Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

confusing story lines for the trilogy outlined
http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/b ... owchart-2/

RogueDeathangel wrote:

vectorA3 wrote:Opera and ballet are not good examples to use. Heavily music, song and dance based. I expect some character development in a TF film because there are over 25 yrs. of comics, cartoon and other source material with rich character depth to draw from. Bay's movies are blatantly made to A) make $ and B) sell toys for hasbro. 'B' i'm less concerned about b/c I have bought some of the toys.

But there's no reason that films have to be heavily character and plot based. There's just as much artistic validity in a film being an exercise in style as a film that's an exercise in substance.

You make a good point about there being 25 years worth of depth to draw on but surely it's a worth-while endeavour to attempt to take the franchise in a direction it's never been in before? Transformers have never been used to make a big-budget, wide-screen, pop corn action extravaganza before so why not try that, rather than retreading the same old ground that the franchise has been going over for the past quarter of a century?

And of course the film is designed to make money. No company, no matter how artistically-driven would ever pony up a fifth of a billion dollars to make a film and NOT try to at least make its money back.

I go back to starfish's point -- no reason we can't have action and depth together. Part of that comes from poor writing. And I'm not saying that they need to recycle material directly from G1 or comics, but new stories with traces of the old would be good to see. The characters in the Bay films are so shallow. First movie -Megatron is established, temporarily defeated. Next, TF2 -- The Fallen comes out of nowhere, no backstory, no buildup. DOTM -- again, no mention of the plot points with The Fallen, Megatron has no power, and Sentinel Prime goes berserk. All over the place - these should've been more cohesive & not thrown together at the last minute. ROTF and DOTM very rushed. ROTF suffered more from that. One of the worst continuities for a trilogy I've ever seen. When the reboot happens - i hope they don't throw $250 mill + into garbage, last minute, written on the spot scripts/screenplays as they have been. That's no way to make a movie. And as I've said for the umpteenth time, they need to wait at least 3 years between movies to give everyone involved a chance to breathe. They're lucky ILM offices didn't meltdown & workers didnt have heart attacks

vectorA3 wrote:

I go back to starfish's point -- no reason we can't have action and depth together. Part of that comes from poor writing. And I'm not saying that they need to recycle material directly from G1 or comics, but new stories with traces of the old would be good to see. The characters in the Bay films are so shallow. First movie -Megatron is established, temporarily defeated. Next, TF2 -- The Fallen comes out of nowhere, no backstory, no buildup. DOTM -- again, no mention of the plot points with The Fallen, Megatron has no power, and Sentinel Prime goes berserk. All over the place - these should've been more cohesive & not thrown together at the last minute. ROTF and DOTM very rushed. ROTF suffered more from that. One of the worst continuities for a trilogy I've ever seen. When the reboot happens - i hope they don't throw $250 mill + into garbage, last minute, written on the spot scripts/screenplays as they have been. That's no way to make a movie. And as I've said for the umpteenth time, they need to wait at least 3 years between movies to give everyone involved a chance to breathe. They're lucky ILM offices didn't meltdown & workers didnt have heart attacks

You are totally right, we can have depth and action together, even though that appears to be an outlandish idea to a good number of the movie fans/detractors....."What? You don't just love what you're given????"

Just so that when the mass jumps in and types about how the Fallen does have a backstory because there were a handful of exposition seconds in ROTF about him, I understand what you're saying there. In the movieverse, he just pops in, and the first and third movies don't reference him in the slightest. I understand what you're saying, so don''t bang your head on things when people try to make it sound like you have little to no comprehension abilities. Certainly the DW Fallen can't count as backstory for ROTF Fallen, because that's G1 connected, and that's anathema of course.

Predaprince wrote:

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

Gemini220 wrote:From alot of the reviews I've read here with people shredding this movie to bits a few questions?

Where you expecting an Oscar type movie?
Did you submit scrips to Bay & Co?
What cartoon, comic book, action figure made into a live action film has been perfect?

People have hated the first 3 Star Wars movies which were excellent. People have love or hated the Superman, Batman, XMEN, Ironman movies but the key word is Movies. You go to escape from the real world for a few hrs, some take it as though it's the end of the world because "Their favorite cartoon, comic book, action figure characters etc" wasn't The Movie they wanted it.

I'm pretty sure this time around he had alot of input on do's & don'ts, how things should go who knows.

It's just wild reading these responses.

As for when I said people were applauding, why do some clap & cheer after riding a roller-coaster?

I never understood how people can get so worked up over movies. Are their lives so cushy and boring that watching a movie is the worst thing that can happen to them? Maybe some people just live to complain I guess.

Or perhaps it is that some people expect more from the film that they paid money to see.

^This. And as far as I knew, there were no complaints on towards the X-Men(well the first 2 anyways), IronMan, or Batman(save Forever and Batman and Robin) movies.

I've heard alot of complaints about Ironman 2....

Gemini220 wrote:I've heard alot of complaints about Ironman 2....

Hmmmmmm.............never heard any complaints about IronMan 2. And I'd call bs on it anyway, IronMan 2 was just as good as the first.

Gemini220 wrote:I've heard alot of complaints about Ironman 2....

agreed. it was accused of being a rehash of the first without adding much new

shamone wrote:

Gemini220 wrote:I've heard alot of complaints about Ironman 2....

agreed. it was accused of being a rehash of the first without adding much new

This. Even I thought Ironman 2 was lacking. I still liked it as much...if not, just a little less than the first one. I just don't like how all the fight scenes in both Iron man movies lasted like 2 minutes.

vectorA3 wrote:

RogueDeathangel wrote:

vectorA3 wrote:Opera and ballet are not good examples to use. Heavily music, song and dance based. I expect some character development in a TF film because there are over 25 yrs. of comics, cartoon and other source material with rich character depth to draw from. Bay's movies are blatantly made to A) make $ and B) sell toys for hasbro. 'B' i'm less concerned about b/c I have bought some of the toys.

But there's no reason that films have to be heavily character and plot based. There's just as much artistic validity in a film being an exercise in style as a film that's an exercise in substance.

You make a good point about there being 25 years worth of depth to draw on but surely it's a worth-while endeavour to attempt to take the franchise in a direction it's never been in before? Transformers have never been used to make a big-budget, wide-screen, pop corn action extravaganza before so why not try that, rather than retreading the same old ground that the franchise has been going over for the past quarter of a century?

And of course the film is designed to make money. No company, no matter how artistically-driven would ever pony up a fifth of a billion dollars to make a film and NOT try to at least make its money back.

I go back to starfish's point -- no reason we can't have action and depth together. Part of that comes from poor writing. And I'm not saying that they need to recycle material directly from G1 or comics, but new stories with traces of the old would be good to see. The characters in the Bay films are so shallow. First movie -Megatron is established, temporarily defeated. Next, TF2 -- The Fallen comes out of nowhere, no backstory, no buildup. DOTM -- again, no mention of the plot points with The Fallen, Megatron has no power, and Sentinel Prime goes berserk. All over the place - these should've been more cohesive & not thrown together at the last minute. ROTF and DOTM very rushed. ROTF suffered more from that. One of the worst continuities for a trilogy I've ever seen. When the reboot happens - i hope they don't throw $250 mill + into garbage, last minute, written on the spot scripts/screenplays as they have been. That's no way to make a movie. And as I've said for the umpteenth time, they need to wait at least 3 years between movies to give everyone involved a chance to breathe. They're lucky ILM offices didn't meltdown & workers didnt have heart attacks

I've already agreed that there's no reason you can't have action and depth. As I said in the post you quoted, I just don't see why a film must have both. It's like saying a meal must have meat in it.

And I've never viewed the Transformers films as a Trilogy. It's not one long story that takes three films to tell (such as Back to the Future etc.) they're more like episodes of the G1 cartoon or CSI, self-contained one-shot stories that have very little bearing on each other.

D-340 wrote:

Gemini220 wrote:I've heard alot of complaints about Ironman 2....

Hmmmmmm.............never heard any complaints about IronMan 2. And I'd call bs on it anyway, IronMan 2 was just as good as the first.

I didn't like IronMan 2 as much as the first. The story dragged out too long and the villain was lame. Seriously, if your electro-whips didn't work the first time why the hell would you use them again? The rest of the movie was just Tony being sad and drunk. I didn't hate it, it was just really meh.