Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

News Credits: 2 · by **Banjo-Tron** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:26 am

SlyTF1 wrote:Never heard of the first guy.

Ah well, reason enough to discount him then

by **OptiMagnus** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:46 am

Banjo-Tron wrote:Good directors can make all the difference, the Dark Knight trilogy being a case in point, after the utterly awful batman and Robin. Bay got 3 Transformers movies, 3 more than he deserved. Quite why he was bought back for a 4th is beyond me. If you really want a reboot (soft or otherwise), change the damn director.

Below is Bay's rotten tomatoes profile:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/michael_bay/

And the profiles of the 3 I think could turn the franchise around so it could garner some critical acclaim rather than just sell toys:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/alfonso_cuaron/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity ... her_nolan/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/jeffrey_abrams/

Can any one of you, hand on heart, really say that Bay is a better option than these guys, or indeed pretty much any other director?

1. Why was Bay brought back for a fourth movie? Because the other three made a lot of money. In fact, each sequel made more than the previous installment. Money talks. Quite honestly, Hasbro and Paramount do not care what you think. I am not trying be rude, I am being completely honest. You are not losing them as much as the majority is making them money. Therefore, from a business perspective, the movies are perfect.
2. Who said they wanted to do a reboot? This movie is a continuation of the last three with an overhauled cast. Again, see the above point. Why would they reboot it when the others made so much money? No one cares about "teh critical acclaim" when the majority obviously enjoys it. You can try to objectively judge the quality of movies all you want but no one will care. People aren't going to change their opinions. You either like it or you don't.

News Credits: 436 · by **Sabrblade** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:49 am

OptiMagnus wrote:2. Who said they wanted to do a reboot? This movie is a continuation of the last three with an overhauled cast. Again, see the above point. Why would they reboot it when the others made so much money? No one cares about "teh critical acclaim" when the majority obviously enjoys it. You can try to objectively judge the quality of movies all you want but no one will care. People aren't going to change their opinions. You either like it or you don't.

Though not a full on hard reboot, it is at least a "soft reboot", as in a jumping on point for new viewers, much like how "All Hail Megatron", the 2009 ongoing, and MTMTE/RID were for IDW's G1 comics.

News Credits: 2 · by **Banjo-Tron** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:02 am

OptiMagnus wrote:
Banjo-Tron wrote:Good directors can make all the difference, the Dark Knight trilogy being a case in point, after the utterly awful batman and Robin. Bay got 3 Transformers movies, 3 more than he deserved. Quite why he was bought back for a 4th is beyond me. If you really want a reboot (soft or otherwise), change the damn director.

Below is Bay's rotten tomatoes profile:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/michael_bay/

And the profiles of the 3 I think could turn the franchise around so it could garner some critical acclaim rather than just sell toys:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/alfonso_cuaron/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity ... her_nolan/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/jeffrey_abrams/

Can any one of you, hand on heart, really say that Bay is a better option than these guys, or indeed pretty much any other director?

1. Why was Bay brought back for a fourth movie? Because the other three made a lot of money. In fact, each sequel made more than the previous installment. Money talks. Quite honestly, Hasbro and Paramount do not care what you think. I am not trying be rude, I am being completely honest. You are not losing them as much as the majority is making them money. Therefore, from a business perspective, the movies are perfect.
2. Who said they wanted to do a reboot? This movie is a continuation of the last three with an overhauled cast. Again, see the above point. Why would they reboot it when the others made so much money? No one cares about "teh critical acclaim" when the majority obviously enjoys it. You can try to objectively judge the quality of movies all you want but no one will care. People aren't going to change their opinions. You either like it or you don't.

I completely agree with you regarding the financial success these movies have enjoyed, but there is the possibility of making critically acclaimed box office hits; these two things are not mutually exclusive. Looks like Bay is here to stay which is a shame because these stories deserve to be told by a better scribe than he. Perhaps for Hasbro's 50th anniversary they will go a different route, who knows.

News Credits: 37 · by **SlyTF1** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:18 pm

Sabrblade wrote:
SlyTF1 wrote:In regards to the R rating: human army vs human army = graphic human violence. There definitely is possible for the violence to be not graphic, but if the movie were to be an R rating, it would be.
...

..."Human army vs. human army"...

...in Transformers...

I think you're in the wrong brand, here.

Plus, as I said, no humans would willingly fight for the Decepticons knowing that they're just going to be killed either way.

Unless the Cons somehow managed to recruit the world's population of masochists all together; a task which would prove too costly and complex to sort out all of the puny fleshlings from one another, rather than the more enjoyable (to the Cons) method of simply disposing of them all in one go.

The human fights could be brief.

And if I were writing the story for an R rated TF movie, I'd find a way to make it work. The Decepticons wouldn't be complete savages. They'd be essentially, the same as the Autobots, just willing to take more drastic measures to try to save Cybertron.

News Credits: 4 · by **craggy** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:46 pm

Amelie wrote:"not a kids movie"

Kinda sums up what is wrong about all of the previous Transformers movies, really. Good storylines, clever plot and well written dialogue aren't solely in the realm of "adult" (12+) movies - profanity, pointless innuendo and childish racial stereo-types are, though.

A lot of great, great sci-fi movies have been child friendly - Back To The Future, Tron, Ghostbusters ect.

Hasbro should've been tighter with their licence - the movie was an enormous success, but then again I think if they didn't have all the pointless crap that pushed it up to a 12A, it would have been just as much so - huge robots blowing stuff up is always going to sell.

to be fair Ghostbusters has the lines "I've seen **** that will turn you white." and "This man has no dick." As well as the whole possessed/sexy Dana thing that's probably similarly culturally relevant to guys who were at the right age when they saw that, as Megan Fox trying to bend completely in half is to our current youngsters.

News Credits: 436 · by **Sabrblade** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:07 pm

SlyTF1 wrote:The human fights could be brief.

And if I were writing the story for an R rated TF movie, I'd find a way to make it work. The Decepticons wouldn't be complete savages. They'd be essentially, the same as the Autobots, just willing to take more drastic measures to try to save Cybertron.

But what point would such an alliance serve in a movie that people go to see to watch giant alien robots fighting each other? If people wanted to watch human battles, they'd go watch any of the hundreds of other war movies that are out there. People watch the Transformers movies to see robots fighting robots, not humans fighting humans.

It's the same reason that that isn't done in the cartoons and comics.

And really, if you want to go so far as to want human army battles in an attempt for more realism, you're better off just eliminating the Transformers from their movies altogether, as it's their very presence in their own movies that is the biggest elephant in the room keeping their films from being as close to realistic as humanly possible.

In all honesty, this brand has gone too far with trying to be so realistic that there are time where it feels like the brand has forgotten what made it so appealing in the first place: The fantasy elements tied to the existence of giant alien shapeshifting robots. Why do we need to have so much realism forced down our throats when we already get plenty of that every time we step outside our homes? Can't we just have fun with our alien robots instead of trying to be so uber realistic?

We're getting giant robot DINOSAURS this time, for crying out loud! That's about as far away from "realistic" as you can get! Let the brand embrace more of its fantastic roots rather than cast them off or suppress them. The insane amounts of realism we've been getting since 2007 have been choking the fun out of Transformers so much that all the recent focus on Predacons and Dinobots has felt like a welcoming breath of fresh air.

News Credits: 33 · by **Amelie** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:20 pm

craggy wrote:to be fair Ghostbusters has the lines "I've seen **** that will turn you white." and "This man has no dick." As well as the whole possessed/sexy Dana thing that's probably similarly culturally relevant to guys who were at the right age when they saw that, as Megan Fox trying to bend completely in half is to our current youngsters.

Theres a couple of swears and a some suggestive humor. Its nowhere near the level that the TF movies have.

I saw Ghostbusters when I was four - Would I let a four year old watch any of the new Transformers films? No.

News Credits: 37 · by **SlyTF1** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:43 pm

Sabrblade wrote:
SlyTF1 wrote:The human fights could be brief.

And if I were writing the story for an R rated TF movie, I'd find a way to make it work. The Decepticons wouldn't be complete savages. They'd be essentially, the same as the Autobots, just willing to take more drastic measures to try to save Cybertron.
But what point would such an alliance serve in a movie that people go to see to watch giant alien robots fighting each other? If people wanted to watch human battles, they'd go watch any of the hundreds of other war movies that are out there. People watch the Transformers movies to see robots fighting robots, not humans fighting humans.

It's the same reason that that isn't done in the cartoons and comics.

And really, if you want to go so far as to want human army battles in an attempt for more realism, you're better off just eliminating the Transformers from their movies altogether, as it's their very presence in their own movies that is the biggest elephant in the room keeping their films from being as close to realistic as humanly possible.

In all honesty, this brand has gone too far with trying to be so realistic that there are time where it feels like the brand has forgotten what made it so appealing in the first place: The fantasy elements tied to the existence of giant alien shapeshifting robots. Why do we need to have so much realism forced down our throats when we already get plenty of that every time we step outside our homes? Can't we just have fun with our alien robots instead of trying to be so uber realistic?

We're getting giant robot DINOSAURS this time, for crying out loud! That's about as far away from "realistic" as you can get! Let the brand embrace more of its fantastic roots rather than cast them off or suppress them. The insane amounts of realism we've been getting since 2007 have been choking the fun out of Transformers so much that all the recent focus on Predacons and Dinobots has felt like a welcoming breath of fresh air.

I don't see how the Dinobots are unrealistic, as compared to the entire idea of the franchise.

News Credits: 436 · by **Sabrblade** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:47 pm

SlyTF1 wrote:I don't see how the Dinobots are unrealistic, as compared to the entire idea of the franchise.

It's simple.

Giant robots that turn into everyday objects is one thing, but giant robots that turn into giant extinct creatures that haven't existed for eons is a whole 'nother ball game.

You don't see dinosaurs just walking down the street everyday, after all.

News Credits: 251 · by **Mindmaster** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:11 pm

Sabrblade wrote:You don't see dinosaurs just walking down the street everyday, after all.

But I just saw one the other day!

No, wait, that was just someone's old computer in a trashcan.

News Credits: 436 · by **Sabrblade** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:14 pm

Mindmaster wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:You don't see dinosaurs just walking down the street everyday, after all.

But I just saw one the other day!

No, wait, that was just someone's old computer in a trashcan.

Wow! Was the trash can walking with it or did it get out of the can and go down the street without it? 8-}

by **TurboMMaster** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:20 am

Sabrblade wrote:
SlyTF1 wrote:The human fights could be brief.

And if I were writing the story for an R rated TF movie, I'd find a way to make it work. The Decepticons wouldn't be complete savages. They'd be essentially, the same as the Autobots, just willing to take more drastic measures to try to save Cybertron.
But what point would such an alliance serve in a movie that people go to see to watch giant alien robots fighting each other? If people wanted to watch human battles, they'd go watch any of the hundreds of other war movies that are out there. People watch the Transformers movies to see robots fighting robots, not humans fighting humans.

Well, humans already take Autobot's Role as main protagonists and stronger part of Alliance (who needs all these Bots anyway?) and it looks like now they gonna be main antagonists as well...

but giant robots that turn into giant extinct creatures that haven't existed for eons is a whole 'nother ball game.

Giant extinct creatures with two heads, or horns and vampiric fangs, you forgot to mention.

News Credits: 436 · by **Sabrblade** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:45 am

TurboMMaster wrote:Well, humans already take Autobot's Role as main protagonists and stronger part of Alliance (who needs all these Bots anyway?) and it looks like now they gonna be main antagonists as well...

Right, and as the humans become even more and more prominent in these films, the films begin to feel less and less like Transformers movies as the TFs keep getting sidelined by the human casts taking more and more of the spotlight away from the titular characters.

And that's sadly how it's going to keep being.

TurboMMaster wrote:
but giant robots that turn into giant extinct creatures that haven't existed for eons is a whole 'nother ball game.
Giant extinct creatures with two heads, or horns and vampiric fangs, you forgot to mention.

Right. Even more unrealistic, then, which is even cooler.

by **TurboMMaster** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:27 am

Sabrblade wrote:
TurboMMaster wrote:Well, humans already take Autobot's Role as main protagonists and stronger part of Alliance (who needs all these Bots anyway?) and it looks like now they gonna be main antagonists as well...
Right, and as the humans become even more and more prominent in these films, the films begin to feel less and less like Transformers movies as the TFs keep getting sidelined by the human casts taking more and more of the spotlight away from the titular characters.

That isn't exactly true, already in First Movie it was clear that humans are special and without them Autobots couldn't defeat Decepticons. Remember that the only reason wh Prime's crew wasn't failed miserably it's because Sam find a way to destroy Allspark without killing Optimus. Also in second movie Optimus was after all defeated by Megatron and Sam revived him. In third movie humans are essential to Sentinel's plan of rebuilding Cybertron... Bay's movies always were about how humans are special.

News Credits: 436 · by **Sabrblade** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:25 pm

TurboMMaster wrote:That isn't exactly true, already in First Movie it was clear that humans are special and without them Autobots couldn't defeat Decepticons. Remember that the only reason wh Prime's crew wasn't failed miserably it's because Sam find a way to destroy Allspark without killing Optimus. Also in second movie Optimus was after all defeated by Megatron and Sam revived him. In third movie humans are essential to Sentinel's plan of rebuilding Cybertron... Bay's movies always were about how humans are special.

Further proving my point that the humans are the stars rather than the Transformers, and are more important than the Transformers, in these Transformers movies.

It's like if they made a Superman movie in which Jimmy Olsen was more important and got more focused on than Superman.

News Credits: 1 · by **SKYWARPED_128** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 4:43 am

Sabrblade wrote:
TurboMMaster wrote:That isn't exactly true, already in First Movie it was clear that humans are special and without them Autobots couldn't defeat Decepticons. Remember that the only reason wh Prime's crew wasn't failed miserably it's because Sam find a way to destroy Allspark without killing Optimus. Also in second movie Optimus was after all defeated by Megatron and Sam revived him. In third movie humans are essential to Sentinel's plan of rebuilding Cybertron... Bay's movies always were about how humans are special.
Further proving my point that the humans are the stars rather than the Transformers, and are more important than the Transformers, in these Transformers movies.

It's like if they made a Superman movie in which Jimmy Olsen was more important and got more focused on than Superman.

Quoted for truth.

News Credits: 2 · by **Banjo-Tron** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 4:43 am

It would be a huge risk to not have the humans central to the cast, that must be their thinking and they're probably right. However, it doesnt make for a better story in my opinion, with all my favourite comic and cartoon stories being pretty much devoid of fleshies. A few are needed to provide the link to the audience but they should be inconsequential. It would make more sense that way, with the Decepticons regarding us as mice that can be exterminated and experimented on, and Optimus Prime protecting us, not because we can assist him in their war effort, but because it goes against his moral code to allow our subjigation to continue. Humans as insignificant makes for a way stronger narrative. A few little fleshy douchebags managing to kill Stascream does not.

News Credits: 1 · by **SKYWARPED_128** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 4:48 am

Banjo-Tron wrote:It would be a huge risk to not have the humans central to the cast, that must be their thinking and they're probably right. However, it doesnt make for a better story in my opinion, with all my favourite comic and cartoon stories being pretty much devoid of fleshies. A few are needed to provide the link to the audience but they should be inconsequential. It would make more sense that way, with the Decepticons regarding us as mice that can be exterminated and experimented on, and Optimus Prime protecting us, not because we can assist him in their war effort, but because it goes against his moral code to allow our subjigation to continue. Humans as insignificant makes for a way stronger narrative. A few little fleshy douchebags managing to kill Stascream does not.

My thoughts exactly.

The thing is, the established TF movie formula has proven successful enough that neither Bay nor Paramount want to "rock the boat" in any way--"go with what works as long as it brings in the viewers.

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 4:53 am

Sabrblade wrote:You don't see dinosaurs just walking down the street everyday, after all.

Given that crocodiles are considered dinosaurs, yes ... yes I do.

Oh and time for the obligatory "give up on bashing Michael Bay" post.

Seriously, knock it off. You don't like Michael Bay's directing style? Then go out and do a better job yourself. Harping on about it continuously like some of you do is just pointless, we've all heard it a thousand plus times before.

News Credits: 2 · by **Banjo-Tron** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 4:59 am

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:
Banjo-Tron wrote:It would be a huge risk to not have the humans central to the cast, that must be their thinking and they're probably right. However, it doesnt make for a better story in my opinion, with all my favourite comic and cartoon stories being pretty much devoid of fleshies. A few are needed to provide the link to the audience but they should be inconsequential. It would make more sense that way, with the Decepticons regarding us as mice that can be exterminated and experimented on, and Optimus Prime protecting us, not because we can assist him in their war effort, but because it goes against his moral code to allow our subjigation to continue. Humans as insignificant makes for a way stronger narrative. A few little fleshy douchebags managing to kill Stascream does not.

My thoughts exactly.

The thing is, the established TF movie formula has proven successful enough that neither Bay nor Paramount want to "rock the boat" in any way--"go with what works as long as it brings in the viewers.

Which is fine, without Paramout having dangled the carrot of 1) Bay not returning and 2) this new film being at least a soft reboot. I have never heard of any reboot in the film world where the existing team is kept on. The whole point of a reboot is to refresh things.

My mind keeps going back to J.J. Abrams, having firstly got an awful lot of acclaim for his Startrek movies, he is now at the creative helm for the Starwars sequels, which have a lot to prove after the last critically panned (but commercially successful) trilogy. Seeing any parallels yet?

Then I was thinking about the way I would like to see a TF movie made. In my mind the humans we follow are in no way instrumental to the plot, but spend the majority of the film running from utter carnage, until finally it becomes apparent that there are 2 factions. My best example for these documentary-style 'Godzilla at ground zero' movies is Cloverfield. The producer on that? J.J. abrams.

News Credits: 2 · by **Banjo-Tron** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:09 am

Burn wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:You don't see dinosaurs just walking down the street everyday, after all.

Given that crocodiles are considered dinosaurs, yes ... yes I do.

Oh and time for the obligatory "give up on bashing Michael Bay" post.

Seriously, knock it off. You don't like Michael Bay's directing style? Then go out and do a better job yourself. Harping on about it continuously like some of you do is just pointless, we've all heard it a thousand plus times before.

Really? What's so wrong with suggesting better ways these films could be made? Are we not allowed to make reasoned criticisms? Is your reposte seriously to go do a better job yourself? I guess you have never criticised anyone who you consider to be sub-par, whether they be a musician, sports person etc who, while obviously being more capable than yourself in that field and actively working in that field that you don't like. That viewpoint makes zero sense. Sorry, it just doesn't. I don't like this Grimlock figure. Well I guess rather than complain and suggest how they could have made it better, I will learn 3d design, get a huge loan, acquire the license, hire a factory and produce and distribute the toy. Seriously.

News Credits: 1 · by **SKYWARPED_128** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:26 am

Banjo-Tron wrote:
SKYWARPED_128 wrote:
Banjo-Tron wrote:It would be a huge risk to not have the humans central to the cast, that must be their thinking and they're probably right. However, it doesnt make for a better story in my opinion, with all my favourite comic and cartoon stories being pretty much devoid of fleshies. A few are needed to provide the link to the audience but they should be inconsequential. It would make more sense that way, with the Decepticons regarding us as mice that can be exterminated and experimented on, and Optimus Prime protecting us, not because we can assist him in their war effort, but because it goes against his moral code to allow our subjigation to continue. Humans as insignificant makes for a way stronger narrative. A few little fleshy douchebags managing to kill Stascream does not.

My thoughts exactly.

The thing is, the established TF movie formula has proven successful enough that neither Bay nor Paramount want to "rock the boat" in any way--"go with what works as long as it brings in the viewers.

Which is fine, without Paramout having dangled the carrot of 1) Bay not returning and 2) this new film being at least a soft reboot. I have never heard of any reboot in the film world where the existing team is kept on. The whole point of a reboot is to refresh things.

My mind keeps going back to J.J. Abrams, having firstly got an awful lot of acclaim for his Startrek movies, he is now at the creative helm for the Starwars sequels, which have a lot to prove after the last critically panned (but commercially successful) trilogy. Seeing any parallels yet?

Then I was thinking about the way I would like to see a TF movie made. In my mind the humans we follow are in no way instrumental to the plot, but spend the majority of the film running from utter carnage, until finally it becomes apparent that there are 2 factions. My best example for these documentary-style 'Godzilla at ground zero' movies is Cloverfield. The producer on that? J.J. abrams.

You've got a good point there.

IMO, the whole soft reboot thing is because they're worried that audience has started to grow tired of seeing the same bot designs, and Hasbro also needs some new designs to sell toys. I seriously doubt a lot of people are buying tickets to see Shia.

I frankly doubt Paramount ever intended to let go of Bay. And truth be told, if not for the money, I don't think Bay really wants to direct another TF movie. He loves to direct macho "bromance movies" like Armageddon, The Rock and Bad Boys, which were better movies character-wise, if you ask me; TF movies just aren't his thing. It's like asking Ridley Scott to direct Twilight. The only reason he took the job was because Spielberg asked him.

The fact that he has to take a break to film Pain and Gain before proceeding to direct DOTM says enough.

All in all, I just think TF is still a huge money maker for Paramount, and they're worried that another director might do something that the audience doesn't like. Despite the poor reviews, all three TF movies made billions in the boy office, and that's what matters to them.

Just my two cents' worth, but I think the only time when the TF franchise might be rebooted is when Paramount decides it's no longer profitable, and the franchise is left alone for another few years before being revived.

Or, this might really be Bay's last TF movie; who knows?

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:28 am

Banjo-Tron wrote:Really? What's so wrong with suggesting better ways these films could be made? Are we not allowed to make reasoned criticisms?

Your criticisms have what exactly to do with Titus Welliver being seen on the set?

Seriously ... every movie thread derails into the same old discussion of why the movies were bad, why Michael Bay is evil etc etc.

You can discuss it, go and create a thread about it instead of derailing a thread.

Is it too much to ask for a thread to stay on topic and not be filled up with the usual Bay bashings?