless little kids crying and/or raging that almost everyone from the first two seasons died so abruptly counts as emotional depth.

Actually, I was talking about skyfire's changing loyalties and sacrifice in Fire in the Sky, the Dinobots' split loyalties in War of the Dinobots, the whole "when next we meet, we are enemies" angle in The Ultimate Doom, etc... but yeah, if you can make your audience care enough to cry, then that's definitely evidence of emotional depth.

The total disregard for story continuity didn't begin until Season 2.

Autobot032 wrote:No one's saying they can't both happen, just that that's usually how it works. Hasbro's main concern is making money. Always has been, always will be. Both sides can't win always and whatever side will make them guaranteed money and a lot of it, will always win.

I could well be wrong, but that's very much the impression I took away from comments by RaH and 5150 Cruiser - that what we might think of as 'critical qualities' (excellence of script, narrative, dialogue) are no more than personal preferences; and preferences that conflict with those of other fans and the larger movie-going public. It is a model in which film-making is portrayed as a zero-sum game; and I reject this.

I do agree with you that Hasbro, Paramount and their ilk are of a mercenary bent; however, this does not mean that they cannot - to stretch a metaphor - "Have their box office success cake and eat it too (with the spoon of critical success"). Now I can understand why, given the track record of such entities (as you suggest), it would be foolish to expect any better of them - but I don't understand why we can't at least hope for better.

Autobot032 wrote:Wait... um... I'm a tad confused here.

Sorry about that. I was calling back to your earlier point regarding Hasbro's ever-increasing production of Bumblebee and Bumblebee-themed accessories.

Autobot032 wrote:I'm not opposed to better writing, but I'm also not expecting it to be overwhelmingly Oscar material either. I guess it's because I'm a realist.

I understand where you are coming from, but but please consider this - Christopher Nolan, Jon Favreau and JJ Abrams have demonstrated (with The Dark Knight, Iron Man, and Star Trek respectively) that the traditional blockbuster movie can aspire for greatness beyond mere financial considerations.

NatsumeRyu wrote:To get a truly fantastic film I honestly think we need a smaller budget...

That is a very interesting thought. I'm not sure if necessarily it is the budget at fault here, but rather - as I think was brought up earlier in the thread - the choice of director. svk2K posted a very interesting quote by Christopher Nolan:

"...It is a real honor to work on something that means so much to people," Nolan said. "I'd love to be able to claim that I invented the whole thing and that’s why they’re interested. I did not. I’ve been given a very precious thing to do my best with..."

I think the contrast between Nolan and Bay could not be more apparent - one approaches his source material with care, consideration, and humility; the other is, well... Michael Bay... Perhaps if we simply had a director that was more than financially invested in the project; someone more philosophically akin to High Moon Studios?

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:thank you very much, You did a better job of wording my point then I did

You're welcome.

RhA wrote:So it's not about what we should want in life, but you're only dictating what we should want in movies?

Again, I think you are interpreting svk2K's comments in an overly literal way. When svk2K speaks to what we deserve, I believe it is simply another way of stating that "Transformers-related material has, at times, achieved excellence on a critical scale; and for a variety of reasons, it would behoove the live-action films to follow suit." I think we have very much clarified at this point that the one thing svk2K is not arguing is that he / she can dictate the expectations and desires of others.

cotss2012 wrote:Someone obviously never saw G1 season 1, TFTM, Beast Wars seasons 2&3, Beast Machines, Animated, or Prime.

I apologize for the confusion here - I was referring solely to the three live-action films, and should not have used the word 'franchise' to do so.

JOP wrote:

NatsumeRyu wrote:To get a truly fantastic film I honestly think we need a smaller budget...

That is a very interesting thought. I'm not sure if necessarily it is the budget at fault here, but rather - as I think was brought up earlier in the thread - the choice of director. svk2K posted a very interesting quote by Christopher Nolan:

"...It is a real honor to work on something that means so much to people," Nolan said. "I'd love to be able to claim that I invented the whole thing and that’s why they’re interested. I did not. I’ve been given a very precious thing to do my best with..."

I think the contrast between Nolan and Bay could not be more apparent - one approaches his source material with care, consideration, and humility; the other is, well... Michael Bay... Perhaps if we simply had a director that was more than financially invested in the project; someone more philosophically akin to High Moon Studios?

Yeah, that's something like what I meant to say. Basically, we're looking for the people who work on a smaller budget, because I find they tend to be more passionate beyond the money.

Shadowman wrote:

NatsumeRyu wrote:To get a truly fantastic film I honestly think we need a smaller budget. Yes, I said it.

The first movie had a (comparatively) smaller budget. Turns out, CGI is expensive. Turns out, that's why there was so little screen time for the actual robots.

NatsumeRyu wrote:I think the fans would either have to make it (Lord knows enough of us know how, it's just finding the time to volunteer to it)

Someone suggested this around the time of the first movie. The response was, more or less, it would never work because we'd never be able to agree on anything long enough to do it.

Part I: Only because of the direction they took with it. CGI in and of itself isn't horribly expensive. It's what the people working on the first film decided to do with their money. And if the entire thing was done in CGI it'd probably be cheaper than compositing. Hmm, maybe I'm saying: if you give the director and team more money, then you're rewarding them and saying good job. Then they will be more likely to do more of that if asked, right? Well, if you keep the budget the same or lower it, you're telling them something is wrong, and change needs to happen to get that more money.

Part II: Only if they can't be a team. Look at Ng and Smoove. J3.0 and his buddies. Any other numbers of fans who've put out some neat stuff. The talent is there. I mean, heck, we could probably even make TFA s4 if any number of us truly wanted to. Wyatt is kind enough I'm sure he'd be willing to do something, even if just answering questions like "would this character do this?" if not give us some small script to start with. Then it's just up to a team to make that dream come true. It's not hard, honestly, coming from someone who worked on a team of 5 for 4 weeks to make a game prototype for a brand-new concept at the first day of the project. It's just finding the people who can and will do it. They would have to take time out of their day to work on it, and that's the biggest part, if it's volunteer stuff. Just making sure to set aside an hour every week or every few days to get something done. And if the team's big enough, you can say "I can't do it for a month," and have someone else pick that up.

So, that's sort of what I'm trying to say about a "better" Transformers movie, I think fan-made would be the highest possibility of success among the fandom. Not to say that other options don't have chances or opportunities to be better, just that it's less likely to be done the way we're suggesting it.

Speaking of which, if anyone wants a 3D animator, I can devote some time to that.

Transformers is too big of an entity now to be a low budget anything or no name director to be behind the seat for the franchise.

Just not going to happen. Especially in Hasbro's case.

Half the money they make off the films is the hype of Bay (whom has fans whether we like it or not) and the other half arguably the bigger half is the Transformers themselves.

You can bet anything that results in a new Transformers movie.

1. Transformers 4: Unicron
2. Reboot

Will have a name and a big budget behind it. Even if the name is relatively new. It will be a name that's bankable.

Cameron
Spielberg
Nolan
Uwe Boll
Tarantino
Eastwood
Stallone
Lucas
Anderson

Or writer turned director for the movie

Aaron Sorkin - Overrated
Diablo Cody - Would be lols
Kevin Williamson - A movie within a movie

On and on and on. It will be a name

JOP wrote:I could well be wrong, but that's very much the impression I took away from comments by RaH and 5150 Cruiser - that what we might think of as 'critical qualities' (excellence of script, narrative, dialogue) are no more than personal preferences; and preferences that conflict with those of other fans and the larger movie-going public. It is a model in which film-making is portrayed as a zero-sum game; and I reject this.

Well, I see both sides, but I'm biased, so I'm not the fairest party in this issue.

A better script is fine, I have no problem with that, but the movie going public and their money clearly prove our desires aren't even on the companies back burner, and more likely nowhere near the kitchen.

Past a certain point, wishing and hoping do go to waste.

JOP wrote:I do agree with you that Hasbro, Paramount and their ilk are of a mercenary bent; however, this does not mean that they cannot - to stretch a metaphor - "Have their box office success cake and eat it too (with the spoon of critical success"). Now I can understand why, given the track record of such entities (as you suggest), it would be foolish to expect any better of them - but I don't understand why we can't at least hope for better.

"mercenary bent" I...like that. I really do. That's pretty good. We can hope all we want, there's nothing wrong with it, no laws against it, etc. My problem is, I hate to see so many people get their hopes up so high, only to have them dashed on the rocks below. And they will be dashed. HARD.

See, I read the leaked "scriptment" for the first film, in 2006, I still have it on my PC somewhere. I knew right then and there that if they went with it, it'd be a fun popcorn movie, but not a great TF movie. When the trailers and commercials lined up with what was in the leak, I started to put my hopes a little lower than I had them previously. I still wanted to see it, wasn't going to miss it, but my hopes were lowered.

I went to see it. I was wowed. I was overwhelmed. It was fantastic. What an experience and a joyride. ...then reality set in and multiple viewings showed me the flaws with a giant spotlight from Hell. The film was actually boring, the title characters weren't in it much, the human element was too much. Funny thing is, it was chock full of humans but had no humanity.

My hopes that were raised when the wow factor kicked in, were smashed on the rocks below. That set the mood and the tone for me, for future installments. I knew what to expect going in. ROTF came along and it had it's ludicrous G1 inspired plot, wall to wall action and more robot screen time. Admittedly, the humor didn't always work and the wow factor was gone, but it wasn't boring and it was fun. Granted, I went in with lowered expectations.

DOTM, changed all of that for me. It restored the hope I had for the first film, but actually delivered. It had it's zany G1 inspired storyline, but it had moments of humanity in it. It actually brought me to tears in some scenes. It did what the other two tried, but couldn't do. Wasn't perfect, but it dang sure tried.

JOP wrote:I understand where you are coming from, but but please consider this - Christopher Nolan, Jon Favreau and JJ Abrams have demonstrated (with The Dark Knight, Iron Man, and Star Trek respectively) that the traditional blockbuster movie can aspire for greatness beyond mere financial considerations.

I'm not aspirations are a waste, but in this case they seem rather pointless. Your comparison material is leaps and bounds above what TFs have ever offered.

Batman Begins/The Dark Knight: Always been a tour de force of emotions. Bruce watched his parents get murdered in front of him. It fractured his psyche. He runs around in a batsuit, scaring and beating the hell out of villains. I made it sound silly, but there's a very real dark component to it: Fear. What happened to Bruce can and does happen to people everyday, unfortunately. People want vengeance, people want their justice, even if it means taking it with their own two hands. That connects with us. It addresses a primal emotion.

Iron Man: A seemingly unloved alcoholic with too much money, too much ego and too much power is given a valuable lesson and shook to his core. Sees that his empire, his Father's legacy, has turned into a killing machine taking out innocent men, women and children. It fundamentally changes him and he uses his talents and gifts to change the world, little by little with what he has and is capable of doing. That also connects with us on a deep, emotional level. Most people want to embrace their inner good and do great works with it.

Star Trek: Uses alien species to show us that their is equality among the human race. It doesn't matter if you're White, Black, Purple, Green or whatever color you wish, you are part of the grand scheme and matter just as much as the rest. It was about tearing down the walls and uniting the peoples. Now, it's not just about color, but religion and sexual orientation. Everyone's an equal person in the Star Trek universe, which teaches us a lesson and along the way, we're wowed with special effects that are out of this world. (Pardon the pun.)

TransFormers: Giant robots have ripped their planet apart in civil war and crashed here by accident. We try to integrate them into our lives and adapt. We welcome them with open arms. (G1.) In the Bayverse, they come looking for the Allspark and need a pair of glasses, sighted on someone's eBay page, to help them locate it. Mass hysteria ensues, but not a single human dies during the final confrontation. (No realism there.) ROTF: Optimus dies, but comes back. DOTM: Actions have consequences. People DO die, people DO suffer, it's as real as it's going to get. DOTM should give you hope. It shows they're trying to branch out and go places they hadn't gone before, emotionally.

Michael Bay gave us some serious street cred when the movies ended up being profitable, but they weren't deep thinkers. Problem is, neither was the source material. Some stories were, but for the most part, this was a promotional item to sell toys. There's not a lot of work involved to do that. You make 'em flash, you make 'em loud and you make 'em exciting and that's exactly what the movies did and it worked.

I don't have a lot of emotional connection with the TransFormers. I know Optimus is capable of being a better person than his movieverse self, I know he's a big hero. Same with Bumblebee and the rest of the Autobots. But you can't always connect with alien robots. To a certain extent, you can, but only to a certain point.

You can connect with Bruce Wayne. You can share his fears and his pain. You can connect with Tony Stark. You can feel unloved and lost and then find out the truth and feel empowered and do something good with your gifts. You can connect with Kirk, Spock and especially Data. You can see there's more to attain to with being human and seeing there's only one race, that we're all human and while not perfect, we can help better each other if we give it a chance.

You can't connect all that much with alien robots that destroyed their planet with their stupidity, and now need a handout and a hand up. I mean, when it comes down to it, that's really what TransFormers boils down to.

Sure, you have your Christ figure with Optimus. Sure, you have your political and socioeconomic commentary with the Autobots VS the Decepticons, but... if not handled right, the former can be seen as offensive and heavy handed, and the latter can be seen as boring and heavy handed.

TransFormers stories have had depth before, they will again. But they're not well known for their "Wow. I just got that. How incredibly sad." moments. They're known for "WE WILL KILL THEM ALL!"

I knew this a long time ago, I know it now. I came to terms with it long ago. I'm fine with that. I love the toys, they're my foremost love when it comes to TransFormers, then comes the media tie ins that help sell it. Some of it's entertaining, some of it connects with you to some degree, but it's not deep thought material and never has been. The fact that we've been able to connect at all, is a miracle.

Maybe I'm too much of a realist, I don't know, but that's how I see it. What we've gotten so far has exceeded my expectations on some fronts, failed on others. It's just what I've come to expect.