The Energon Pub

I've looked at this way for a long time, before those dastardly Cylons got reimagined even!

The "Spark" is like a "backup drive" for a Cybertronian. As it's a constant backup, in the event of serious trauma the "spark" can sometimes be transferred to a new body where it "reloads".

Now of course, backup drives will not save you from data loss. If the drive is damaged, the data can become corrupt.

If you're ripped in two for example, that's gonna do some damage to the drive's housing which in turn can corrupt or irrepairably damage the data.

Getting shot in the head? Think of it as a electricity spike. Them things can fry your drives too, oh and of course screw up the backup program that was running behind the scenes.

So yeah, as Autobot032 said, you're going too deep, and you seem to be trying to relate TF's to humans when it's more accurate to relate them to computers.

It's been said that the soul is the lifeforce of a being. That, without it, we're merely just a vessel made out of flesh and bone and it's nothing without something in it.

Zombies are a perfect example of this. They are reanimated dead tissue. The soul is long gone by the time they start feeding, and without anything to fill them, they're mindless drones of death.

The same could be applied to Sparks. They are obviously the life force of the TransFormers, as evidenced by Prime's death, and Jetfire's, as well. Both of their sparks were destroyed and they subsequently died.

In many ways, a Spark is very much like a Soul.

-They both hold life essences, in terms of energy.
-They both have life essences, in that they hold the person within them. (As it was stated before, a backup drive)

It's alluded to that the Sparks are Souls, though never explicitly said.

This is the easiest way to look at it, and there's really nothing deeper than this.

Humans have souls, which provide life and it's energies. And a Heaven, and a Hell.
Cybertronians have Sparks, which provide life and it's energies. And a Heaven (The All Spark/Matrix) and a Hell (the pit).

We're flesh and blood, they're metal and fluids, but deep down we're one and the same. We bleed, they bleed. We ache, they ache. They may be from another world, they make be cybernetic organisms, while we are biological organisms, but we're really two sides of the same coin.

That's really all there is to it. If you go any deeper into the subject, you're just gonna pull your hair out. Is it really worth it? Hell no.

EDIT: Here's a good one for you. Batman The Animated Series was well known for excellent writing, some of it thought provoking, and one episode in particular was "His Silicon Soul" in which Batman is replicated by a computer known as H.A.R.D.A.C.

Of course, you know the outcome, because he's Batman, but when the replicant does the right thing in the end, costing him his life, it leaves Batman to ponder this point:

Batman wrote:"A soul of silicon, but a soul nonetheless."

Same thing applies here. A Spark is made of whatever the Cybertronians are made of, but it's still a soul, nonetheless.

There's just nothing more to it. Nothing less either, but seriously, folks...it's just a movie.

Burn wrote:I've looked at this way for a long time, before those dastardly Cylons got reimagined even!

The "Spark" is like a "backup drive" for a Cybertronian. As it's a constant backup, in the event of serious trauma the "spark" can sometimes be transferred to a new body where it "reloads".

Now of course, backup drives will not save you from data loss. If the drive is damaged, the data can become corrupt.

If you're ripped in two for example, that's gonna do some damage to the drive's housing which in turn can corrupt or irrepairably damage the data.

Getting shot in the head? Think of it as a electricity spike. Them things can fry your drives too, oh and of course screw up the backup program that was running behind the scenes.

So yeah, as Autobot032 said, you're going too deep, and you seem to be trying to relate TF's to humans when it's more accurate to relate them to computers.

An expansion I'd like to apply, if I may, (tho Concious that I'm contributing to a prolonged stray from the title topic):

My interpretation, in agreement with Burn (and Autobot 032, above),plus:

That the Spark overall is made of two parts: The interior 'actual Spark' and the Containment field/Mortal shell.

The interior 'actual spark', a no-dogma-shaped..assimile...of 'prime' or 'raw' or whatever energy plus the personal energy of the owning Bot. It's starting, perhaps 'core' wavelength is the same as the Allspark/Spark-of-Sparks, so it exists in/with, and away from/in long distance contact with, the Allspark/Spark-of-Sparks at all times. Around the core wavelength is a "fuzzy ball of energy" stemming from the actual core- the physical manifestation of the Bot identity plus memories and post-Primal programming.This overall bit does all the jobs Burn talks about above.

The Spark chamber generates (in my view only) the containment field, which keeps the Spark inside the Bot, either by operating as a nest or a cage (whatever works for you). In Jetfires example, the containment field is a sphere of energy solid enough to hold.
If the Spark chamber is compromised, the containment field collapses, either immediately or gradually, and the 'Actual Spark' flees from its' prison/nest/holding place/whatever, presumably returning to the Well of Sparks.

For whatever reason, repairing and then resparking the individual Spark chamber, without further tampering, appears to cause the Spark of the original shell owner to return from the well of souls to the Spark Chamber, even if it's a seperate Bots actual Spark used as a 'match' or whatever it should be called.Assumably, with further tampering, the old shell could host a new Spark via the old Spark Chamber.

Presumably, Jetfires' Spark chamber was exposed, but not compromised (or at least not too badly), so he could tear his Spark out and know the containment field would remain intact for some predetermined length of time already known about to TFs.

It's known that a Spark can survive indefinitely outside of its body. Spark Extraction is done before major repairs (Optimus Prime in Beast Wars, Smokescreen in Armada etc.) So there's the possibility that Jetfire may still be alive and able to come back. Not a particularly high possibility (The majority of the audience wouldn't understand how the old guy who killed himself in the last movie is suddenly alive in this one) but a possibility we can have that gigantic slice of ham back.

Shadowman wrote:

amtm wrote:After watching ROTF again--with subtitles--I noticed when Sam (Shia) is spouting nonsense in his "mental breakdown" he says "Sentinel Prime", which leads me to believe there is little doubt that those who are saying that's the bot in the Dark of the Moon trailer are correct, as much as I wish it were Alpha Trion.

Yeah, he mentions the "Sentinel Prime expedition." Adds credit to the people who think it's Sentinel Prime on the moon, but it's all just conjecture and assumptions until we see the movie.

But, there was a list of DOTM toys that said Leader class Sentinel Prime.

Autobot032 wrote:You'll go batcrap crazy trying to unlock the secrets of a movie that doesn't have any.

You mean we got ripped off when we paid extra for special features? Argh!!!

SlyTF1 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

amtm wrote:After watching ROTF again--with subtitles--I noticed when Sam (Shia) is spouting nonsense in his "mental breakdown" he says "Sentinel Prime", which leads me to believe there is little doubt that those who are saying that's the bot in the Dark of the Moon trailer are correct, as much as I wish it were Alpha Trion.

Yeah, he mentions the "Sentinel Prime expedition." Adds credit to the people who think it's Sentinel Prime on the moon, but it's all just conjecture and assumptions until we see the movie.

But, there was a list of DOTM toys that said Leader class Sentinel Prime.

From the assurance of others who know more than I do, the robot in question is Sentinel Prime, and yes he is the black and red fire truck.

Ok lets face it the movie hurt Bay himself has even said the movie hurt and he apologized for dong it so am i hoping the next one is better yes, are my hoppes up no. But hey They finally gave prime the trailer. But in hindsite We have what they are doing to megatron so yeah whoi am i kidding im still nautious.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO2y6ffH8IM

MessedUpAnime wrote:Ok lets face it the movie hurt Bay himself has even said the movie hurt and he apologized for dong it so am i hoping the next one is better yes, are my hoppes up no. But hey They finally gave prime the trailer. But in hindsite We have what they are doing to megatron so yeah whoi am i kidding im still nautious.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO2y6ffH8IM

He has nothing to apoligise about. It's still a great movie in my eyes and mind.

SlyTF1 wrote:

MessedUpAnime wrote:Ok lets face it the movie hurt Bay himself has even said the movie hurt and he apologized for dong it so am i hoping the next one is better yes, are my hoppes up no. But hey They finally gave prime the trailer. But in hindsite We have what they are doing to megatron so yeah whoi am i kidding im still nautious.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO2y6ffH8IM

He has nothing to apoligise about. It's still a great movie in my eyes and mind.

Bay's on record saying the film deserved some of the hate it got, but he never apologized for making it. It was more a statement of "I could have done better."

In all honesty I like that about Bay. He's one of the least pretentious directors in Hollywood right now, being fully aware his films are for entertainment and not high art. While some would claim there's no point in making a movie that's not supposed to be art on some level (the discussion of what defines art is for another thread and another rant, however), I like knowing when I can just sit back and not think for an hour or two.

That said, the above paragraph is exactly why I can enjoy Transformers in it's original incarnation as well as RotF.

Capt.Failure wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

MessedUpAnime wrote:Ok lets face it the movie hurt Bay himself has even said the movie hurt and he apologized for dong it so am i hoping the next one is better yes, are my hoppes up no. But hey They finally gave prime the trailer. But in hindsite We have what they are doing to megatron so yeah whoi am i kidding im still nautious.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO2y6ffH8IM

He has nothing to apoligise about. It's still a great movie in my eyes and mind.

Bay's on record saying the film deserved some of the hate it got, but he never apologized for making it. It was more a statement of "I could have done better."

In all honesty I like that about Bay. He's one of the least pretentious directors in Hollywood right now, being fully aware his films are for entertainment and not high art. While some would claim there's no point in making a movie that's not supposed to be art on some level (the discussion of what defines art is for another thread and another rant, however), I like knowing when I can just sit back and not think for an hour or two.

That said, the above paragraph is exactly why I can enjoy Transformers in it's original incarnation as well as RotF.

Yes, I was going to say the same thing. He did not apologize for making it, but recognized the flaws the film had, and hopes to build upon the good aspects with this new one.
I can completely agree with that entire paragraph, too. Probably the best post in this thread.
And to be honest, why would I go to the movies to think? Thinking is for math and such, and that's pretty much all I do. I want entertainment when I watch a movie, and that's all I ever ask from one.

OptiMagnus10 wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

MessedUpAnime wrote:Ok lets face it the movie hurt Bay himself has even said the movie hurt and he apologized for dong it so am i hoping the next one is better yes, are my hoppes up no. But hey They finally gave prime the trailer. But in hindsite We have what they are doing to megatron so yeah whoi am i kidding im still nautious.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO2y6ffH8IM

He has nothing to apoligise about. It's still a great movie in my eyes and mind.

Bay's on record saying the film deserved some of the hate it got, but he never apologized for making it. It was more a statement of "I could have done better."

In all honesty I like that about Bay. He's one of the least pretentious directors in Hollywood right now, being fully aware his films are for entertainment and not high art. While some would claim there's no point in making a movie that's not supposed to be art on some level (the discussion of what defines art is for another thread and another rant, however), I like knowing when I can just sit back and not think for an hour or two.

That said, the above paragraph is exactly why I can enjoy Transformers in it's original incarnation as well as RotF.

Yes, I was going to say the same thing. He did not apologize for making it, but recognized the flaws the film had, and hopes to build upon the good aspects with this new one.
I can completely agree with that entire paragraph, too. Probably the best post in this thread.
And to be honest, why would I go to the movies to think? Thinking is for math and such, and that's pretty much all I do. I want entertainment when I watch a movie, and that's all I ever ask from one.

Hear, hear! I don't sit down to watch a movie to think about the art qualities unless I'm watching an artsy fartsy type movie - I watch to be entertained. ROTF entertained me quite well, thank you!

Stormer wrote:

OptiMagnus10 wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

MessedUpAnime wrote:Ok lets face it the movie hurt Bay himself has even said the movie hurt and he apologized for dong it so am i hoping the next one is better yes, are my hoppes up no. But hey They finally gave prime the trailer. But in hindsite We have what they are doing to megatron so yeah whoi am i kidding im still nautious.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO2y6ffH8IM

He has nothing to apoligise about. It's still a great movie in my eyes and mind.

Bay's on record saying the film deserved some of the hate it got, but he never apologized for making it. It was more a statement of "I could have done better."

In all honesty I like that about Bay. He's one of the least pretentious directors in Hollywood right now, being fully aware his films are for entertainment and not high art. While some would claim there's no point in making a movie that's not supposed to be art on some level (the discussion of what defines art is for another thread and another rant, however), I like knowing when I can just sit back and not think for an hour or two.

That said, the above paragraph is exactly why I can enjoy Transformers in it's original incarnation as well as RotF.

Yes, I was going to say the same thing. He did not apologize for making it, but recognized the flaws the film had, and hopes to build upon the good aspects with this new one.
I can completely agree with that entire paragraph, too. Probably the best post in this thread.
And to be honest, why would I go to the movies to think? Thinking is for math and such, and that's pretty much all I do. I want entertainment when I watch a movie, and that's all I ever ask from one.

Hear, hear! I don't sit down to watch a movie to think about the art qualities unless I'm watching an artsy fartsy type movie - I watch to be entertained. ROTF entertained me quite well, thank you!

Holy slag...normal people still exist!

Some people find intelligent movies more entertaining than big dumb action flicks. Some people prefer Darren Aronofsky and Martin Scorsese over Michael Bay and Paul WS Anderson. And there's nothing wrong with that. They have as much of a right to complain about movies they don't like as you. Being a big dumb action flick doesn't excuse ROTF from anything. Just because it's designed to entertain people with pretty CGI and big epic explosions doesn't mean we have to ignore it's faults.

And I actually liked ROTF!

Shadowman wrote:Some people find intelligent movies more entertaining than big dumb action flicks. Some people prefer Darren Aronofsky and Martin Scorsese over Michael Bay and Paul WS Anderson. And there's nothing wrong with that. They have as much of a right to complain about movies they don't like as you. Being a big dumb action flick doesn't excuse ROTF from anything. Just because it's designed to entertain people with pretty CGI and big epic explosions doesn't mean we have to ignore it's faults.

And I actually liked ROTF!

I didn't say we must ignore it's faults, but rather, I was saying that I personally don't need complexity and such to entertain me. I watched Inception. I would say that's an intelligent movie, and I was blown away by the amount of thought put into it. It is one of my favorite movies to date, probably more than Avatar (well, I like TF and Iron Man more than Avatar anyway). So I was not invalidating the opinions of those who want intelligence in movies, as apposed to "big dumb action flicks". But why is it that I am being forced to watch movies for their faults and lack of complexity by some people, rather than watch them to simply be entertained?

OptiMagnus10 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Some people find intelligent movies more entertaining than big dumb action flicks. Some people prefer Darren Aronofsky and Martin Scorsese over Michael Bay and Paul WS Anderson. And there's nothing wrong with that. They have as much of a right to complain about movies they don't like as you. Being a big dumb action flick doesn't excuse ROTF from anything. Just because it's designed to entertain people with pretty CGI and big epic explosions doesn't mean we have to ignore it's faults.

And I actually liked ROTF!

I didn't say we must ignore it's faults, but rather, I was saying that I personally don't need complexity and such to entertain me. I watched Inception. I would say that's an intelligent movie, and I was blown away by the amount of thought put into it. It is one of my favorite movies to date, probably more than Avatar (well, I like TF and Iron Man more than Avatar anyway). So I was not invalidating the opinions of those who want intelligence in movies, as apposed to "big dumb action flicks". But why is it that I am being forced to watch movies for their faults and lack of complexity by some people, rather than watch them to simply be entertained?

That's pretty much what I meant in my post back there. The simple and the complex films are both equally capable of being good, and it's perfectly alright and probably healthier to your taste in movies to appreciate both types if you keep a realistic approach to their quality.

For example: one of my all time favorite films is the original Gojira (Godzilla, fyi) from 1954. The film can best be described as a horror film with heavy political commentary on the use of nuclear weapons and the ravaging effects it had on Japan as a nation, told through the story of a beast born out of the fires of a nuclear weapons test.

That said, I also like Godzilla: Final Wars. The "final" Godzilla film, it has about as much substance as a twinky and a plot that makes RotF look like frakin' Shakespeare and not an original bone in it's body (it rips off the Matrix for God's sake...in a Godzilla film!). It literally only exists to shove as many monster fights as possible into it's running time. However, I still love it.

The point of this story? It's alright to enjoy films that are "high art" and "entertaining junk" in equal measure. Ebert and other culture police can't do crap about it.

That rant would have come off better if I had caffiene in my blood.

Capt.Failure wrote:

OptiMagnus10 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Some people find intelligent movies more entertaining than big dumb action flicks. Some people prefer Darren Aronofsky and Martin Scorsese over Michael Bay and Paul WS Anderson. And there's nothing wrong with that. They have as much of a right to complain about movies they don't like as you. Being a big dumb action flick doesn't excuse ROTF from anything. Just because it's designed to entertain people with pretty CGI and big epic explosions doesn't mean we have to ignore it's faults.

And I actually liked ROTF!

I didn't say we must ignore it's faults, but rather, I was saying that I personally don't need complexity and such to entertain me. I watched Inception. I would say that's an intelligent movie, and I was blown away by the amount of thought put into it. It is one of my favorite movies to date, probably more than Avatar (well, I like TF and Iron Man more than Avatar anyway). So I was not invalidating the opinions of those who want intelligence in movies, as apposed to "big dumb action flicks". But why is it that I am being forced to watch movies for their faults and lack of complexity by some people, rather than watch them to simply be entertained?

That's pretty much what I meant in my post back there. The simple and the complex films are both equally capable of being good, and it's perfectly alright and probably healthier to your taste in movies to appreciate both types if you keep a realistic approach to their quality.

For example: one of my all time favorite films is the original Gojira (Godzilla, fyi) from 1954. The film can best be described as a horror film with heavy political commentary on the use of nuclear weapons and the ravaging effects it had on Japan as a nation, told through the story of a beast born out of the fires of a nuclear weapons test.

That said, I also like Godzilla: Final Wars. The "final" Godzilla film, it has about as much substance as a twinky and a plot that makes RotF look like frakin' Shakespeare and not an original bone in it's body (it rips off the Matrix for God's sake...in a Godzilla film!). It literally only exists to shove as many monster fights as possible into it's running time. However, I still love it.

The point of this story? It's alright to enjoy films that are "high art" and "entertaining junk" in equal measure. Ebert and other culture police can't do crap about it.

That rant would have come off better if I had caffiene in my blood.

Well said my friend!

OptiMagnus10 wrote:I agree that his won't go anywhere...unless a radical BayBasher happens to come across it and start a war.
I honestly can't find the horridness that people want me to find. I watch it over and over and I just don't see what's so wrong. What I really don't get is why some people are so obsessed with turning me against ROTF, or why they blow up when I say something positive. All I really ask is that I be left alone to enjoy what I enjoy.

I agree, I have sat through the movie over six times and do not understand what all the negative fuss is about. What is so wrong with the plot? Sure, it's a bit jumpy at times but it seems entirely cohesive--perhaps the movie moved too quickly for some people?

I just don't get the uproar and all of the psychotic negativity that Baybashers have against the series. Do they want to see an entirely CG movie that takes place on Cybertron? I don't think a movie like that would translate, so the purists need to understand that this was the best way to do it, IMO.

Whatever, people are gonna hate. I can't convince people to like it but maybe we could all stop being so harsh!?

Shadowman wrote:Some people find intelligent movies more entertaining than big dumb action flicks. Some people prefer Darren Aronofsky and Martin Scorsese over Michael Bay and Paul WS Anderson. And there's nothing wrong with that. They have as much of a right to complain about movies they don't like as you. Being a big dumb action flick doesn't excuse ROTF from anything. Just because it's designed to entertain people with pretty CGI and big epic explosions doesn't mean we have to ignore it's faults.

And I actually liked ROTF!

I'd agree with just about everything said, but when one wants to critue a movie to death as not being "intelligent enough" or being "mindless" or what not (not saying this is exactly what anyone in paticular has said, just giving examples), one has to look at the material it was based on. In this case we have a movie about transforming robots from another planet that were based on a half hour cartoon in the 80's. So in a sence, it does somewhat excuse it from some of its short comings, but i do get what your saying.

optimuswon wrote: I just don't get the uproar and all of the psychotic negativity that Baybashers have against the series. Do they want to see an entirely CG movie that takes place on Cybertron? I don't think a movie like that would translate, so the purists need to understand that this was the best way to do it, IMO.

I stronly believe the reason so many get in an uproar is because they fell they need to justify to the rest of the world there hobby that they've spent the last 25yrs of their life devoted to. Main stream movies are for the most part the outlet to the general public for alot of the comic book, 80's cartoon, etc. that many of these summer block buster movies are being based on. If they (the fandom) don't feel the movie pases muster some feel the general public is going to "look down" upon them.

I think especialy after "The dark Knight" alot of people seem to think that any comic book/cartoon based movie can and should be able to reach the same level of resepct and sucsess that this movie has earned. (which i still say had more to do with Heath Ledgers porformance than anything else) But again lies the problem about the source material. Being a fan, naturaly you think that theres plenty of good source material to apeal to the general public right? Not nessasarly.

optimuswon wrote:Whatever, people are gonna hate. I can't convince people to like it but maybe we could all stop being so harsh!?

Your right. people are always gonna hate. And unfortunutly, alot of that hate comes without reason.

optimuswon wrote:I agree, I have sat through the movie over six times and do not understand what all the negative fuss is about. What is so wrong with the plot? Sure, it's a bit jumpy at times but it seems entirely cohesive--perhaps the movie moved too quickly for some people?

Well, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that feels this way. I just watched it again with my dad and we both enjoyed it more and we still couldn't find what was so horrible. But to be honest, I actually had a hard time following it the first time, but enjoyed it nonetheless.

optimuswon wrote:I just don't get the uproar and all of the psychotic negativity that Baybashers have against the series. Do they want to see an entirely CG movie that takes place on Cybertron? I don't think a movie like that would translate, so the purists need to understand that this was the best way to do it, IMO.

Yes, I feel the same way here, too. I just don't see why people hate these damn things with such an extreme passion. Oh, well, as long as they don't yell in my face about it, I don't care. But it does seem everyone wants a film that is entirely CGI: Only on Cybertron, no humans, a total G1 throwback. And I also believe the purists need to understand that Bay's way sells; it's successful- it works for the brand.

optimuswon wrote:Whatever, people are gonna hate. I can't convince people to like it but maybe we could all stop being so harsh!?

Yes, there will be haters and fans wherever you go. And don't try to convince people to like them. I tried that when I first joined Seibertron. Bad idea. Very stupid. Luckily, a good mod on the site was able to gradually knock sense back into me. But unfortunately, I have a bad rep now and a lot of people hate me. But we just have to accept each others' opinions for what they are. And thank you for reinforcing what I always try to say at the end of your last sentence. And I can't say this enough:
Movie fans: Some people don't like the movies. You do like them. You can't change their minds. Get over it.
Movie haters: A lot of people like the movies. You don't. You can't turn the fans against the movies and you can't stop the movies from succeeding. Get over it.

I'm glad you agree with me, it means a lot! I'm new to the boards and don't understand the people who seem borderline violent about Michael Bay. I like the way his movies look, I'm astounded at the level of visual effects he's achieved, and I think that the Autobots have connected to the audience on a really solid level.

Seems good to me.... oh well Guess we shall join the often screamed at group of Bayformer fans.

optimuswon wrote:I'm glad you agree with me, it means a lot! I'm new to the boards and don't understand the people who seem borderline violent about Michael Bay. I like the way his movies look, I'm astounded at the level of visual effects he's achieved, and I think that the Autobots have connected to the audience on a really solid level.

Seems good to me.... oh well Guess we shall join the often screamed at group of Bayformer fans.

Well, welcome to the Seibertron community war zone my friend! I'm glad to meet someone who enjoys the movies and actually likes the visual effects. I also agree that the Autobots connect with the audience...funny you bring that up.
And I work to get rid of "G1 fans" and "movie fans"...how about "Transformers fans"?

Skids and Mudflap? Or Leo? Or John Turturro's bare ass? Or Megan Fox's crappy acting? Or Megatron telling Starscream he's the only leader of the Decepticons then immediately calling the Fallen "master"? Or Devestator's testicles? Or the Fallen being a complete wuss when he fights Prime? (He was just a step below Unicron in the comics) Or the designs that some people just don't like? (Understandably so) Or Prime still being completely indifferent to his dead allies? Or that they still give more focus to the humans' reactions to the robots than the robots themselves? Or the fact (Not including Prime and the Twins) that the Autobots have all of a dozen speaking lines between them?

Just because you didn't notice the problems people have been saying about the movie doesn't mean they aren't there.

Shadowman wrote:Skids and Mudflap?

What problems? And please don't give me that racist crap.

Or Leo?

Again, what problems?

Or John Turturro's bare ass?

Subjective (though i could have done without it myself, but ultimatly it really didn't affect the outcome of the movie)

Or Megan Fox's crappy acting?

Subjective.

..Or Megatron telling Starscream he's the only leader of the Decepticons then immediately calling the Fallen "master"?

This i will agree with.

Or Devestator's testicles?

Subjective

Or the Fallen being a complete wuss when he fights Prime? (He was just a step below Unicron in the comics)

Prime was esentialy "powered up" with the help of Jetfires parts. It was also said by the Fallen himself that only a Prime could kill him. Which suggests that he has a power that no one else posesses. (wether that is physical or something deep down inside him is not known for sure)

Or the designs that some people just don't like? (Understandably so)

Oh com'on now my friend. This has to be the most subjective "problem" of them all. What you, or someone else likes, someone else will dislike. And that, is fact.

Or Prime still being completely indifferent to his dead allies?

Explain please?

Or that they still give more focus to the humans' reactions to the robots than the robots themselves?

Although I agree , i still think it was better than the first. overall the contact

Or the fact (Not including Prime and the Twins) that the Autobots have all of a dozen speaking lines between them?

Again, i agree it could have been better, but there was defenatly an improvment from the first movie. Jetfire's talk with Sam, Michela, LEO, ETC., The Doctor and Megatron's interogation of Sam.. All improvments. And all done from listening to The fans

Just because you didn't notice the problems people have been saying about the movie doesn't mean they aren't there.

Were there problems? Sure. Just not as big as many are making them out to be. That is the point that i believe many like optimuswon are trying to make.

Or Megatron telling Starscream he's the only leader of the Decepticons then immediately calling the Fallen "master"?

The Fallen has psionic powers. When he was first arriving he was being his own bot. Once in range of his influence thats when he was turned in a minion again. Between his will overriding people and his psionic powers able to deflect any attack , he was unbeatable to anyone but a Prime.

Or the Fallen being a complete wuss when he fights Prime? (He was just a step below Unicron in the comics)

Prime was immune to the Fallens tricks. That's why the Fallen didn't just toss prime around when they fought. It be like taking away the emperor in star wars force powers(or any other long range fight/spell caster type character fighting a foe with their main power neutralized forced to fight head on.) because they can't effect someone outside his universe then pitting him against the hulk. It would go very badly for him too. The Fallen's physical ability paled to his energy projection abilities.

Prime and Megatron were both physically superior and better combatants. The fact prime was amped up made it all the more 1 sided. Megatron took tons of abuse, and had been worn down prior to battling prime against all the soldiers. So with that all in mind it's not that hard to see Prime winning quickly.