Submit News Contact Us Translate Sign in Join

Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie"

Transformers News: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie"

Thursday, February 27th, 2014 4:35PM CST

Categories: Movie News, People News
Posted by: El Duque   Views: 23,047

Topic Options: View Discussion · Sign in or Join to reply

Quick update to last week's statement from Titus Welliver. In an interview with Nerdist he stated that Transformers: Age of Extinction was, "not a kids movie". We have received and statement from Paramount Pictures Publicity Department to clarify Mr. Welliver's previous comments. See below:

Titus misspoke and released the following statement to clarify his comments: “I misspoke in my last interview when I said that Transformers 4 was not a kids movie…what I meant was that this film, will in fact expand their target audience and bring in a bigger fan base. Following the huge success of Transformers and their toy line, it is certainly a kids movie and with the addition of Mark Wahlberg, Transformers 4 will be the coolest in the franchise.”
Credit(s): Paramount Pictures
Search Got Transformers News? Let us know here!
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1553995)
Posted by The7thParallel on February 27th, 2014 @ 4:40pm CST
What he means to say is that TF4 is not a kids movie, but he's going to tell people that it is anyway to sell toys because Hasbro and Paramount are now mad at him for telling the truth.

I like that he 'misspoke' by uttering a completely different statement and thought process than the one he actually offered. This has PR flack written all over it.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1553997)
Posted by hinomars19 on February 27th, 2014 @ 5:23pm CST
The7thParallel wrote:What he means to say is that TF4 is not a kids movie, but he's going to tell people that it is anyway to sell toys because Hasbro and Paramount are now mad at him for telling the truth.

I like that he 'misspoke' by uttering a completely different statement and thought process than the one he actually offered. This has PR flack written all over it.


Happens all the time, mate. That's PR for you >:oP

I haven't been to this thread since I read the initial story and I couldn't help notice the discussions of too many humans and Bay's questionable directing has turned up again. Think of Micheal Bay how you will, love or hate what he does, but it is fair to say that even if James Roberts, High moon studios and Seibertron himself joined forces to write and direct TF5, it would still be 70% humans, because the film needs practical, cheap to produce characters to film within the budget and time frame. The relatability issue to a general audience is only part of the reason, and neither of those are created or controlled by Micheal Bay ;)
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554012)
Posted by MegaDump on February 27th, 2014 @ 6:32pm CST
Excuse me if I disagree entirely... High Moon and others have proved that 0% involvement of humans can make for an engaging story experience where you care about characters who are <SHOCK> machines! You can argue that expense is a factor, but look at recent films like Avatar just as an example: sure, humans are integral to that story, and I'm not advocating their complete removal from a Transformers movie, but the volume of digital effects in something like Avatar surely exceeds that of any Transformers movie. In my opinion, Bayformers are entirely more complicated than they need to be simply to hide mass-changing and damage effects, among other things. How often do you see a banged-up Bumblebee transform into a pristine Camaro? Simplify the designs, remove nonsensical elements like "breath," as we seen in ROTF and DOTM and you free up the budget to remove the characters nobody cares about i.e. humans. The most recent movie is a perfect example: Shia LeDouche and others have disappeared and what is the net result? NOBODY CARES!
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554013)
Posted by Madeus Prime on February 27th, 2014 @ 6:38pm CST
Ah... I love it when actors have to cover their asses :lol:

But good news on the PG rating, probably won't be any less violent then the previous ones. But at least it's only:

Occasional use of words such as darn, damn, hell


They better keep to this.

Restrained portrayals of non-graphic violence


...I'm sorry? RESTRAINED?! So is Prime gonna just gently rip his opponents faces off? :-?
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554014)
Posted by SlyTF1 on February 27th, 2014 @ 6:39pm CST
MegaDump wrote:Excuse me if I disagree entirely... High Moon and others have proved that 0% involvement of humans can make for an engaging story experience where you care about characters who are <SHOCK> machines! You can argue that expense is a factor, but look at recent films like Avatar just as an example: sure, humans are integral to that story, and I'm not advocating their complete removal from a Transformers movie, but the volume of digital effects in something like Avatar surely exceeds that of any Transformers movie. In my opinion, Bayformers are entirely more complicated than they need to be simply to hide mass-changing and damage effects, among other things. How often do you see a banged-up Bumblebee transform into a pristine Camaro? Simplify the designs, remove nonsensical elements like "breath," as we seen in ROTF and DOTM and you free up the budget to remove the characters nobody cares about i.e. humans. The most recent movie is a perfect example: Shia LeDouche and others have disappeared and what is the net result? NOBODY CARES!


So, get rid of a couple of puffs of smoke, and that will clear up the entire budget enough for them to make a 2.5 hour movie with nothing but giant robots who are on Earth, but somehow no humans are involved with the story at all? Ok, Sure.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554016)
Posted by hinomars19 on February 27th, 2014 @ 6:50pm CST
MegaDump wrote:Excuse me if I disagree entirely... High Moon and others have proved that 0% involvement of humans can make for an engaging story experience where you care about characters who are <SHOCK> machines! You can argue that expense is a factor, but look at recent films like Avatar just as an example: sure, humans are integral to that story, and I'm not advocating their complete removal from a Transformers movie, but the volume of digital effects in something like Avatar surely exceeds that of any Transformers movie. In my opinion, Bayformers are entirely more complicated than they need to be simply to hide mass-changing and damage effects, among other things. How often do you see a banged-up Bumblebee transform into a pristine Camaro? Simplify the designs, remove nonsensical elements like "breath," as we seen in ROTF and DOTM and you free up the budget to remove the characters nobody cares about i.e. humans. The most recent movie is a perfect example: Shia LeDouche and others have disappeared and what is the net result? NOBODY CARES!


Avatar has only had one movie. Transformers is now in it's fourth. Avatar being digital effects heavy is the reason for that. Avatar isn't a money spinning franchise, thus Cameron has the freedom to focus on story and effects. It's also his baby, thus freedom. Hasbro are not prepared to wait well over 7 years per film-that's money to be cashed in down the drain. Bay answers to Hasbro and Hollywood, ultimately. On this respect at least. And that is why Paramount chose a director like Micheal Bay, because he can deliver what they are after.
I'm talking about Hollywood in general here, not my thoughts on Transformers as a whole. Hollywood would never allow stories like WFC and FOC or those of IDW, hence what I said. :) I KNOW Transformers stories without humans can work, but this is not Hollywood's opinion and there is nothing that can be done. What Bay does with what he's given is up to him, yes, but irrelevant to the fact that humans are the focal point, and this or that director could do better has no place in this thread so I'm doing my best to avoid it.

I'm not saying Hollywood always knows what the audience want. But they have a proven method that never fails them-impress the masses with quick flashy movies in quick succession and money is made. I'm not trying to stress a personal opinion on the TF movies or Micheal Bay's style, I'm just trying to say that this is how Hollywood thinks sometimes and the TF franchise has fallen under this banner. You can't compare it to Avatar because Avatar has a different commercial goal in mind. This leads back to the comment on PR, Welliver has been told to backtrack his statement because it goes against their sales pitch, essentially.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554018)
Posted by Sabrblade on February 27th, 2014 @ 6:57pm CST
MegaDump wrote:Excuse me if I disagree entirely... High Moon and others have proved that 0% involvement of humans can make for an engaging story experience where you care about characters who are <SHOCK> machines!
Video game audiences and major motion picture movie audiences are not mutually exclusive. If anything, movies (have to) appeal to far wider audiences than video games since movies can reach more audiences with their greater ubiquity. Meaning that video games can get away with some things that not all movies can, like having stories that alienate the human component.

MegaDump wrote:You can argue that expense is a factor, but look at recent films like Avatar just as an example: sure, humans are integral to that story, and I'm not advocating their complete removal from a Transformers movie, but the volume of digital effects in something like Avatar surely exceeds that of any Transformers movie.
In Avatar, the Na'Vi were still very human in appearance, so much so that casual film audiences can take to them much more easily than they do to the not-quite-as-humanly Transformers. Casual film audiences simply prefer humans/psuedo-humans over inhuman things.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554035)
Posted by 5150 Cruiser on February 27th, 2014 @ 8:03pm CST
MegaDump wrote:Excuse me if I disagree entirely... High Moon and others have proved that 0% involvement of humans can make for an engaging story experience where you care about characters who are <SHOCK> machines! You can argue that expense is a factor, but look at recent films like Avatar just as an example: sure, humans are integral to that story, and I'm not advocating their complete removal from a Transformers movie, but the volume of digital effects in something like Avatar surely exceeds that of any Transformers movie. In my opinion, Bayformers are entirely more complicated than they need to be simply to hide mass-changing and damage effects, among other things. How often do you see a banged-up Bumblebee transform into a pristine Camaro? Simplify the designs, remove nonsensical elements like "breath," as we seen in ROTF and DOTM and you free up the budget to remove the characters nobody cares about i.e. humans. The most recent movie is a perfect example: Shia LeDouche and others have disappeared and what is the net result? NOBODY CARES!


"Bayformers", are complicated because that's what is demanded of them. When people spend $15+ on a movie ticket, they want to be wowed. G1 style robots are not going to cut it. making "simplified" designs taking away breath, basicly taking away the little character these bots already lack, will not free up enough of the budget to make these movies primarily bot based. And Avatar? Avatar had close to a $500,000,000 budget compared to the 150,000,000 budget that AOE has.


hinomars19 wrote:Avatar has only had one movie. Transformers is now in it's fourth. Avatar being digital effects heavy is the reason for that. Avatar isn't a money spinning franchise, thus Cameron has the freedom to focus on story and effects. It's also his baby, thus freedom. Hasbro are not prepared to wait well over 7 years per film-that's money to be cashed in down the drain. Bay answers to Hasbro and Hollywood, ultimately. On this respect at least. And that is why Paramount chose a director like Micheal Bay, because he can deliver what they are after.
I'm talking about Hollywood in general here, not my thoughts on Transformers as a whole. Hollywood would never allow stories like WFC and FOC or those of IDW, hence what I said. :) I KNOW Transformers stories without humans can work, but this is not Hollywood's opinion and there is nothing that can be done. What Bay does with what he's given is up to him, yes, but irrelevant to the fact that humans are the focal point, and this or that director could do better has no place in this thread so I'm doing my best to avoid it.

I'm not saying Hollywood always knows what the audience want. But they have a proven method that never fails them-impress the masses with quick flashy movies in quick succession and money is made. I'm not trying to stress a personal opinion on the TF movies or Micheal Bay's style, I'm just trying to say that this is how Hollywood thinks sometimes and the TF franchise has fallen under this banner. You can't compare it to Avatar because Avatar has a different commercial goal in mind. This leads back to the comment on PR, Welliver has been told to backtrack his statement because it goes against their sales pitch, essentially.


Wait...... NO...... It can't be. I just don't believe it. A TF fan that actually speaks with logic..... I never thought I'd see the day. Sir, I applaud you. :APPLAUSE: :APPLAUSE: :APPLAUSE: :APPLAUSE:
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554040)
Posted by Zap_OP on February 27th, 2014 @ 8:34pm CST
[-( I mean the Michael Bay series is probably the worst series, not the best. I guess we all cant get what we want? :BOOM:
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554041)
Posted by MINDVVIPE on February 27th, 2014 @ 8:37pm CST
5150 Cruiser wrote:"Bayformers", are complicated because that's what is demanded of them. When people spend $15+ on a movie ticket, they want to be wowed. G1 style robots are not going to cut it.


Yeah, coz if it isn't the movie designs, the only other designs are G1. And also, if someone doesn't like something about the movie, they automtically want to see it G1 styled. :roll:

This is why I hate mainstream movies in this department of franchising. Garbage in, garbage out. I would literally pay 50 dollars to see a transformers movie that was based on something like the IDW or MARVEL comics in both style and character model design, as well as stories and the maturity of the subject matter.

The design of a character like Whirl is so freakin stylized and unusual in the comics that seeing it on screen would be FAR from boring, and if people NEED to see a blurry mushy mess of jagged metal parts that can barely be associated with humanoid form to be wowed, then my lack of faith in humanity is just. The robots in Pacific Rim are a perfect example of how fairly cohesive robot designs can tottaly trump try-hard, over the top, nonsense. I like some of the movie designs slightly, but mainly in their toy form coz the toy has to actually work, so it isn't just a mess of random crap with a face.

I think what makes the comics so much superior is that the people making them are so much closer to the subject material than some crappy action movie director who learnt about Transformers yesturday, and only decided to keep making more movies not based on his own love for the Transformers, but for the fact that he saw how much OTHERS loved it... at a theme park. Pft.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554048)
Posted by hinomars19 on February 27th, 2014 @ 9:17pm CST
5150 Cruiser wrote:
hinomars19 wrote:Avatar has only had one movie. Transformers is now in it's fourth. Avatar being digital effects heavy is the reason for that. Avatar isn't a money spinning franchise, thus Cameron has the freedom to focus on story and effects. It's also his baby, thus freedom. Hasbro are not prepared to wait well over 7 years per film-that's money to be cashed in down the drain. Bay answers to Hasbro and Hollywood, ultimately. On this respect at least. And that is why Paramount chose a director like Micheal Bay, because he can deliver what they are after.
I'm talking about Hollywood in general here, not my thoughts on Transformers as a whole. Hollywood would never allow stories like WFC and FOC or those of IDW, hence what I said. :) I KNOW Transformers stories without humans can work, but this is not Hollywood's opinion and there is nothing that can be done. What Bay does with what he's given is up to him, yes, but irrelevant to the fact that humans are the focal point, and this or that director could do better has no place in this thread so I'm doing my best to avoid it.

I'm not saying Hollywood always knows what the audience want. But they have a proven method that never fails them-impress the masses with quick flashy movies in quick succession and money is made. I'm not trying to stress a personal opinion on the TF movies or Micheal Bay's style, I'm just trying to say that this is how Hollywood thinks sometimes and the TF franchise has fallen under this banner. You can't compare it to Avatar because Avatar has a different commercial goal in mind. This leads back to the comment on PR, Welliver has been told to backtrack his statement because it goes against their sales pitch, essentially.


Wait...... NO...... It can't be. I just don't believe it. A TF fan that actually speaks with logic..... I never thought I'd see the day. Sir, I applaud you. :APPLAUSE: :APPLAUSE: :APPLAUSE: :APPLAUSE:


Just calling things how I see them :grin:

MINDVVIPE wrote:I think what makes the comics so much superior is that the people making them are so much closer to the subject material than some crappy action movie director who learnt about Transformers yesturday, and only decided to keep making more movies not based on his own love for the Transformers, but for the fact that he saw how much OTHERS loved it... at a theme park. Pft.


I believe the phrase is 'dems the breaks' (or at least it used to be...I am getting old...)
In risk of breaking my promise on this thread, I do agree with you!
*ahem*
The current movies are far from any vision a lot of us would have, thus it is a simple fact of each of us having and being entitled to our opinions. I remember feeling quite empty after watching TF1. But the two scenes that stuck in my head were when Ironhide and Ratchet first spoke, and when Starscream spoke at the damn ('I live to serve you, lord Megatron') I liked those shots because these robots finally had character, and facial movement, which as an animator impressed me in terms of graphics and character animation. The G1 guys of old? No. Close to unicron trilogy interpretations? Beast wars? Nope. Non of the above. But those 2 shots showed me that this universe contained something of what I always liked about Transformers. These robots are characters.
There were many aspects I looked to in the marvel comics that I used to replace what I didn't like in the cartoon as a kid, so I suppose my personal fanon was a mix of the 2. Back then was the same scenario we have now-2 different creative groups writing for different target audiences.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554071)
Posted by Seibertron on February 28th, 2014 @ 1:01am CST
hinomars19 wrote:I haven't been to this thread since I read the initial story and I couldn't help notice the discussions of too many humans and Bay's questionable directing has turned up again. Think of Micheal Bay how you will, love or hate what he does, but it is fair to say that even if James Roberts, High moon studios and Seibertron himself joined forces to write and direct TF5, it would still be 70% humans, because the film needs practical, cheap to produce characters to film within the budget and time frame. The relatability issue to a general audience is only part of the reason, and neither of those are created or controlled by Micheal Bay ;)


You bet there'd be humans in my own personal movie universe. The Transformers story that is most interesting to me is the "robots in disguise" aspect. Transformers fitting in amidst the human world. Fascinating concept. Yah, I like to revisit Cybertron, have a few spin-off series, etc, but at the end of the day, if you don't have humans involved the whole "robots in disguise" thing goes out the window and that is one of the big aspects that appeals to me about the overall Transformers mythologies. Transformers that transform on Cybertron is just a silly concept. I go along with it because it's part of the overall fiction, but in my opinion you've got to have humans as part of the integral part of the Transformers storyline.

I loved Fall of Cybertron and even War for Cybertron as one off series. It's good to take a break from the Transformers on Earth storyline in order to build upon the characters. But it's time to get back to Earth. FOC should be leading up to Earth. If it doesn't bring the story back to Earth and tie the whole "robots in disguise" thing back together, it disenfranchises me.

I also like some of what is being done with the IDW comics. However, both the games and the comics are too self indulged with trying to make Transformers more than it is instead of embracing what makes Transformers unique. For the most part, Transformers transform into things from the human world. Take humans out of it and it's just a story about robots more or less. Put humans in the story and you have a unique story that no one else is telling about robots in disguise living amongst us as they wage a never-ending battle that spans the vast Universe.

That concept fascinates me. That's what I signed up for 30 years ago as a 7 year old boy. That's what I want to read about, watch movies about, and take photographs of. That's the storyline that I enjoy the most.

Robots. In. Disguise.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554074)
Posted by Megatron Wolf on February 28th, 2014 @ 1:43am CST
Trust me this movie will not grow the "fanbase", people who hated the last 3 wont go see it & the same mindless morons that were wooed by the last 3 probably already have tickets pre-ordered. Only way the "fanbase" is going to change is if there is a dramatic change in the movies, thats never going to happen so just be happy with what you have paramount. But as for wellivers comment im surprised it took this long for someone to step in & make him change his mind, but at least he tried to warn the parents this might not be suitable for the young ones have to give him credit for that.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554077)
Posted by Banjo-Tron on February 28th, 2014 @ 2:17am CST
Megatron Wolf wrote:Trust me this movie will not grow the "fanbase", people who hated the last 3 wont go see it & the same mindless morons that were wooed by the last 3 probably already have tickets pre-ordered. Only way the "fanbase" is going to change is if there is a dramatic change in the movies, thats never going to happen so just be happy with what you have paramount. But as for wellivers comment im surprised it took this long for someone to step in & make him change his mind, but at least he tried to warn the parents this might not be suitable for the young ones have to give him credit for that.

I pretty much agree with this, with the exception of the 'mindless morons' bit. This 'soft reboot' should have had a different creative team in place, otherwise what is the point. The first movie was pretty decent but the following 2 were overly-long and meandered to the point of incoherence. Also, I never understood how Optimus Prime could be so brutal, particularly considering his 'sentient beings' spiel, I mean executing beings at point blank range is not Prime, they got the characterisation wrong. I was looking forward to a change in direction :-(
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554079)
Posted by TurboMMaster on February 28th, 2014 @ 2:28am CST
Banjo-Tron wrote:I pretty much agree with this, with the exception of the 'mindless morons' bit. This 'soft reboot' should have had a different creative team in place, otherwise what is the point.
Money making?

Banjo-Tron wrote:The first movie was pretty decent but the following 2 were overly-long and meandered to the point of incoherence.
It is because in first movie Bay was honest. In RotF and DotM he pretedns that he cares about story or Cybertronian characters. And that is he's worse lie so far.

Banjo-Tron wrote:Also, I never understood how Optimus Prime could be so brutal, particularly considering his 'sentient beings' spiel, I mean executing beings at point blank range is not Prime, they got the characterisation wrong. I was looking forward to a change in direction :-(
It's because after first movie, Bay have decided that Optimus was too weak, so he personally changes scripts in any place, where Prime fights with anyone. This is why there is so many scenes where Optimus kills Decepticons that don't do anything to stop him.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554088)
Posted by SKYWARPED_128 on February 28th, 2014 @ 4:54am CST
TurboMMaster wrote:
Banjo-Tron wrote:I pretty much agree with this, with the exception of the 'mindless morons' bit. This 'soft reboot' should have had a different creative team in place, otherwise what is the point.
Money making?


That, and a fear of rocking the boat.

TurboMMaster wrote:
Banjo-Tron wrote:The first movie was pretty decent but the following 2 were overly-long and meandered to the point of incoherence.
It is because in first movie Bay was honest. In RotF and DotM he pretedns that he cares about story or Cybertronian characters. And that is he's worse lie so far.


I think the first movie was also given more attention in terms of details than the sequels, being the first TF movie. Bay paid a lot of attention to how the mass was maintained from one mode to the other. And while there's a huge amount of CGI magic in hiding the car roofs and windshields, the transformations at least looked feasible.

With the exception of Soundwave and maybe Dino, many of the newcomers in DOTM barely had any car parts on them (Megatron, the Dreads)--most just consist of tires and maybe some side panels, but no headlights or front section of the vehicle.

TurboMMaster wrote:
Banjo-Tron wrote:Also, I never understood how Optimus Prime could be so brutal, particularly considering his 'sentient beings' spiel, I mean executing beings at point blank range is not Prime, they got the characterisation wrong. I was looking forward to a change in direction :-(
It's because after first movie, Bay have decided that Optimus was too weak, so he personally changes scripts in any place, where Prime fights with anyone. This is why there is so many scenes where Optimus kills Decepticons that don't do anything to stop him.


Actually, if I recall correctly, I think it was Orci and Kurtzman who decided that; apparently, they learned that the audience complained of Optimus looking useless and weak, getting tossed around by Megatron.

It's been ages since I last listened to the commentary in the ROTF DVD, but I'm sure it was either Bay or O&K who changed it due to the audience's comments.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554103)
Posted by MegaDump on February 28th, 2014 @ 6:08am CST
Sorry guys, I'm new to the forums & haven't figured out how to directly reply to some responses or even how to quote others, but basically what I was trying to say is the following: Bayformers, for all its positive & negative qualities, did exactly, I am sure, what Hasbro had intended - make a tonne of money.

I agree that a WFC movie would not necessarily work without any humans, I was just making the point that a rich, interesting story with consistent character development was POSSIBLE without human involvement, something, I think the movies are consistently failing. Now, I'm not talking about removing humans entirely, just give them a reason to be there other than by giving them a McGuffin & use more of the non-action time to actually develop a STORY. Where are the TF's from? How did they get here? Why are they fighting? Why is Earth so important to them?

The two lines of dialogue between Starscream & Megatron do nothing to answer any of these questions & only hint at a hostile relationship between one another that does not necessarily tell you anything about them, let alone, say, why Starscream would leave Megatron frozen in ice for such an extended time period. Further, this iteration of Optimus Prime is, in my opinion, the most ruthless & incompassionate of all thus far presented - in DotM he was directly responsible for the destruction of Cybertron!

The Avatar example was just that, an example, I'm not suggesting that they get rid of Bay & do a rewrite, it's too late in the game for that sort of whining... But surely it makes greater business sense to develeop a comprehensive UNIVERSE that makes for a more cohesive storytelling experience for those who CHOSE to look deeper, beyond the "BOOM, BANG SPECIAL EFFECTS!' Looking at the Star Wars films as an example, there was every kind of merchandising you could possibly imagine associated with it & they're making truckloads of money even 40 years later! It's perfectly understandable that Hollywood would be risk averse to an unknown property, but surely after three box-office success stories, why not listen to some critics & formulate a coherent, logical story when there is such a rich library of background material to draw on?

As for the designs of the Bayformers, 5150cruisermentioned that they need to be complicated to impress an audience, & maybe that's all well & good. Naturally, some people like these designs & some don't - but when you have a machine with a bobbling beer gut (Leadfoot), how exactly can you take that seriously? I don't mean they need to be simplified to the point of looking like G1, since that would incite a massive shift in an already established aesthetic, I'm just saying that the characters have already been humanised to an extent that is unnecessary. Why WOULD a machine have a "beer gut? But the worst thing is that the same characters are displayed inconsistently between shots - e.g. what is clearly the hood/door of a car is dented in robot mode yet the alt mode is a model of pristine, super shiny perfection. :CON:
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554108)
Posted by Burn on February 28th, 2014 @ 6:24am CST
MegaDump wrote:Sorry guys, I'm new to the forums & haven't figured out how to directly reply to some responses or even how to quote others,


Each post has a quote button. Clicking on it opens up the Post a Reply page, then if you want to quote others, you can scroll down and click quote on the post you want to quote.

Alternatively, copy and paste works as well. Just have to make sure the quoted text is in between the quote tags.

Code: Select all
[quote]Quoted text goes in here[/quote]

And to say who is quoted ...
Code: Select all
[quote="Oogaboogawoo"]Quoted text goes in here[/quote]



The Avatar example was just that, an example, I'm not suggesting that they get rid of Bay & do a rewrite, it's too late in the game for that sort of whining... But surely it makes greater business sense to develeop a comprehensive UNIVERSE that makes for a more cohesive storytelling experience for those who CHOSE to look deeper, beyond the "BOOM, BANG SPECIAL EFFECTS!' Looking at the Star Wars films as an example, there was every kind of merchandising you could possibly imagine associated with it & they're making truckloads of money even 40 years later! It's perfectly understandable that Hollywood would be risk averse to an unknown property, but surely after three box-office success stories, why not listen to some critics & formulate a coherent, logical story when there is such a rich library of background material to draw on?


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.

Naturally, some people like these designs & some don't - but when you have a machine with a bobbling beer gut (Leadfoot), how exactly can you take that seriously?


Well to the general movie going public, and some TF fans that liked the movie (aka the "mindless morons" of which I'm a card carrying member) don't really care.

They're there to be entertained, to take a time out from reality and just kick back, relax, and watch a movie.

I don't mean they need to be simplified to the point of looking like G1, since that would incite a massive shift in an already established aesthetic, I'm just saying that the characters have already been humanised to an extent that is unnecessary. Why WOULD a machine have a "beer gut?


Drank too much energon? Image

But the worst thing is that the same characters are displayed inconsistently between shots - e.g. what is clearly the hood/door of a car is dented in robot mode yet the alt mode is a model of pristine, super shiny perfection. :CON:


Well it's simple. Magic!

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.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554130)
Posted by Sabrblade on February 28th, 2014 @ 8:20am CST
MegaDump wrote:in DotM he was directly responsible for the destruction of Cybertron!
Truth be told, we don't really know what happened to Cybertron in that scene, as it was pretty vague either way. At worst, it was destroyed, but at best, it was sent away back through the space bridge but now has a giant crater in the middle of it. As there was no post-DOTM fiction published, it'll take this next movie to explain to us what happened to it.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554135)
Posted by TurboMMaster on February 28th, 2014 @ 8:46am CST
SKYWARPED_128 wrote:I think the first movie was also given more attention in terms of details than the sequels, being the first TF movie. Bay paid a lot of attention to how the mass was maintained from one mode to the other. And while there's a huge amount of CGI magic in hiding the car roofs and windshields, the transformations at least looked feasible.
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.
SKYWARPED_128 wrote:Actually, if I recall correctly, I think it was Orci and Kurtzman who decided that; apparently, they learned that the audience complained of Optimus looking useless and weak, getting tossed around by Megatron.
The main problem with entire Bayformers is: there is no good two-sided fights in it. It seems like there is no possible equality in this universe. Every time two transformers are fighting, one easily overpowered the other, with two exceptions in first movie: Barricade vs Bumblebee and Brawl vs Autubots. When Decepticons are wining they rocks, when they are loosing the sucks.
SKYWARPED_128 wrote:It's been ages since I last listened to the commentary in the ROTF DVD, but I'm sure it was either Bay or O&K who changed it due to the audience's comments.
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.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554145)
Posted by SlyTF1 on February 28th, 2014 @ 9:21am CST
TurboMMaster wrote:
SKYWARPED_128 wrote:I think the first movie was also given more attention in terms of details than the sequels, being the first TF movie. Bay paid a lot of attention to how the mass was maintained from one mode to the other. And while there's a huge amount of CGI magic in hiding the car roofs and windshields, the transformations at least looked feasible.
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.
SKYWARPED_128 wrote:Actually, if I recall correctly, I think it was Orci and Kurtzman who decided that; apparently, they learned that the audience complained of Optimus looking useless and weak, getting tossed around by Megatron.
The main problem with entire Bayformers is: there is no good two-sided fights in it. It seems like there is no possible equality in this universe. Every time two transformers are fighting, one easily overpowered the other, with two exceptions in first movie: Barricade vs Bumblebee and Brawl vs Autubots. When Decepticons are wining they rocks, when they are loosing the sucks.
SKYWARPED_128 wrote:It's been ages since I last listened to the commentary in the ROTF DVD, but I'm sure it was either Bay or O&K who changed it due to the audience's comments.
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.


Too bad you couldn't see anything with the drunken camera man faffing about. Optimus vs Sentinel in DOTM was pretty even, even though Sentinel basically called an airstrike on Optimus in the middle of it. The forest fight in ROTF was pretty even as well. Even though Optimus was beating the asses of 3 Decepticons at once, he still only managed to kill one before he was killed.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554172)
Posted by TurboMMaster on February 28th, 2014 @ 11:03am CST
SlyTF1 wrote:Optimus vs Sentinel in DOTM was pretty even
You are kidding right?
SlyTF1 wrote:even though Sentinel basically called an airstrike on Optimus in the middle of it
You forgot to mention that Sentinel used the shield... And when Optimus used backup it was fair, but Sentinel calling support = cheating.
SlyTF1 wrote:The forest fight in ROTF was pretty even as well.
You are kidding, right?
SlyTF1 wrote:Even though Optimus was beating the asses of 3 Decepticons at once, he still only managed to kill one before he was killed.
Three guys, each is a warrior, yet they couldn' take a single guy with civilian origing, much smaller then them. Plus entire Decepticon's tactic & combat style during forest battle was pathetic. Why they don't use their flying abilities? Why Megatron don't use the same technique he used in mission city?
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554178)
Posted by SlyTF1 on February 28th, 2014 @ 11:47am CST
TurboMMaster wrote:
SlyTF1 wrote:Optimus vs Sentinel in DOTM was pretty even
You are kidding right?
SlyTF1 wrote:even though Sentinel basically called an airstrike on Optimus in the middle of it
You forgot to mention that Sentinel used the shield... And when Optimus used backup it was fair, but Sentinel calling support = cheating.
SlyTF1 wrote:The forest fight in ROTF was pretty even as well.
You are kidding, right?
SlyTF1 wrote:Even though Optimus was beating the asses of 3 Decepticons at once, he still only managed to kill one before he was killed.
Three guys, each is a warrior, yet they couldn' take a single guy with civilian origing, much smaller then them. Plus entire Decepticon's tactic & combat style during forest battle was pathetic. Why they don't use their flying abilities? Why Megatron don't use the same technique he used in mission city?


Not kidding.

Sentinel had a shield and Optimus had a giant axe. Seems fair to me.

Optimus is a Prime for a reason. It doesn't matter if he was a civilian before or not, some people are just better than others when it comes to melee combat. And he wasn't much smaller than anyone. The only one he was smaller than was Grindor, and he was big and slow. In a sword fight, speed (usually) always beats strength.

Starscream thrusted a couple of times, Grindor would have taken forever to get off the ground, and Megatron was engaged in the fight most of the time. Why didn't Megatron use his tactics from the first movie? Because he was using his damn hands in the first movie, and all he did was punch Optimus. In ROTF Optimus was coming at him with two swords. Punching at Optimus would have done nothing.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554212)
Posted by hinomars19 on February 28th, 2014 @ 3:04pm CST
MegaDump wrote:Sorry guys, I'm new to the forums & haven't figured out how to directly reply to some responses or even how to quote others, but basically what I was trying to say is the following: Bayformers, for all its positive & negative qualities, did exactly, I am sure, what Hasbro had intended - make a tonne of money.


The two lines of dialogue between Starscream & Megatron do nothing to answer any of these questions & only hint at a hostile relationship between one another that does not necessarily tell you anything about them
The Avatar example was just that, an example, I'm not suggesting that they get rid of Bay & do a rewrite, it's too late in the game for that sort of whining... But surely it makes greater business sense to develeop a comprehensive UNIVERSE that makes for a more cohesive storytelling experience for those who CHOSE to look deeper, beyond the "BOOM, BANG SPECIAL EFFECTS!' Looking at the Star Wars films as an example, there was every kind of merchandising you could possibly imagine associated with it & they're making truckloads of money even 40 years later! It's perfectly understandable that Hollywood would be risk averse to an unknown property, but surely after three box-office success stories, why not listen to some critics & formulate a coherent, logical story when there is such a rich library of background material to draw on?


I didn't mean to disagree with you per say, so sorry if it felt I was fighting you (edited your post a bit to save on length, hope you don't mind) But yes, all your points are valid, and I understand your use of Avatar as an example. I didn't give you my thoughts or wants in response-I gave you what is going on in the heads of the Hollywood people now associated with the TF franchise. I do not feel this is how it should be done, but rather how it is now and why it is unlikely to change.
Look at Spider-man. Raimi's 3 films were successful, but had some faults, especially in the eyes of Spidey's fanbase. But all 3 progressed counter to those complaints because the track it was set on was a one way course. It took a full re-boot into Amazing Spider-Man to change up and play with things, the part I like most about amazing is Gwen gets her rightful place in the story, not being shoehorned into Mary Jane. But I doubt Amazing is considered perfect or right either. What one fan group loves another hates ;) Maguire or Garfield? Not an answerable question really. Maybe one day a real re-boot of Transformers in live action will happen, who knows. But when it does, it won't be better or worse, just different.
My reason for liking that Starscream and Megatron scene was as I stated-the robot has character, life. I didn't say it was good, bad or even enough :D I said the same thing about ROTF's twins, at least they HAD character :lol:
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554218)
Posted by hinomars19 on February 28th, 2014 @ 3:22pm CST
Seibertron wrote:You bet there'd be humans in my own personal movie universe. The Transformers story that is most interesting to me is the "robots in disguise" aspect. Transformers fitting in amidst the human world. Fascinating concept. Yah, I like to revisit Cybertron, have a few spin-off series, etc, but at the end of the day, if you don't have humans involved the whole "robots in disguise" thing goes out the window and that is one of the big aspects that appeals to me about the overall Transformers mythologies. Transformers that transform on Cybertron is just a silly concept. I go along with it because it's part of the overall fiction, but in my opinion you've got to have humans as part of the integral part of the Transformers storyline.

I loved Fall of Cybertron and even War for Cybertron as one off series. It's good to take a break from the Transformers on Earth storyline in order to build upon the characters. But it's time to get back to Earth. FOC should be leading up to Earth. If it doesn't bring the story back to Earth and tie the whole "robots in disguise" thing back together, it disenfranchises me.

I also like some of what is being done with the IDW comics. However, both the games and the comics are too self indulged with trying to make Transformers more than it is instead of embracing what makes Transformers unique. For the most part, Transformers transform into things from the human world. Take humans out of it and it's just a story about robots more or less. Put humans in the story and you have a unique story that no one else is telling about robots in disguise living amongst us as they wage a never-ending battle that spans the vast Universe.

That concept fascinates me. That's what I signed up for 30 years ago as a 7 year old boy. That's what I want to read about, watch movies about, and take photographs of. That's the storyline that I enjoy the most.

Robots. In. Disguise.


Haha, yeah I got that the sometimes over complicated nature of IDW was a thorn to you from a response you posted in the Windblade threads with the whole gender thing. I do agree that it's a problem when the fun and imagination is being taken out of Transformers, that's for sure. But the one thing I do like about Transformers is the robots ARE the characters of the story, and it is good to see comics and games that show that they are not Gundams.
However, we as the audience are human beings, and having that 'alien' concept (alien to the Transformers, as we and our world are)to bounce off of is indeed what give this franchise it's meat. The disguise thing was blown pretty quick...but suspension of disbelief helps with that :D (I liked how Beast wars gave need to the alt modes as a way of protecting themselves against the environment of the 'alien' planet)
I didn't mean to suggest human characters should not be in any movieverse, neither do I feel they are their purely due to budget and filming constraints. Simply those factors are what contribute to the inbalance of screen time between human and TF, and why TF1 was a story about a boy finding an alien and not a story of aliens finding us and having need to hide :) (as per G1)
I need to hail the fact humans are in Transformers because how else as a kid could I have imagined I was Spike going on epic adventures with Bumblebee? :D
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554234)
Posted by MINDVVIPE on February 28th, 2014 @ 4:42pm CST
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.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554259)
Posted by hinomars19 on February 28th, 2014 @ 6:46pm CST
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.


At the risk of being in the middle (and let's face it I've already established my need to be Switzerland for the sake of keeping the tentative peace in a movie thread) I also agree with your point. Stories without humans, meaning out in space or on Cybertron and even prehistoric Earth are fantastic, and yes can be done and can most certainly work (I really want to get into IDW). However I can't deny I also like seeing humans and TF's together. I am a human being, after all. It's fun to think of being with them as much as it is to want to be one. That's me. All's good for me.
Thing is, all of this is irrelevant against the 'too many humans in bayverse' argument. Budget and practicality in filming quick, box office blockbusters dictates a need for a large human cast. Sorry.
How they are handled once they are there is a different box altogether, I'll give people that. (The only human character I have genuinely liked in these movies is Epps. I look forward to Gelsey Grammer in AoE. Here's hoping it's done well.)

You don't want humans, I don't need humans, and Seibertron does want humans. 3 different opinions that probably cover most of the fandom in some form. But those 3 opinions mean squat to Hollywood who have chosen this franchise as it's latest quick fix money spinner geared towards an audience of their choosing.
I'm pretty sure it's OK for the fandom to see eye to eye on that, at least I'd like to think it can be done :D
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554264)
Posted by Sabrblade on February 28th, 2014 @ 6:57pm CST
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.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554297)
Posted by SKYWARPED_128 on February 28th, 2014 @ 10:16pm CST
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.


I think they're still wary of changing the formula after what happened the first time (killing Optimus in the 80's animated movie). Ever since then, Optimus has always remained the star of the show in one form or another.

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.


Actually, Bay had to make the vehicles look nice and pristine for the camera since GM had given him free use of all their car in return for free publicity. The battle damage was initially done in sequences for the bot modes, making them more damaged as the story went on, but the cars had to remain all shiny and clean.

Basically, it's the came case with the US military, but that's another story.

Again, it's been ages since I listened to the DVD commentary, but that's pretty much the gist of it.

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.


Very true. The Decepticons were portrayed as an exceedingly dangerous force in the first movie. They were military vehicles, and easily strong-armed their way forward in pursuit of the Allspark. That scene where Starscream took on a whole squadron of F-22's remains my favorite scene of him.

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.


Hey, don't shoot the messenger! :lol: 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.

All in all, the forest fight scene is easily forgivable due to sheer awesome ass-kicking.

That said, I found his fight with The Fallen and Megatron far more jarring. It just doesn't make sense that the parts from a rusty old bot like Jetfire could power Optimus up to the point where he could take on The Fallen and Megs simultaneously. If it has something to do with the Matrix re-optimizing Optimus and Jetfire's parts back into peak condition, then it should have been explained.

I just don't like having to rely on fanon and tie-in media to make sense of something.

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.


This. I absolutely hate the "comic relief" characters, and only marginally warmed up to Simmons in DOTM. Sam's mom was tolerable in the first movie and DOTM. Leo, I'm glad wasn't involved in DOTM or any other TF movie after ROTF. Jerry's dead, so good riddance.

I still blame Spielberg for "suggesting" that they go the "kid and his first car" route. The whole thing with the glasses seems to have been shoehorned into the plot, where if you took out that part of the story, it'd still work. Instead of Frenzy hacking the US military servers and discovering info on the glasses, just have him search directly for project Ice Man. The story proceeds as usual, and have a newly awakened Megatron rushes toward the location of the cube (thereby removing the part about the humans hiding it in Hoover Dam).

And without Sam, The Autobots can show up during Scorponok's attack and save Lennox and Epps, and telling them the reason for coming to Earth--to find the Cube or stop Megatron.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554300)
Posted by Sabrblade on February 28th, 2014 @ 10:46pm CST
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. :-B

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.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554302)
Posted by SKYWARPED_128 on February 28th, 2014 @ 10:54pm CST
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. :-B

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.


Not sure if I'm reading this right, but is Hasbro saying that the TF's actually create a hologram of a car in pristine condition despite the actual condition of it?

The only time I've seen movie TF's create holograms is for their drivers in alt mode.

I don't know; by that logic, TF's can just get on all fours and conjure a hologram of a car, without actually having to "morph" their bodies to make doors and other car parts.

I'm going to have to watch the DVD again; could have sworn it was because GM wanted their cars to look good on screen.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554303)
Posted by SlyTF1 on February 28th, 2014 @ 10:56pm CST
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. :-B

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.


What a cheap excuse. So, they project holograms to cover up the scars and whatnot?
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554311)
Posted by Sabrblade on February 28th, 2014 @ 11:18pm CST
The thing about GM wanting their cars looking good is the real world answer. The answer given in the Q&A, however, was an attempt at an in-fiction answer.

Keyword being "attempt". ;)
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554319)
Posted by MINDVVIPE on March 1st, 2014 @ 12:16am CST
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.

on the topics of humans, I might have come off as hating humans, but I most surely loved spike and Daniel's roles in the 86' movie. Just the right balance of added realism through a human element as well as screen time and meaningful dialogue.

If they did a horror themed tf show or movie focusing on humans trying to escape the alien threat of terrorizing decepticons/destrons/predicons/vehicons, I would love it. The tfs would be on the audience's mind all the time. The humans would be the support for something bigger. With the movies, so many scenes felt like they were there just to keep audiences feeling comfortable. At the end of the day, ideally, transformers are Sci fi, and Sci fi should be all about going to new places.

Also, the holograms excuse is pure bs. In that case why don't all of them project themselves to be each other to constantly confuse the enemy, making for a total cluster ****. The movies blow so hard with all their bs. JUST ADMIT IT'S FOR SHOWING OFF YOUR SPONSORS PRODUCTS.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554320)
Posted by Burn on March 1st, 2014 @ 1:09am CST
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. :-B

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.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554327)
Posted by Banjo-Tron on March 1st, 2014 @ 2:51am CST
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. :-B

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.


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.

You could also have other subplots for key characters which intermingle at the end. 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.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554329)
Posted by Burn on March 1st, 2014 @ 3:23am CST
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.


I wouldn't call it daft, and certainly not patronising. Is a holographic projector any more of a cop out than mass shifting and pocket dimensions (or wherever the hell G1 Prime's trailer always ended up)

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.


You're still missing the notion that people, and in particular kids (you know, what this franchise is aimed at) need humans so they can relate to the media.

Kids especially as they can imagine and pretend that they're part of the TF universe when they play.

Oh sure they could pretend to be Transformers themselves, but as someone who got a bunch of friends together at school and tried to be Voltron, it's not always a good idea. Image

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.


I'd personally love to see a squadron of grunts on the front lines, have their stories told without the constant appearance of the usual main suspects (mention them, have them make an occasional appearance, but don't have the story revolve around them).

Similar to Rescue Bots, only a little more mature, a lot darker, and 100% animated.

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.


So the guy is good at what he does. And it's not like he's the ONLY director who does the whole "save the world from disaster" movies.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554343)
Posted by hinomars19 on March 1st, 2014 @ 7:37am CST
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.


There's just too many factors involved in movies like this. They don't carry the freedom a comic book or game can. Avengers was only made because each individual super hero movie finally PROVED to Hollywood it would work and we would pay to see it. And even then Tony and Steve spend more time maskless than you'd want because, y'know, actors.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554350)
Posted by hinomars19 on March 1st, 2014 @ 7:49am CST
If it was 100% CGI animation, it'd no longer be live action, it'd be more akin to Final Fantasy spirits within. Not that that would be a bad thing, the new Harlock movie looks fantastic, and I can't wait to see it. But it's animation. Photo realism aside, it's not a live action piece without actual actors. Avatar, being a prime example, still has real people, real environments. It's all still there despite the spectacle of how effects heavy it is. Heck, even Muppet movies have real people in them. Without it it'd be a puppet show to the general audience, not a live action Muppet movie.
Unless you meant you want a new cartoon series in the vein of Rescue bots, but more mature, in which case I apologize for mis-reading ;)

I may be in the minority, but you know what I'd like for live action, even just a 50 minute special? Tokusatsu. Good quality suits, think the robots in Power Rangers but better quality, sort of along the lines of Toho movies :P Pure indulgent fun of course, but I want one!
I'm interested to see how Patlabor turns out. From what I've seen they have re-created the mecha designs to a T, just making them real. It boils down to one thing-if you want Hollywood to do something you have to prove to them that it will work. Pacific Rim only happened because Transformers proved the audience was there. AoE has a vast aesthetic change in facial designs-designs a lot of us old timers wanted and knew were possible from the start. What made them finally do it I don't know.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554352)
Posted by Sabrblade on March 1st, 2014 @ 7:55am CST
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.
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.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554354)
Posted by hinomars19 on March 1st, 2014 @ 8:01am CST
Sabrblade wrote:
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.
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.


Bingo.
Like it or not too many factors stand in the way of the creative process. Take it from someone who knows. Marketing, sponsors, demographic, audience, legal blah blah blah is a mind numbing headache. You're life is literally sucked out of you. It sounds sad, and could be considered a cop out, but when making such things for commercial appeal, you have to abide 80% of the crap and take small victories when and where. This is why I don't hate the movies. The CGI achievements alone make it worth it, I know that's how the ILM team feel, so props to them regardless of personal feelings to the design choices.

Unless you go indy there is no escaping it, liking it has no relevance at all.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554541)
Posted by TurboMMaster on March 2nd, 2014 @ 11:36am CST
SKYWARPED_128 wrote:Hey, don't shoot the messenger! :lol: 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.
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!

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.
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!

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!
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554594)
Posted by Sabrblade on March 2nd, 2014 @ 3:12pm CST
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!
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.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554606)
Posted by TurboMMaster on March 2nd, 2014 @ 3:35pm CST
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.
But in narration scene it seems like a very short travel...

Also, "Time in space pass slower" is nice theory from Transformers Franchise (and it's absurdaly long wars and a thousand-year coma stuff), and I support it personally. But still: Megatron beign kept frozen for millenia seems to be only and idea to introduce Sam and excuse why Cybertronian can be killed so easily, because it have no effect on anything. It wasn't mentioned even once, after Megatron escaped from Hover Dam, nor it was anything in common with later events. Sentinel's Coma on the other hand gives us impression: There is a lot of wasted time for him.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554610)
Posted by Sabrblade on March 2nd, 2014 @ 3:49pm CST
TurboMMaster wrote:
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.
But in narration scene it seems like a very short travel...
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.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554653)
Posted by SKYWARPED_128 on March 2nd, 2014 @ 8:31pm CST
TurboMMaster wrote:
SKYWARPED_128 wrote:Hey, don't shoot the messenger! :lol: 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.
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!


Yeah, I prefer the first idea a lot better.

As for his mouth guard; yeah, it was pretty inconsistent.

TurboMMaster wrote:
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.
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!

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!


Then again, it was probably just a candid answer to a Q&A interview. It was never brought up in the movies (and Bay and O&K are smart enough not to call attention to something like that unnecessarily), so officially speaking, it was just some BS answer the interviewee made up just for the Q&A, and probably doesn't even count as "canon".

Sabr's example was nothing but a "what if" scenario, as in "what if Sam asks OP why they look so clean and shiny in alt mode when they're all battered up in bot mode", which honestly, Bay 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.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554761)
Posted by TurboMMaster on March 3rd, 2014 @ 3:37pm CST
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.
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.

SKYWARPED_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.
Fine by Me
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1554763)
Posted by SlyTF1 on March 3rd, 2014 @ 3:44pm CST
TurboMMaster wrote:
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.
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.


Why would he drop the idea? If he did, all those hundreds of years being frozen would have been for nothing, and Cybertron would still be uninhabitable.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1562250)
Posted by El Duque on April 3rd, 2014 @ 7:50am CDT
TheArnoldFans, an Arnold Schwarzenegger fansite, has posted brief interview with Transformers: Age of Extinction star Titus Welliver. Welliver is a big Arnie fan, and the interviewer is Transformers fan, if you wondering what the connection was. See his comments on his character, Savoy, below:

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.
Re: Titus Welliver Explains His Previous Comment Regarding Transformers: Age of Extinction "Not a Kids Movie" (1562251)
Posted by Sabrblade on April 3rd, 2014 @ 7:53am CDT
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.

Click here to view an additional 8 comments about this topic at the Energon Pub Forums ...

Transformers Podcast: Twincast / Podcast #96 - Age of Extinction
Twincast / Podcast #96:
"Age of Extinction"
MP3 · iTunes · RSS · View · Discuss · Ask
Posted: Monday, July 7th, 2014