Discuss anything and everything related to the Transformers Live Action Films franchise, which are directed by Michael Bay. Join us to discuss the movies and stuff up to date with news for the 2017 release of Transformers 5. Check out our Live Action Film section here.
Hmmm...Megatron vs. Al Gore...I'd pay to see that one...
Al Gore: I feel your pain Megatron, but you must respect all living things for they support our own life. It's bad to destroy, can't you see this? Even if you destroy my body, you'll never destroy my spirit.
Megatron: What the hell have you been smoking? (Steps on Al Gore, making him one with the Earth he loves so much)
whilst transformers has had eco links in some stories in the past this counts as the biggest pile of **** ive ever read. there not coming here to save the planet, theyre here to get the matrix and kill all humans
who ever wrote that story was seriously streatching his point. i mean honestly is anyone going to go see transformers for its message about the enviroment!?!
Honestly, if the movie was done "right," it would have the potential to be a very good environmental tale--from the very beginning, the Transformers has dealt with issues of dwindling resources (heck, the whole planet was more or less shut down), with nearly every episode of the cartoon dealing with Megatron trying to steal some resource.
That said... there wasn't any overtly environmental message that I saw in the movie script I've seen, so yeah, someone is just stretching things to make a "point" about Hollywood.
Transformers and environmentalism - yeeeaaah. It is true that the Transformers, depending on which universe you go by, were looking for resources. The central theme was about freedom - those who fight for/against it - not environmentalism, so it is quite a stretch to lump it in with other environmental thematic movies. Overall, the article has an interesting point, but definitely stretches some things to support its hypothesis.
Still, at least the movie is getting some attention. I can't understand why Paramount is not marketing the movie a lot more, considering that July 4th is not far away (using marketers' reckoning).
It was a real stretch for the NYT. Then again, it is the New York Times. One of two things was at play for this prominent mention: Either there actually is some guerilla-esque marketing going on to generate buzz before a more official marketing campaign hits, or Cieply is a transfan just doing his part.
Either way, not many are going to go see the film for its environmental theme (such as it is) or will remember these early mentions. It does stoke the fire just that much more, however.