Transformers and More @ The Seibertron Store
![Visit shop.seibertron.com to buy "BATMAN #148 Cvr B DC Comics 2024 0424DC040 148B (CA) Lee (W) Zdarsky"](https://www.seibertron.com/images/ebay/comic-books/dc/batman/volume-3/148B/t-DSC07057.jpg)
![Visit shop.seibertron.com to buy "BAT-MAN FIRST KNIGHT #1 2nd ptg Pulp Novel DC Comics 1223DC887 (CA) Aspinall"](https://www.seibertron.com/images/ebay/comic-books/dc/batman/bat-man-first-knight/01-2nd-ptg/t-DSC04457.jpg)
![Visit shop.seibertron.com to buy "Batman GOTHAM BY GASLIGHT #1 Facsimile Cvr A DC Comics 2024 ptg 1A (CA) Mignola"](https://www.seibertron.com/images/ebay/comic-books/dc/batman/gotham-by-gaslight/01A-facsimile-2024-ptg/t-DSC07297.jpg)
MINDVVIPE wrote:I for one don't find transforming robots on Cybertron silly at all. I wish I had wheels or wings or treads or any other forms that enable me to move faster, fly, or traverse rough terrain. I do not NEED any humans, as I've never ever EVER viewed any tf story and cared about the humans. Sure, if they're on earth they have to be there, but if it was such that I never heard a single one speak other that to scream in fear, that's fine with me. And if people have a problem with cockpits or windows on cybertronian vehicles, they pretty much have eyes behind mini windows in robot mode, why can't the same apply for vehicle modes? Protection for their eyes and sensors wherever they are in vehicle mode. Robots in disguise is cool and all for the fact that they need that disguise, but you know what's even more important and interesting? The fact that they TRANSFORM? Like the name of the entire franchise? No humans needed for that to hold water.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Burn wrote:Hasbro have kind of shot themselves in the foot here by rebooting the main series every couple of years. Oh sure, it makes sense, they have to keep things fresh (provided Optimus Prime is a red truck and Bumblebee a yellow car ... can't confuse the kids too much) for the kids.
But the result is multiple "universes" with the same theme told again and again but with a slightly different spin each time.
What they need to do is take a huge gamble and develop a series that is connected, but very distant from all that's been before.
Burn wrote:No really, it's probably more a case of an oversight on the animators part, or even laziness. It doesn't make sense, but then, the majority of movies have flaws, but most of them are made to entertain so you tend to forgive them.
TurboMMaster wrote:Oh, it is not only that, in first movie, the cast was relatively small, so each character at least seems to be unique.We don't have identical characters, or generic mooks, each character at least have he's own style. Also,with smaller cast Decepticons seems to be more dangreus. For Example, Starscream beats Ironhide and Ratchet with ease, and Brawl proves to be a challenge for 4 Autobots, human troops and a silicon princess.
TurboMMaster wrote:In first movie Optimus wasn't weak: He kills Bonecrusher relatively easily (And he do that with exceptional sense of style) and he slow down Megatron and survived to tell the tale. Also, in next movies he isn't invincible at all, and in RotF and DotM comics and novels adaptation, while he is still strong, but far for beign overpowered. Many things like Prime killing Grindor or fightning with both Megatron AND the Fallen at once are entirely Bay's idea.
Sabrblade wrote:The humans I've genuinely liked in all three films have been William Lennox, Robert Epps, John Keller, Ron Witwicky, General Moreshower, and Dylan Gould.
I actually do kinda wonder how different the films would have been if Lennox and Epps, instead of Sam and his girlfriends, had been the lead humans of the films.
2. At the BotCon 2008 Hasbro Commentary viewing of the live-action Transformers film, an early exchange between Hasbro and Michael Bay was brought up: Michael Bay questioned the logic of damaged Transformers turning into pristine vehicles, and the Hasbro response to him was along the lines of "the Transformers don't actually turn into the vehicles, they're just mimicking them". Is this concept something that the "movie" universe is still operating under?
Transformers across all of our expressions 'mimic' vehicles. They are "robots in disguise" even when they are in vehicle mode. The inherent ability of Transformers to convert their bodies from space to space combined with their ability to create holograms fulfills the illusion of a pristine car in vehicle mode.
As always, we try to remain true to the characters and put out the best toys as all possible at all times.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:Speaking of the "damaged TFs turning into pristine cars" notion, would you guys believe that this has been address in an official manner and given an answer from Hasbro itself? Cuz it just so happens that there was.![]()
Back during the August 2009 Hasbro Q&A session, TFWiki provided the following question and received the following answer:2. At the BotCon 2008 Hasbro Commentary viewing of the live-action Transformers film, an early exchange between Hasbro and Michael Bay was brought up: Michael Bay questioned the logic of damaged Transformers turning into pristine vehicles, and the Hasbro response to him was along the lines of "the Transformers don't actually turn into the vehicles, they're just mimicking them". Is this concept something that the "movie" universe is still operating under?
Transformers across all of our expressions 'mimic' vehicles. They are "robots in disguise" even when they are in vehicle mode. The inherent ability of Transformers to convert their bodies from space to space combined with their ability to create holograms fulfills the illusion of a pristine car in vehicle mode.
As always, we try to remain true to the characters and put out the best toys as all possible at all times.
Sabrblade wrote:Speaking of the "damaged TFs turning into pristine cars" notion, would you guys believe that this has been address in an official manner and given an answer from Hasbro itself? Cuz it just so happens that there was.![]()
Back during the August 2009 Hasbro Q&A session, TFWiki provided the following question and received the following answer:2. At the BotCon 2008 Hasbro Commentary viewing of the live-action Transformers film, an early exchange between Hasbro and Michael Bay was brought up: Michael Bay questioned the logic of damaged Transformers turning into pristine vehicles, and the Hasbro response to him was along the lines of "the Transformers don't actually turn into the vehicles, they're just mimicking them". Is this concept something that the "movie" universe is still operating under?
Transformers across all of our expressions 'mimic' vehicles. They are "robots in disguise" even when they are in vehicle mode. The inherent ability of Transformers to convert their bodies from space to space combined with their ability to create holograms fulfills the illusion of a pristine car in vehicle mode.
As always, we try to remain true to the characters and put out the best toys as all possible at all times.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:Speaking of the "damaged TFs turning into pristine cars" notion, would you guys believe that this has been addressed in an official manner and given an answer from Hasbro itself? Cuz it just so happens that there was.![]()
Back during the August 2009 Hasbro Q&A session, TFWiki provided the following question and received the following answer:2. At the BotCon 2008 Hasbro Commentary viewing of the live-action Transformers film, an early exchange between Hasbro and Michael Bay was brought up: Michael Bay questioned the logic of damaged Transformers turning into pristine vehicles, and the Hasbro response to him was along the lines of "the Transformers don't actually turn into the vehicles, they're just mimicking them". Is this concept something that the "movie" universe is still operating under?
Transformers across all of our expressions 'mimic' vehicles. They are "robots in disguise" even when they are in vehicle mode. The inherent ability of Transformers to convert their bodies from space to space combined with their ability to create holograms fulfills the illusion of a pristine car in vehicle mode.
As always, we try to remain true to the characters and put out the best toys as all possible at all times.
Burn wrote:Sabrblade wrote:Speaking of the "damaged TFs turning into pristine cars" notion, would you guys believe that this has been addressed in an official manner and given an answer from Hasbro itself? Cuz it just so happens that there was.![]()
Back during the August 2009 Hasbro Q&A session, TFWiki provided the following question and received the following answer:2. At the BotCon 2008 Hasbro Commentary viewing of the live-action Transformers film, an early exchange between Hasbro and Michael Bay was brought up: Michael Bay questioned the logic of damaged Transformers turning into pristine vehicles, and the Hasbro response to him was along the lines of "the Transformers don't actually turn into the vehicles, they're just mimicking them". Is this concept something that the "movie" universe is still operating under?
Transformers across all of our expressions 'mimic' vehicles. They are "robots in disguise" even when they are in vehicle mode. The inherent ability of Transformers to convert their bodies from space to space combined with their ability to create holograms fulfills the illusion of a pristine car in vehicle mode.
As always, we try to remain true to the characters and put out the best toys as all possible at all times.
So ... magic.
Banjo-Tron wrote:LOL! I'm gonna go with Occam's razor on this one and believe the GM explaination. It's patronising for them to come up with a daft reason like this. It reminds me of the whole 'midichlorians' thing in the Starwars prequels.
Anyway, just thinking out loud here but surely the main use of humans is to act as a link between the audience and the aliens being introduced. Now that this is firmly established, I think the humans can be ditched.
I personally would love to see Optimus cut off from his troops for some reason, and pursued by say the predacons, it could be a different film entirely, much more in the horror genre as others have said. It can still be accessible to kids, if you get it right you can convey a sense of menace without going ott.
There's no reason for every film to be about saving an entire planet from destruction, other then the fact this is Bay's raison d'etre.
MINDVVIPE wrote:Both hinomars19 and sabrblade are 100% on the nail with how things just HAVE to be with mainstream summer blockbuster action movies. No argument there. Its also why I say I'd pay 50 bucks to see a TF made specifically for this type of tf fan.
Well, like I said, it's an attempt at giving a fictive explanation while the GM one is a dramaturgical explanation. I mean, suppose if Sam Witwicky also noticed that Optimus can go from looking like a battle scarred robot into a shiny new truck, and if he were to ask about it, Optimus wouldn't be able to say, "Because General Motors wants my altmode to look pretty at all times," he'd have to give some kind of technobabble reason like the one Bay and Hasbro gave since that is all Optimus would be able to give.Banjo-Tron wrote:LOL! I'm gonna go with Occam's razor on this one and believe the GM explaination. It's patronising for them to come up with a daft reason like this. It reminds me of the whole 'midichlorians' thing in the Starwars prequels.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:Well, like I said, it's an attempt at giving a fictive explanation while the GM one is a dramaturgical explanation. I mean, suppose if Sam Witwicky also noticed that Optimus can go from looking like a battle scarred robot into a shiny new truck, and if he were to ask about it, Optimus wouldn't be able to say, "Because General Motors wants my altmode to look pretty at all times," he'd have to give some kind of technobabble reason like the one Bay and Hasbro gave since that is all Optimus would be able to give.Banjo-Tron wrote:LOL! I'm gonna go with Occam's razor on this one and believe the GM explaination. It's patronising for them to come up with a daft reason like this. It reminds me of the whole 'midichlorians' thing in the Starwars prequels.
In original script, Fallen fights with Optimus alone, since Megatron refuse to help him after he discovered that Fallen had lied to him. And when you watch it, you can fill it! However one thing is hilarious: Megatron kicked Optimus in face: Face and helmet scattered. Fallen throws an Aicraft engine in Prime's face... No effect! His faceplte must be indestructible!SKYWARPED_128 wrote:Hey, don't shoot the messenger!I was just saying what Bay and/or O&K said in the commentary.
You have a point in the forest fight scene, though. As absolutely awesome as it was cinematically, OP was a one-man wrecking crew. I don't know; if you don't mind the fanon maybe he just summoned all his strength in a desperate attempt to save Sam.
But each time Bay is trying to be creative in this way it ends with total disaster. In G1 there is a lot of thing without explenation, in this kind of movie, that could be a good thing. If it's for typical american teenagers, there is no need to explain it!Sabrblade wrote:Optimus wouldn't be able to say, "Because General Motors wants my altmode to look pretty at all times," he'd have to give some kind of technobabble reason like the one Bay and Hasbro gave since that is all Optimus would be able to give.
Sentinel might have landed on the Moon 50 years ago, but he left Cybertron far longer back. His ship's space bridge tech kept bouncing the ship across time and space until it finally collided with the Earth's Moon at a time much later from when it left home.TurboMMaster wrote:Also I wish to this movie have no Retcons in it. The Timeline in Bayformers is already freaky enough. Megatron was frozen for millenias, and that dosen't changed his life so much, yet Sentinel after 50 years in this nearly-death stasis lock after reactivation seems to be from different age!
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
But in narration scene it seems like a very short travel...Sabrblade wrote:Sentinel might have landed on the Moon 50 years ago, but he left Cybertron far longer back. His ship's space bridge tech kept bouncing the ship across time and space until it finally collided with the Earth's Moon at a time much later from when it left home.
Because the film cut right from the launch directly to the crash. The movie doesn't cover the journey in between, which one could only get to witness by reading the comics.TurboMMaster wrote:But in narration scene it seems like a very short travel...Sabrblade wrote:Sentinel might have landed on the Moon 50 years ago, but he left Cybertron far longer back. His ship's space bridge tech kept bouncing the ship across time and space until it finally collided with the Earth's Moon at a time much later from when it left home.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
TurboMMaster wrote:In original script, Fallen fights with Optimus alone, since Megatron refuse to help him after he discovered that Fallen had lied to him. And when you watch it, you can fill it! However one thing is hilarious: Megatron kicked Optimus in face: Face and helmet scattered. Fallen throws an Aicraft engine in Prime's face... No effect! His faceplte must be indestructible!SKYWARPED_128 wrote:Hey, don't shoot the messenger!I was just saying what Bay and/or O&K said in the commentary.
You have a point in the forest fight scene, though. As absolutely awesome as it was cinematically, OP was a one-man wrecking crew. I don't know; if you don't mind the fanon maybe he just summoned all his strength in a desperate attempt to save Sam.
TurboMMaster wrote:But each time Bay is trying to be creative in this way it ends with total disaster. In G1 there is a lot of thing without explenation, in this kind of movie, that could be a good thing. If it's for typical american teenagers, there is no need to explain it!Sabrblade wrote:Optimus wouldn't be able to say, "Because General Motors wants my altmode to look pretty at all times," he'd have to give some kind of technobabble reason like the one Bay and Hasbro gave since that is all Optimus would be able to give.
Also I wish to this movie have no Retcons in it. The Timeline in Bayformers is already freaky enough. Megatron was frozen for millenias, and that dosen't changed his life so much, yet Sentinel after 50 years in this nearly-death stasis lock after reactivation seems to be from different age!
Yeah, right, but if you didn't read the comic then how should you know that this scene isn't canon? And it dosen't explain why Megatron's stasis have no visible effect on character development. It's like they have dropped entire idea after Megatron was unfrozen.Sabrblade wrote:Because the film cut right from the launch directly to the crash. The movie doesn't cover the journey in between, which one could only get to witness by reading the comics.
Fine by MeSKYWARPED_128 wrote:ay and the writers have no reason make Sam ask such a question. In short, the scenario doesn't exist, and it does in fact go unexplained.
TurboMMaster wrote:Yeah, right, but if you didn't read the comic then how should you know that this scene isn't canon? And it dosen't explain why Megatron's stasis have no visible effect on character development. It's like they have dropped entire idea after Megatron was unfrozen.Sabrblade wrote:Because the film cut right from the launch directly to the crash. The movie doesn't cover the journey in between, which one could only get to witness by reading the comics.
TheArnoldFans: What can you tell me about your role in the upcoming Transformers?
Titus Welliver: I basically play the shark, like the shark of JAWS. I play this (Navy) Seal who has been tasked with eradicating the world of Transformers. Since the battle in Chicago in the previous film, they've now become outlawed so i'm in charge of a group of guys who are doing that.
TheArnoldFans: Were you familiar at all with the Transformers universe when you cam on the project?
Titus Welliver: Very much so. I have three children and they were actually my encyclopedia for that. I watched all the films but any questions that I had, I just talked to my 14 year old, and my 12 and 8 year old.
TheArnoldFans: Do your kids have the toys too?
Titus Welliver: Yeah, they have the toys. Michael Bay had a conversation with my 12 year old and then Michael came back to me afterwards and he said, 'I just had a conversation with your son and he might know a little bit more about these films than I do, and I made them." So I had a great source with m kids.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:So, James Savoy is a Navy Seal, eh? Or, was Welliver just comparing him to one?
And, I'm not surprised that his kid knew more about the movies than Bay did.
Return to Transformers Live Action Film Forum
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Blastback, Bumblevivisector, Dino-Snarl, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], MSN [Bot], Omegatron., Razorbeast88, Sabrblade, TFcon, Yahoo [Bot]