Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:48 pm

Yeah well that was my biggest gripe with DOTM. Taking a story from a 1980's cartoon. hmmmm ... had such hopes for you Kruger.

by **Zetatron** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:58 pm

Geez guys, Star Wars fanboys don't even whine this much about the Prequel Trilogy. Give it a rest, you're embarrassing us in front of the other fandoms. It's been five years, 3 movies, 2.6 billion dollars and let's not forget one of those movies is the 4th highest grossing film of all time, they've got to be doing something right. If you really want G1 that badly, here's an idea: go watch G1! There's like three different video releases floating around out there, it's on the HUB network and every episode and the full movie have been uploaded to youtube, take your pick.

Okay, done with the rant. From what I've seen, Bay's just about the perfect director for these films and I say let it ride. And honestly, was there ever really any doubt there'd a TF4 or that he'd be in the driver's seat? Who'd be dumb enough to walk away from a cash cow like this? Okay, Orci and Kurtzman did, but I'm just going to say it, I think that's why 3 did so well.

by **MINDVVIPE** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:02 pm

Zetatron wrote:Geez guys, Star Wars fanboys don't even whine this much about the Prequel Trilogy. Give it a rest, you're embarrassing us in front of the other fandoms. It's been five years, 3 movies, 2.6 billion dollars and let's not forget one of those movies is the 4th highest grossing film of all time, they've got to be doing something right. If you really want G1 that badly, here's an idea: go watch G1! There's like three different video releases floating around out there, it's on the HUB network and every episode and the full movie have been uploaded to youtube, take your pick.

No one is whining. Its a forum where people express opinions. I think the embaressment is in people who can't contribute without voicing their dislike for other fellow fans and their opposing views.

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:05 pm

Zetatron wrote:Geez guys, Star Wars fanboys don't even whine this much about the Prequel Trilogy. Give it a rest, you're embarrassing us in front of the other fandoms.

Your melodrama makes me go lol.

News Credits: 5 · by **5150 Cruiser** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:33 pm

MINDVVIPE wrote:
Burn wrote:
MINDVVIPE wrote:Still a stupid story involving bringing Cybertron to Earth to rescue it with human labour.

Did you think it was stupid when it was done in the G1 cartoon?

Hahaha, ya. Obviously. Like I take G1 cartoons seriously. But for a movie that is trying so hard to be "realistic", Its like having a bunch of ants rebuild the planet earth... and they're alien ants who can't even survive on earth. Etc. etc...

Why is it that you expected these movies to somehow break the mold with story telling? Especialy if you don't seem to like the source its based on.

I don't get it... People like to complain that these movies don't use enough source material and when they do, its still not good enough. :BOOM:

MINDVVIPE wrote:I would hope for something a little bit more imaginable for the viewer, from a story-telling pov. Something than can be concieved as a threat......

I don't know about you,.. but when 30 foot tall robots tellaport from space and start destroying the world with alien ships destorying everything in sight...
I wouldn't exactly just brush it off and go back to bed. :lol:

by **MINDVVIPE** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:49 pm

5150 Cruiser wrote:
MINDVVIPE wrote:
Burn wrote:
MINDVVIPE wrote:Still a stupid story involving bringing Cybertron to Earth to rescue it with human labour.

Did you think it was stupid when it was done in the G1 cartoon?

Hahaha, ya. Obviously. Like I take G1 cartoons seriously. But for a movie that is trying so hard to be "realistic", Its like having a bunch of ants rebuild the planet earth... and they're alien ants who can't even survive on earth. Etc. etc...

Why is it that you expected these movies to somehow break the mold with story telling? Especialy if you don't seem to like the source its based on.

I don't get it... People like to complain that these movies don't use enough source material and when they do, its still not good enough.

MINDVVIPE wrote:I would hope for something a little bit more imaginable for the viewer, from a story-telling pov. Something than can be concieved as a threat......

I don't know about you,.. but when 30 foot tall robots tellaport from space and start destroying the world with alien ships destorying everything in sight...
I wouldn't exactly just brush it off and go back to bed.

Oh I love the source material. But you don't have to take the most ridiculous part of it and use it for somthing you want to be realistic. Theres also the comics which take the source material of G1 and make it more believable, more mature, etc.
I didn't expect it to break the mold. Rise of Cobra didn't, but it still entertained me 10x more with all components of a movie, including story.

Sure the robots showed up... but hey, the same sorta thing happened in Battlefield LA... and that sssssssssssssssuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked.
Anyway. I've said my part, I shall now recede back into the darkness lest I cause another angsty back and forth.

by **JOP** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:09 am

Burn wrote:Transformers Prime and Star Trek are two examples of O & K taking something that has decades long mythology and doing their take on it.

I would say, in all fairness, that the Star Trek reboot actually contains all the hallmarks of Orci and Kurtzman at their worst - some imaginative action set-pieces and a couple of clever twists, but also poor characterization and plotholes brought about by the collapse of inner story logic. By way of example:

How did an unarmed Spock, on a desolate ice world, create a flaming torch?
Why is it necessary to drill into a planet before creating a black hole?
Black holes: do they crush their victims, or send them through time?
What possessed Kirk to remain in the vicinity of a forming black hole?
Why were faster-than-light engines insufficient to escape a black hole?
Why was a sub-light explosive force sufficient?

I believe the primary reason as to why Star Trek was critically lauded and, say, Revenge of the Fallen was not is simply a result of directorial decision - JJ Abrams was able to smooth over many of the issues present in his Orci and Kurtzman-provided script, whereas Michael Bay served only to highlight the problems present in his.

by **Court Jester** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:46 am

DramaFormers 9: Revenge of the Right-wing Propaganda Numbskulls. :lol:

So done with this debacle of douchenozzlery.

by **alternator77** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:14 pm

back to the topic ive got mixed feelings about this to be honest.
on the one hand id like to see a break from the movies and have hasbro fully develop other lines whether it be classics,prime or the new rescue bots i also realize the movieverse is essentially my nephews g1.
while my bb was a vw his is a muscled out camaro and while my prime was red and blue with rollar and battle platform his is a big guy with flame decoes and a trailer/armor. my point is for our beloved franchise to continue we need the movies to continue.alot of kids dont read comics,or watch the hub despite what the nielson numbers say they do go out to the movies. so for the good of the franchise i say go for it bay

News Credits: 2 · by **First-Aid** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:37 pm

JOP wrote:
Burn wrote:Transformers Prime and Star Trek are two examples of O & K taking something that has decades long mythology and doing their take on it.

I would say, in all fairness, that the Star Trek reboot actually contains all the hallmarks of Orci and Kurtzman at their worst - some imaginative action set-pieces and a couple of clever twists, but also poor characterization and plotholes brought about by the collapse of inner story logic. By way of example:

How did an unarmed Spock, on a desolate ice world, create a flaming torch?

Because he's Spock and he's just awesome that way.

Though it probably would have been using a piece of clothing, breaking off a stalagmite as the handle, and using rocks from the cave against a metal surface. But I think he had a phaser on his belt.

JOP wrote:
Why is it necessary to drill into a planet before creating a black hole?

THe red matter needed to react with matter of sufficient density in order to trigger the singularity. The matter at the core of the planet was more dense and hence able to react better.

JOP wrote:
Black holes: do they crush their victims, or send them through time?

There is a difference between a quantum singularity and space-time singularity. It has to do with energy frequencies that can be mimicked by a startship's shield. Quantum singularities are black holes, with significant gravitational strength that crushes all matter.

JOP wrote:
What possessed Kirk to remain in the vicinity of a forming black hole?

THey had to make sure that the Narada was actually destroyed. That's why they were firing as the ship was being torn apart. You don't want that powerful of a Romulan ship that close to the Sol system.

JOP wrote:
Why were faster-than-light engines insufficient to escape a black hole?

The warp field was being disrupted by the intense gravitational anomalies occuring, making normal warp impossible. And I believe they were using impulse engines there, which are not FTL, but I can't remember.

JOP wrote:
Why was a sub-light explosive force sufficient?

Like I said, I believe it was the impulse engines that pulled them free since, as the explosion expanded, it appeared that they had not gone to warp. Impulse engines would have been buoyed by the explosion.

That will be all. Live long and prosper. :-B

News Credits: 5 · by **5150 Cruiser** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:12 pm

JOP wrote:
Burn wrote:Transformers Prime and Star Trek are two examples of O & K taking something that has decades long mythology and doing their take on it.

I would say, in all fairness, that the Star Trek reboot actually contains all the hallmarks of Orci and Kurtzman at their worst - some imaginative action set-pieces and a couple of clever twists, but also poor characterization and plotholes brought about by the collapse of inner story logic. By way of example:

How did an unarmed Spock, on a desolate ice world, create a flaming torch?
Why is it necessary to drill into a planet before creating a black hole?
Black holes: do they crush their victims, or send them through time?
What possessed Kirk to remain in the vicinity of a forming black hole?
Why were faster-than-light engines insufficient to escape a black hole?
Why was a sub-light explosive force sufficient?
I believe the primary reason as to why Star Trek was critically lauded and, say, Revenge of the Fallen was not is simply a result of directorial decision - JJ Abrams was able to smooth over many of the issues present in his Orci and Kurtzman-provided script, whereas Michael Bay served only to highlight the problems present in his.

This doesn't prove any poor characterzation or plotholes on Orci and Kurtzman's part. It just proves that..
1.- Nobody's is going to be completly happy with the stories no matter what is done. But the main point..
2.- You can nit pick apart nearly anything and find faults if you look hard enough.

Personaly, i see nothing wrong with anything you pointed out as being faults or plotholes in the latest Star Trek movie. Mainly because 80% of those "problems" can't be proved faults since we have so little understanding of how black holes really work. And even if we did have enough knowledge, this is Star Trek. Many of the standard rules and laws of phisics go out the window.

At some point you have to just sit back and enjoy the ride. If your that critical of a movie that is based on many "facts" that only live in that particular universe, then your never going to have fun.

Oh, and so im on topic,..

You go Mr. Bay. Looking forward to another 2.5 hour robot crashing romp ride. :grin:

by **Screamfleet** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:29 pm

If you truly hate that much, then you take this hobby and those movies way too seriously. Just sayin...and seriously, was the '86 cartoon movie really any better?

I would consider myself a movie buff/fan over a TF fan. As a fan of movies, I thought the movies were terrible. Maybe I do take movies too seriously. I feel they're important forms of entertainment to our culture. Michael Bay movies, on a whole, do not take themselves seriously. The 86 movie, I would not recommend to anyone unless they were an TF fan or animation fan. Still, at least it didn't have jarringly uncomfortable moments. It didn't have shaky camera, or shia labouf who seems like always trying to read his lines as fast as possible because he needs to take a leak after the scene, or horribly blasphemous historical tie ins. The 86 movie, is at least smoother and simpler.

Maybe I think about it too much, maybe I shouldn't. Michael Bay just makes a certain kind of movie, and I think, most of them anyway, they're terrible. I know I'm not alone as they're review badly. That clearly doesn't make a difference,they all do really well. They're a big part of our culture. It just makes me think, mc donalds does really well, they're huge and every where, but is anyone really saying how great it is? If it's not that good, why do we as a people keep eating up this garbage? I guess millions, even billions, of dollars isn't something people should be worried about.

News Credits: 37 · by **SlyTF1** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:03 pm

First-Aid wrote:
SlyTF1 wrote:
First-Aid wrote:To be fair to Orci and Kurtzman, they have given us the gem that is Transformers: Prime, as well as a wonderfully geeky reboot of Star Trek. I don't blame them for ROTF, I actually hold the deadline accountable. Obviously, with more time, better movies can be made. ROTF was bad plot-wise, but to a good many people it was still a fun movie to watch. I enjoy it occassionally. No matter what anyone says about Devastator in that movie, the hair on the back of my neck still stands up in anticipation as the vehicle forms merge...

How?

how do I hold the deadline responsible? Easy. It's obvious from the first and third movies that a half-decent movie can be written with sufficient time. ROTF had about 5 weeks to complete the movie script thanks to the writers strike. I think the Fallen idea could have been done much better....if they had time. Bay has said they were editing right up to the release date thanks to the time crunch. It comes down to the fact that they had a release date to make and had to make do with what they had. That's why i blame the deadline aka release date. If the date had been 6 months later, we would have seen considerable improvement in ROTF...a whole different movie. That's my theory anyways.

But you've failed to answer my question. How did the plot suck?

News Credits: 2 · by **First-Aid** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:58 pm

SlyTF1 wrote:
First-Aid wrote:
SlyTF1 wrote:
First-Aid wrote:To be fair to Orci and Kurtzman, they have given us the gem that is Transformers: Prime, as well as a wonderfully geeky reboot of Star Trek. I don't blame them for ROTF, I actually hold the deadline accountable. Obviously, with more time, better movies can be made. ROTF was bad plot-wise, but to a good many people it was still a fun movie to watch. I enjoy it occassionally. No matter what anyone says about Devastator in that movie, the hair on the back of my neck still stands up in anticipation as the vehicle forms merge...

How?

how do I hold the deadline responsible? Easy. It's obvious from the first and third movies that a half-decent movie can be written with sufficient time. ROTF had about 5 weeks to complete the movie script thanks to the writers strike. I think the Fallen idea could have been done much better....if they had time. Bay has said they were editing right up to the release date thanks to the time crunch. It comes down to the fact that they had a release date to make and had to make do with what they had. That's why i blame the deadline aka release date. If the date had been 6 months later, we would have seen considerable improvement in ROTF...a whole different movie. That's my theory anyways.

But you've failed to answer my question. How did the plot suck?

Oh...all you said was "how". Didn't know what "how" you meant. Personally I enjoyed the movie for what it was, and thought that- yes, the script and plot was rough- but it had potential. I have actually proposed a way to tie ROTF more into the TF mythos before by asking the question, "What made the Fallen turn against his brothers?" It would be a way to expand on the Fallen's character and potentially add another piece of the mythos.

by **BATTOUSAIXD** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:31 pm

I'm all for more movies and I don't mind Bay, but I'm tired of Shia. I hope he stays away. Bring Megan Fox back as female lead,and revive the Decepticons and I'll be happy.

News Credits: 37 · by **SlyTF1** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:00 pm

BATTOUSAI XD wrote:I'm all for more movies and I don't mind Bay, but I'm tired of Shia. I hope he stays away. Bring Megan Fox back as female lead,and revive the Decepticons and I'll be happy.

Aw hell naw! Her absence was the biggest improvement of DOTM. That and Megatron's shotgun.

News Credits: 668 · by **Autobot032** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:25 pm

SlyTF1 wrote:
BATTOUSAI XD wrote:I'm all for more movies and I don't mind Bay, but I'm tired of Shia. I hope he stays away. Bring Megan Fox back as female lead,and revive the Decepticons and I'll be happy.

Aw hell naw! Her absence was the biggest improvement of DOTM. That and Megatron's shotgun.

Biggest improvement? No. Big improvement? Yes. It did feel very different with her gone, pleasant.

News Credits: 37 · by **SlyTF1** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:01 pm

Autobot032 wrote:
SlyTF1 wrote:
BATTOUSAI XD wrote:I'm all for more movies and I don't mind Bay, but I'm tired of Shia. I hope he stays away. Bring Megan Fox back as female lead,and revive the Decepticons and I'll be happy.

Aw hell naw! Her absence was the biggest improvement of DOTM. That and Megatron's shotgun.

Biggest improvement? No. Big improvement? Yes. It did feel very different with her gone, pleasant.

Well for me it was. It's one of the reasons I like DOTM slightly more than ROTF.

by **BATTOUSAIXD** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:39 pm

SlyTF1 wrote:
BATTOUSAI XD wrote:I'm all for more movies and I don't mind Bay, but I'm tired of Shia. I hope he stays away. Bring Megan Fox back as female lead,and revive the Decepticons and I'll be happy.

Aw hell naw! Her absence was the biggest improvement of DOTM. That and Megatron's shotgun.

Haha! Well I'm definitely not complimenting her acting so much as her looks; personally I think she's prettier than Rosie Huntington-Whitely. And I agree that Megatron's shotgun was awesome. Too bad he didn't get to use it more.

by **SaTaN CoNvOy** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:49 pm

I'd hire her just for her thumbs.
So a part 4 eh? Meh, I hope not, it's not like these movie tied in with each other except for the fact that they had transforming robots.(and maybe the allspark shard.) Next thing you know they're gonna be cranking out Tf movies like the way they did those dam land before time movies.
Should stop while you're ahead paramutt/hastroll.

:twisted:

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:12 am

SaTaN CoNvOy wrote:Should stop while you're ahead paramutt/hastroll.

Quitting while you're ahead is a good piece of advice...but only in a risky situation, a situation where you aren't guaranteed a very large bag of money. The Transformers movies are, at this point, basically an excuse to print money. DOTM is currently the fourth highest-grossing movie of all time, at $1.1 billion, the other two are both in the top 50. They would be stupid not to do more.

And Paramutt and Hastroll? Come on, you can do better than that. Paramutt doesn't even make sense.

News Credits: 668 · by **Autobot032** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:26 am

Shadowman wrote:
SaTaN CoNvOy wrote:Should stop while you're ahead paramutt/hastroll.

Quitting while you're ahead is a good piece of advice...but only in a risky situation, a situation where you aren't guaranteed a very large bag of money. The Transformers movies are, at this point, basically an excuse to print money. DOTM is currently the fourth highest-grossing movie of all time, at $1.1 billion, the other two are both in the top 50. They would be stupid not to do more.

And Paramutt and Hastroll? Come on, you can do better than that. Paramutt doesn't even make sense.

Paramount. He's calling them a mutt dog.

But, at least he did it with colors, so it looks all fun and fancy free.

When Paramount writes, they use GREEN, since they made a lot of it off of him, and those who say they hate the movies. Oh, lookit that! They're ready to make more green! Better close up them movie ticket buyin' wallets!

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:57 pm

Autobot032 wrote:Paramount. He's calling them a mutt dog.

I figured as much, but that still doesn't make sense.

Autobot032 wrote:When Paramount writes, they use GREEN, since they made a lot of it off of him, and those who say they hate the movies. Oh, lookit that! They're ready to make more green! Better close up them movie ticket buyin' wallets!

This is why movie companies trust Michael Bay. The critics might hate him, but he always brings in literal boatloads of cash.

News Credits: 22 · by **Rodimus Prime** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:05 pm

Wait...why is Paramount a mutt? And would you refuse a position in the company with all the financial incentives and cool **** that comes with it if it means you have to sign off on stuff like the Transformers movies? And I don't mean CEO or Board of Directors member even, I'm talking like middle management or like parking Michael Bay's car for him. Hell, you would probably do it for free. And say stuff like "Yes, Mr. Bay" and "Thank you Mr. Bay." Then go home and get online and come to places like this to bitch about what a poopy director he is and what a bad company Paramount is.