Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Now imagine this with explosions and crazy camera angles and the trailers not looking like they're clueless as to what to do.

The lack of anything done with the truck mode is definitely my biggest beef with these movies. Every square inch of it tells a story, yet we only see it for a few seconds doing noting in particular. What were those kill markings about, or the cow skull, or the bubble wrap, or muddy bootprints near the pedals?

BeastProwl wrote:Well, as cool as that scene sounds, it never happened. I wish they would give the movie to us seibertronians to direct, with the animators, and let US make the movie. I'm sure with enough time, we could make it make more money then Avatar ever did.

.

NO... No we couldn't. Sorry, but their alot more to making a movie than just more screen time with the robots.
people need to understand that one of the reasons these movies have been as sucsesfull as they have been is because the apeal to such a large demographic of people. I too would have preffered a kick ass truck mode batle scene instead of Sam running around town loking for a job, but Like it or not, the love story and over zelous shots of Carly's Butt help sell the movie to people whom other wise would never go see it.
"screw them. We don't need them. The movies not made for them anyhow. I can deal with the movie making less money if it means we get the story we want."
While this may be the aurgument most would counter with, i'm sure the hundreds of people who worked on the set, who's lives depended on the finacial success of the movie would beg to differ with the aurgument.
A happy medieum has to be found. And i think there very close to finding that. But unfortunutly, a movie with less human and more robot focus isn't going to mean instant success like many here seem to think.

I think it was a pretty cool decision to make him a truck. Besides, it's not just a normal truck, he's got spikes and rust and all that bad-assery!

If written and directed extremely well, I think a TF film with 75% focus on TF and 25% (or less) on humans could make a lot of $. It's Transformers - not Sam goes to look for a job and j*cks off

Megatron became a truck because Michael Bay had stopped giving a damn.

I know this is the wrong place to discuss this, but I'll say it here anyway. The next Star Trek is set to film next year and drop in May of 2013. G.I. Joe 2 set for next summer. That's 4 years and 3 years between movies respectively. Whether these new movies be good, bad or ugly -why the *&(%&$&*$%& couldn't they do this with TF?? ROTF was horrible. Joe and Star Trek -let's take our time on, but TF, f&*% it, crank em out and get it over with, doesn't matter how bad they are. We don't care. This absolutely incenses me

vectorA3 wrote:I know this is the wrong place to discuss this, but I'll say it here anyway. The next Star Trek is set to film next year and drop in May of 2013. G.I. Joe 2 set for next summer. That's 4 years and 3 years between movies respectively. Whether these new movies be good, bad or ugly -why the *&(%&$&*$%& couldn't they do this with TF?? ROTF was horrible. Joe and Star Trek -let's take our time on, but TF, f&*% it, crank em out and get it over with, doesn't matter how bad they are. We don't care. This absolutely incenses me

It has nothing to do with "taking their time" with either Star Trek or G.I. Joe 2. There were many contract disputes, actors schedules conflicting with shooting dates, and trying to get certain actors to return. IN G.I. Joes case, i believe only duke is going to be returning on the joes side. That wasn't initialy planned. Also, a brand new director. Again, something that wasn't planned. (Last i heard, The new director is the same that directed the Justin Beiber movie And whats worse is that's his only directing experiance)

As for Star Trek, J.J. Abrams was up and down coming back for the sequel. Also, contracts were never writen before hand for actors to return for a sequel. Again, whitch took time.
TF had contracts already in play, so it was alot eaiser to get the balls rolling again.

And sorry, but your aurgument of "They just crank them out, They don't care how bad they are" is crap. You may not like them. Whitch is fine. BUt Billions in profits says the majority liked what they saw.

Would a movie with 75% TF work and be profitable? That i can agree with. But budget comes to mind.
Personally, i love for them to leave out all the CGI that would give more TF screen time (Such as the Decepticon ships in DOTM, and Driller) While i could have done without these, I underdtand their purpose in the movie. It was to give the overall audeince the "Wow" factor. Like it or not, they need to like what they see long before the TF fandom does.

5150 Cruiser wrote:Billions in profits says the majority liked what they saw.

No, billions in profits says that the majority got duped by a well-oiled publicity machine saying "we're going to do it right" (for TF1), "the next one will be better" (RotF), and "Okay, we learned from our mistakes with the previous movie, and this one really WILL be good, we swear!" (DotM).

cotss2012 wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:Billions in profits says the majority liked what they saw.

No, billions in profits says that the majority got duped by a well-oiled publicity machine saying "we're going to do it right" (for TF1), "the next one will be better" (RotF), and "Okay, we learned from our mistakes with the previous movie, and this one really WILL be good, we swear!" (DotM).

NO, your wrong. Plain and simple. You don't make profits like that by being duped. Maybe your the one who was duped by dedicating 25+ yrs of your life to a toy franchise to the point where you felt having Optimus as a long nose Peterbuilt caused you to curl up in a ball in the corner of your room.

You didn't like what you saw... Deal with it.
Not everyone shares your opinion... Deal with it.
Your vision of what is right, is not going to be everyones vision... Deal with it.

Actually, the botched vehicle modes are just about the smallest complaint that I can think of regarding those movies. The horrid writing, useless characters, poorly constructed stories, etc. are all much bigger concerns.

Big box-office receipts as people walk into the theater do not indicate a positive impression upon leaving the theater.

cotss2012 wrote:Actually, the botched vehicle modes are just about the smallest complaint that I can think of regarding those movies. The horrid writing, useless characters, poorly constructed stories, etc. are all much bigger concerns.

Big box-office receipts as people walk into the theater do not indicate a positive impression upon leaving the theater.

No, the positive reviews from the movie goers themselves indicate their impressions. Also, you don't generate those kind of profit numbers by seeing a movie once. Their were more than a few repeat viewers, as well as those expressing how much they liked the movies and recommending them to their friends.

You need to accept that just cause you didn't like what you saw, doesn't mean that everyone else is going to share the same view.

cotss2012 wrote:[quote="5150 Cruiser]
like it or not, the vast majority of people approved of the movies. And their is absolutely nothing that you can say that can refute this..[/quote]


Wrong...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_the_movie - 57% is a majority, but not a "vast" majority.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transfo ... the_fallen - 20% isn't a majority at all, much less a vast one
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transfo ... f_the_moon - at 35%, the best thing that can be said about this movie is that it sucked less than the previous one. .[/quote]

This quote was taken from the locked thread, but since its relevant to the conversation at hand, i felt it necessary to bring it over.
But thank you for proving my point! Had you took the time to read what you linked, you'd see that the percentages you quoted were from movie critics, and not the actual audience. You'll see in your own example that the majority of the audience approved of the movies. Proving that they liked what they saw.

cotss2012 wrote:Big box-office receipts as people walk into the theater do not indicate a positive impression upon leaving the theater.

Do the maths mate. Take what the movies each made at the box office, then divide that by the average cost of a movie ticket.

You think all that money was made from people only seeing it once? Think again. People went and saw it MULTIPLE times.

Now if people are seeing it MULTIPLE times then there is either a lot of idiots in the world, OR ... a lot of people who actually LIKED the movie.

Think about it. Oh and did I mention, your opinion doesn't = fact? Yeah ... I think you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

First of all, if you're going to say something like "Lots of people saw this more than once in theaters", then be prepared to cite your sources. There are newspaper articles and film footage of people saying "I saw Star Wars/Titanic/whatever 14 times in theaters". I have yet to see such stories regarding Bayformers.

Secondly, a million crazy people watching the same movie a hundred times each does not a good movie make.

Third, the RT numbers for professional critics, while not the best measure of a movie's quality, are much more accurate than the numbers for people who have nothing better to do than create accounts at RT for the sole purpose of voting thumbs up/down on whatever movie they're most obsessed about at any given moment.

Bottom line: horrible movies sometimes make obscene amounts of money. Saying "this movie made a trillion dollars at the box office" means JACK SQUAT when arguing about how good or bad a movie is.

cotss2012 wrote:First of all, if you're going to say something like "Lots of people saw this more than once in theaters", then be prepared to cite your sources. There are newspaper articles and film footage of people saying "I saw Star Wars/Titanic/whatever 14 times in theaters". I have yet to see such stories regarding Bayformers.

Numbers speak for themselves.

But if you're going to tell me to back up my claims, then why don't you back up yours with proof that the movies were hated by the "majority" of people in the world?

Yeah ...

Secondly, a million crazy people watching the same movie a hundred times each does not a good movie make.

Never said it did.

But given the numbers, people must have enjoyed it. Plain and simple.

Third, the RT numbers for professional critics, while not the best measure of a movie's quality, are much more accurate than the numbers for people who have nothing better to do than create accounts at RT for the sole purpose of voting thumbs up/down on whatever movie they're most obsessed about at any given moment.

So let me get this right ... you're ignoring the obvious fact that the movies were a monetary success which is clearly because people liked them enough to go back multiple times ... but you're okay with accepting the opinions of some critics?

Can't think for yourself or something?

Oh btw, I don't need anyone telling me what movie I should or shouldn't see. I can decide that on my own.

Bottom line: horrible movies sometimes make obscene amounts of money. Saying "this movie made a trillion dollars at the box office" means JACK SQUAT when arguing about how good or bad a movie is.

Your original statement.

cotss2012 wrote:Big box-office receipts as people walk into the theater do not indicate a positive impression upon leaving the theater.

The fact that they made so much money is an indication they made a positive impression on many people.

Good or bad ... people still enjoyed them enough to go back multiple times.

Again, just because YOU didn't like it or the "critics", doesn't mean the majority of the population agree with you.

Refute my arguments all you want. I'm done with you as you're simply another one of those people who will scream hatred about the movies until you're blue in the face. Nothing I say will convince you otherwise, but i've said enough to make you look silly.

Burn wrote:The movies made a lot of money at the box office; ergo, everyone who paid to see them (prior to actually seeing them) thought they were good (after actually seeing them); ergo, the movies have perfectly logical and well-thought-out storylines, have female characters who serve a purpose other than being the male star's love interest, don't suffer from extreme close-ups that make the robot characters difficult to distinguish from each other...

Please, for the love of Primus, can you make ANY kind of argument that these movies were good, other than "Michael Bay has a swimming pool full of hundred dollar bills"?

Cute. Completely twisting my words there.

So tell me cotss2012, why do you think Megatron became a truck?

cotss never said that the movies were hated by a "majority".

5150 - if all of the first movie actors have left, save for Tatum, and there's a new director who is just known for "Never say never" justin bieber --then I don't have high hopes. Couple this with the fact that a crew member already died on set when a lift collapsed - not lookin good. I love G.I. Joe too, so what a shame.

Star trek will be good if Abrams is steering the ship. Have higher hopes for it.

If contracts were in place for TF -then why weren't the movies made as a trilogy, stories linked?? Seems to me that the studio only greenlit TF2 after they saw the opening box office for TF1 - didn't have a trilogy in mind per se. It is what it is. Imho, the first film was the best overall, then DOTM, then ROTF. With that being said, just because a movie grosses obscene amounts of money doesn't mean its a great high quality movie. Star wars EP1 and 2 for example, are the worst of the 6 films, yet are #18 and #52 all time worldwide box office gross. Indiana Jones 4 - which was not up to par with the originals & some considered downright terrible is #35. Heck, last year's Alice in Wonderland wasn't very good and that's #9.

vectorA3 wrote: cotss never said that the movies were hated by a "majority". .

Actually he did. IN another thread, then tried to post up link from roten tomatoes, only prove that the majority of the general audience did in fact aprove of all three TF movies.

vectorA3 wrote:5150 - if all of the first movie actors have left, save for Tatum, and there's a new director who is just known for "Never say never" justin bieber --then I don't have high hopes. Couple this with the fact that a crew member already died on set when a lift collapsed - not lookin good. I love G.I. Joe too, so what a shame..

Ya, while i'll hold off final judgment intill i see something, this doesn't look good. Thing is i had such hi hpes for the first movie. And while it wasn't a bad movie, it just didn't feel like a G.I. Joe movie to me.

vectorA3 wrote:Star trek will be good if Abrams is steering the ship. Have higher hopes for it. ..

As do I. I think he did a great job with the first movie. NO matter what the Trekkies say.

vectorA3 wrote:If contracts were in place for TF -then why weren't the movies made as a trilogy, stories linked?? Seems to me that the studio only greenlit TF2 after they saw the opening box office for TF1 - didn't have a trilogy in mind per se. It is what it is. Imho, the first film was the best overall, then DOTM, then ROTF.

Well contracts are for less for the actors and those invloved in the movie to keep them obligated in the event the studio decides to green light a sequel of any kind. Your right. TF2 was only green lite as a result of TF1's succsess. BUt one of the reasons they were able to get things moving as quickly as they were was because many were already on board. BUt if the movie doesn't do well, then the actors and production teams part ways. Perfect example was the movie "Doom".
All the actors signed on to do a second, if the first did well enough to warrant a second movie. The movie was a completel and utter disaster, there fore a second movie was never even concidered.

vectorA3 wrote:With that being said, just because a movie grosses obscene amounts of money doesn't mean its a great high quality movie.
.

Thing is were not aurgueing that point.
1.- The aurgument is that a movie doesn't make large profits like the TF movie have, and people not enjoy what they saw. People went to see the movies (multiple times) , passed the word on to there friends, they saw it and so forth.

2.- What is "good" is going to be completely subjective. While you may not like Alice in Wonderland, (I'm not much of a fan of it either) someone else might think its the greatest thing since sliced bread. BUt based on the box office results
it saeems that most approved of what they saw.

So... I hear Megatron turns into a truck in DotM?

I know. Off topic. guilty. (Quints chime in.)

Also guilty of watching all 3 movies multiple times --being the TF diehard I am. Even if you don't like the films that much, there's so much to see -u have to see it multiple times. I shouldn't have seen RoTF multiple times in retrospect. Once I buy DOTM, then I'll have all 3 on bluray. Even, if the movies were 50x worse, being the diehard that I am i'd still buy the dvd for the films really cheap < $5. I'm just too nice to you darn Cybertronians!

Burn wrote:Cute. Completely twisting my words there.

So tell me cotss2012, why do you think Megatron became a truck?

Because Bay had stopped caring at that point.

5150 Cruiser wrote:IN another thread, then tried to post up link from roten tomatoes, only prove that the majority of the general audience did in fact aprove of all three TF movies.

People who create accounts at RT are NOT, in any way, a cross-section of general moviegoing audiences. They are instead the hardest of the hardcore fans/haters. That's why I referred to the numbers for the CRITICS.

Rushie wrote:So... I hear Megatron turns into a truck in DotM?

Wait... Megatron was actually IN that movie? I thought they only made the toy...

cotss2012 wrote:

Burn wrote:So tell me cotss2012, why do you think Megatron became a truck?

Because Bay had stopped caring at that point.

If you're going to say something like "Because Bay had stopped caring at that point", then be prepared to cite your sources.

Or is this just your opinion again that we're meant to take as fact?

We all know the real reason -- so Hasbro could make and sell more toys. Shame Megatron's presence was so minimal in ROTF. They "b&^%$#d" him in movies 2 and 3. Terrible.

One thing that would make me and others happy would be a LC DOTM Megatron

Burn wrote:If you're going to say something like "Because Bay had stopped caring at that point", then be prepared to cite your sources.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaOWce9srEk

cotss2012 wrote:

Burn wrote:The movies made a lot of money at the box office; ergo, everyone who paid to see them (prior to actually seeing them) thought they were good (after actually seeing them); ergo, the movies have perfectly logical and well-thought-out storylines, have female characters who serve a purpose other than being the male star's love interest, don't suffer from extreme close-ups that make the robot characters difficult to distinguish from each other...

Please, for the love of Primus, can you make ANY kind of argument that these movies were good, other than "Michael Bay has a swimming pool full of hundred dollar bills"?

No other argument needs to be made. That money means a lot of people saw it and some saw it multiple times. I saw the first one and second one 3 times and DotM twice, and I HATE going to the theater. People don't do that for movies they don't like.