The Energon Pub

[megatronus]

The whole no-soul thing wasn't the least bit bothersome to me.

Optimus thought he was born and not made, a notion Lockdown rudely dispelled him of. Who's to say Optimus couldn't also have been wrong about the mind resting in the spark? It's all speculation.

I was just happy to have Frank Welker put in some lines as Galvatron. Badass.

[Rodimus Prime]

That looks pretty badass. They should have gone with it.

Feel free to counter anything I've written. I welcome friendly discussion.

OK, I'll bring up a few points. Remember, as you said, we're discussing points of view, not rights and wrongs.

1st thing, I think Titus Welliver was right. This is NOT a kids' movie. The characters may be based on kids' toys and even a kids' cartoon, but the movies themselves are NOT kids' movies. If they were, they'd be rated G, or PG at the highest. Not PG-13, borderlining R. Personally, I think the movies could flow much better story-wise if they were rated R, but due to financial reasons that can't happen. I do wish Bay and Paramount would release an R-rated version of each movie, but Hasbro would never allow it, due to overall brand image.

Next, Optimus's 1st scene. I think it was a very good way to portray not only his state, but the state of affairs regarding all Transformers. If the humans have hunted the "greatest Autobot" like the Frankenstein monster, how much worse have the others been treated? I think the introduction of Optimus is very fitting and sets up the tone of the film perfectly. You wanted him portrayed in this film as he was in the 1st 3, even after it was stated by various members of the production that this film would be different in tone than the others. Having Optimus be "filthy, damaged, vulnerable, and scared" as you put it, is a very effective way of setting up his later rise as a true knight of Cybertron. It's a character arc we haven't seen in the films before, where he was basically the same character from the beginning to the end.

As for Savoy and the CW unit getting to Texas from DC under 24 hours, who said they had to drive? Considering they had a viable lead on the leader of the Autobots, I would think they jumped on the 1st plane they could, and gotten down there in a couple of hours. Probably as long as it took Lucas to hang up the phone after calling them and go shopping.

The car chase/Prime-Lockdown scrap. You said there wasn't enough of TF fight in the midst of the chase. I agree to a point that the fight should have been featured with the chase in the background cut in. But, remember, this is Bayverse, where the humans get center stage. Another reason, I believe, for the short snippets of the fight is that it keeps the audience's want for Optimus and Lockdown to fight, keeping them interested in the final battle, some 2 hours from their 1st encounter. Also, given Optimus's sorry state, a prolonged fight with Lockdown at this point would definitely result in Prime losing the fight. He couldn't even beat Lockdown 1-on-1 when he got his knight upgrade.

Next, Lucas's death. Let me reiterate. This is NOT a children's movie. You were shocked by how he was killed, and that's OK, it's your personal reaction. But in the context of not only the movie but Bayverse as a whole, it wasn't really that shocking. It did what it was supposed to do: show Lockdown's ruthlessness. Lucas was a supporting character, and through his comedy and likability (even after his calling CW) he became emotionally attached to the audience. Thus his death serves to get us to despise Lockdown even more. However, after his killing Ratchet the way he did, I couldn't have cared less if he killed an orphanage full of kids. I couldn't have hated him any more. Lockdown is a truly despicable villain, something Megatron should have been from the start, and something only Sentinel Prime even came close to.

I thought Cade drinking a Bud Light and dropping the bottle after crashing the ship into the truck was funny.

The whole spark-is-a-soul debate, and why Megatron/Galvatron shouldn't be alive, I don't want to get into much, because it's such a broad subject that it would take a lot of back-and-forth to get anywhere with it. I do agree that it is very convoluted, like we were just supposed to forget about everything that came before. However, there is 1 thing I have always wondered. If we assume that Megatron even HAD a spark in DoTM (wasn't it destroyed by the AllSpark in the 1st film?) who's to say it was destroyed in DoTM? We saw Optimus rip out Megatron's entire spine, not decapitate him. What if his spark chamber was within his spine, or at least attached to it? Then that means his head was never separated from his spark, thus keeping him alive, albeit in stasis lock. But this is never made clear (not to my knowledge, anyway) so it's 1 of those things that's up for speculation.

The scene with Joshua using the "F-word" as you put it, was in there for comic relief, and it worked. It got the biggest laugh of the movie, each of the 3 times I saw the film in theaters. I actually forgot about it between the time I saw it there and watching it on DVD last week, and when he said it, I laughed at home as well. I will say that the scene was not necessary to the film, but it wasn't a negative. Remember, it's NOT a children's movie. Also, as with the Bud Light scene, just because you don't think it's funny, doesn't mean others won't.

Ratchet and the Dinobots fight Megatron in Marvel G1 issue #8. Hi-Q gave that speech to Grimlock not in Marvel G1 issue #81. There's no such thing. He said it in issue #76. You need to touch up on your G1 Marvel knowledge.

How do you know Harold Attinger is dead? Was it specifically stated in the movie?

As for the cake-and-icing analogy for the movie, all I have to say is this is a Michael Bay movie. The icing IS the cake.
If you've seen all his other movies, you know it's all style and very little substance. He hasn't made 1 single film that is thoroughly thought-provoking. He's all about visuals and shock-and-awe.

[Sabrblade]

1st thing, I think Titus Welliver was right. This is NOT a kids' movie. The characters may be based on kids' toys and even a kids' cartoon, but the movies themselves are NOT kids' movies. If they were, they'd be rated G, or PG at the highest. Not PG-13, borderlining R. Personally, I think the movies could flow much better story-wise if they were rated R, but due to financial reasons that can't happen. I do wish Bay and Paramount would release an R-rated version of each movie, but Hasbro would never allow it, due to overall brand image.

I really don't see how an R-rated movie would improve anything pertaining to the narrative since the movie would only warrant an R-rating if it had an overabundance of any of the following:

• Extremely graphic violence (like more gruesome and gory than Lucas's death)
• Sexual content (like sex scenes, visible nudity, or the stuff ROTF had cranked up to the 11)
• Dirty language and profanity (like the F-bomb dropped every five minutes)
• Substance abuse

A movie's rating isn't based on how competent it's written or put together, but on how suitable it is for children.

The car chase/Prime-Lockdown scrap. You said there wasn't enough of TF fight in the midst of the chase. I agree to a point that the fight should have been featured with the chase in the background cut in. But, remember, this is Bayverse, where the humans get center stage.

Correct, which is something that, up until the second act of this movie, these films needed to improve upon. And, beginning with the second act, this one did.

Next, Lucas's death. Let me reiterate. This is NOT a children's movie. You were shocked by how he was killed, and that's OK, it's your personal reaction. But in the context of not only the movie but Bayverse as a whole, it wasn't really that shocking.

It was when we consider that the previous never went nearly as dark as that, with only DOTM's having the Cons blast many humans into skulls coming the closest to being that dark. Lucas's death was more than just dark, it was grotesque and disgusting. Up until that point, the movies had restricted all of its gore to just the robots, making this scene a notable stand out from the norm.

And I recognize that these films are kids films, but because of their inherent attachment to a longstanding children's toy brand and their partly existing to advertise more children's toys, they will more than likely always be looked at in a light that views them as being affiliated with a child demographic, despite older audiences being the intended one. Kids will still be seeing these movies whether they should be or not, because of the movies' direct connection to something meant for children.

Yet, because these movies aim for older audiences and keep trying for unnecessary levels of darkness, they constantly alienate the younger audiences that the movies are trying to advertise the toys to.

And for what purpose does the darkness serve? It's not realistic, as these movies seem to foolishly believe. It's depressing, more than anything. All of the other movies I listed at the beginning of my review were well made films with greater critical acclaim and positive reception than this one (minus the last two at the bottom of the list), and none of them were nearly as dark as this one. Darkness doesn't automatically equal success.

It did what it was supposed to do: show Lockdown's ruthlessness. Lucas was a supporting character, and through his comedy and likability (even after his calling CW) he became emotionally attached to the audience. Thus his death serves to get us to despise Lockdown even more. However, after his killing Ratchet the way he did, I couldn't have cared less if he killed an orphanage full of kids. I couldn't have hated him any more. Lockdown is a truly despicable villain, something Megatron should have been from the start, and something only Sentinel Prime even came close to.

So in other words, it didn't need to happen since you already got enough reason to despise Lockdown when he killed Ratchet.

If we assume that Megatron even HAD a spark in DoTM (wasn't it destroyed by the AllSpark in the 1st film?) who's to say it was destroyed in DoTM? We saw Optimus rip out Megatron's entire spine, not decapitate him. What if his spark chamber was within his spine, or at least attached to it? Then that means his head was never separated from his spark, thus keeping him alive, albeit in stasis lock. But this is never made clear (not to my knowledge, anyway) so it's 1 of those things that's up for speculation.

In this movie, Megatron's head is no longer connected to its spine.

The scene with Joshua using the "F-word" as you put it, was in there for comic relief, and it worked. It got the biggest laugh of the movie, each of the 3 times I saw the film in theaters. I actually forgot about it between the time I saw it there and watching it on DVD last week, and when he said it, I laughed at home as well. I will say that the scene was not necessary to the film, but it wasn't a negative. Remember, it's NOT a children's movie. Also, as with the Bud Light scene, just because you don't think it's funny, doesn't mean others won't.

Right, it's just my own opinion. I don't like swearing, and didn't find it funny.

Ratchet and the Dinobots fight Megatron in Marvel G1 issue #8. Hi-Q gave that speech to Grimlock not in Marvel G1 issue #81. There's no such thing. He said it in issue #76. You need to touch up on your G1 Marvel knowledge.

D'oh!

I'll fix those numbers, thanks.

How do you know Harold Attinger is dead? Was it specifically stated in the movie?

Well, the film did show us his body after having been shot by a blast as big as he was. Unless the fifth movie brings him back, it's pretty safe to say that, for all intents and purposes, he was dead.

As for the cake-and-icing analogy for the movie, all I have to say is this is a Michael Bay movie. The icing IS the cake.
If you've seen all his other movies, you know it's all style and very little substance. He hasn't made 1 single film that is thoroughly thought-provoking. He's all about visuals and shock-and-awe.

I can imagine his receiving a plate of icing with no cake for all his birthdays as a kid. He knows not what he's missing out on.

[Rodimus Prime]

1st thing, I think Titus Welliver was right. This is NOT a kids' movie. The characters may be based on kids' toys and even a kids' cartoon, but the movies themselves are NOT kids' movies. If they were, they'd be rated G, or PG at the highest. Not PG-13, borderlining R. Personally, I think the movies could flow much better story-wise if they were rated R, but due to financial reasons that can't happen. I do wish Bay and Paramount would release an R-rated version of each movie, but Hasbro would never allow it, due to overall brand image.

I really don't see how an R-rated movie would improve anything pertaining to the narrative since the movie would only warrant an R-rating if it had an overabundance of any of the following:

• Extremely graphic violence (like more gruesome and gory than Lucas's death)
• Sexual content (like sex scenes, visible nudity, or the stuff ROTF had cranked up to the 11)
• Dirty language and profanity (like the F-bomb dropped every five minutes)
• Substance abuse

A movie's rating isn't based on how competent it's written or put together, but on how suitable it is for children.

Yeah maybe I should have made it a bit clearer. You're right about the ratings and what they require. What I meant was that considering all the garbage humor in the 1st 2 films (DoTM didn't have too much inappropriateness, IIRC) would have been more tolerated had it been rated R. People would have known what they were in for. However, that doesn't mean that any of that stuff had a place in the movies. The worst examples, for me personally, were Sam's mom being high, and Wheelie humping Mikaela's leg. The Twins were annoying, but I wasn't offended. In DoTM, the scene in the stall, (quite literally toilet humor ) was kinda juvenile but I still didn't mind it like stupid stuff in the other 2 films. When I said that, I was thinking more of the violence in the films. If you knew going in that the movie was rated R, would you have been shocked by Lucas's death as much as you were?

Next, Lucas's death. Let me reiterate. This is NOT a children's movie. You were shocked by how he was killed, and that's OK, it's your personal reaction. But in the context of not only the movie but Bayverse as a whole, it wasn't really that shocking.

It was when we consider that the previous never went nearly as dark as that, with only DOTM's having the Cons blast many humans into skulls coming the closest to being that dark. Lucas's death was more than just dark, it was grotesque and disgusting. Up until that point, the movies had restricted all of its gore to just the robots, making this scene a notable stand out from the norm.

OK, we just have different tolerance levels towards violence, I guess. We can leave it at that.

Yet, because these movies aim for older audiences and keep trying for unnecessary levels of darkness, they constantly alienate the younger audiences that the movies are trying to advertise the toys to.

Are you saying that if there were no toy lines to go with the films, the darkness would be acceptable? That's not bad story-writing, it's bad marketing. I agree with the movies being too dark for children, but again, not a children's movie.

And for what purpose does the darkness serve? It's not realistic, as these movies seem to foolishly believe. It's depressing, more than anything.

That's personal reaction. Like I said, it's OK, you are entitled to it. None of the TF movies depressed me as a whole. I was shocked at Ironhide's death (even though I knew it was coming even at 1st viewing) and I was saddened by Ratchet's death because of how vicious it was. Otherwise, all the other deaths, from Jazz to Lockdown, I had no problems.

Darkness doesn't automatically equal success.

I don't think Bay and Kruger sat down and thought "OK, we need to make these movies depressing, otherwise they won't be popular." I do agree, though, a fun, action-filled TF movie would have been much more preferable by us all, but in the end, this is a story of a million-years-old intergalactic war among giant mechanical beings, who, for all intents and purposes, are war machines. Death, however gruesome, is inevitable.

It did what it was supposed to do: show Lockdown's ruthlessness. Lucas was a supporting character, and through his comedy and likability (even after his calling CW) he became emotionally attached to the audience. Thus his death serves to get us to despise Lockdown even more. However, after his killing Ratchet the way he did, I couldn't have cared less if he killed an orphanage full of kids. I couldn't have hated him any more. Lockdown is a truly despicable villain, something Megatron should have been from the start, and something only Sentinel Prime even came close to.

So in other words, it didn't need to happen since you already got enough reason to despise Lockdown when he killed Ratchet.

I wasn't arguing its needlessness. I was stating valid reasons, in my opinion, for it happening. Just like with the F-word scene, the movie would have been fine without it, but it being in the film wasn't a negative.

If we assume that Megatron even HAD a spark in DoTM (wasn't it destroyed by the AllSpark in the 1st film?) who's to say it was destroyed in DoTM? We saw Optimus rip out Megatron's entire spine, not decapitate him. What if his spark chamber was within his spine, or at least attached to it? Then that means his head was never separated from his spark, thus keeping him alive, albeit in stasis lock. But this is never made clear (not to my knowledge, anyway) so it's 1 of those things that's up for speculation.

In this movie, Megatron's head is no longer connected to its spine.

True. I was talking about what could have possibly happened between the end of DoTM and the scene that screen cap is from. Like I said, it wasn't touched upon in the film, so it's speculation.

Ratchet and the Dinobots fight Megatron in Marvel G1 issue #8. Hi-Q gave that speech to Grimlock not in Marvel G1 issue #81. There's no such thing. He said it in issue #76. You need to touch up on your G1 Marvel knowledge.

D'oh!

I'll fix those numbers, thanks.

How do you know Harold Attinger is dead? Was it specifically stated in the movie?

Well, the film did show us his body after having been shot by a blast as big as he was. Unless the fifth movie brings him back, it's pretty safe to say that, for all intents and purposes, he was dead.

Considering being directly hit by a blast as big as it was, as you said, wouldn't his body have had a lot more damage than just tattered clothes, some bruises and a little blood? I think Prime did the same with him as he did with the CW soldiers at the beginning: shot at the ground under them. But, we'll see what happens in the next film. But even if Prime did kill him, he was just making good on the promise he made earlier about finding Ratchet's killer. Attinger didn't pull the trigger, but he authorized the actions leading to his death. I'm not saying it was right (it wasn't), but if Prime did kill Attinger, it just closed that circle.

[Sabrblade]

Are you saying that if there were no toy lines to go with the films, the darkness would be acceptable? That's not bad story-writing, it's bad marketing. I agree with the movies being too dark for children, but again, not a children's movie.

"More" acceptable, at least. But like you said, the marketing's also at fault, here.

this is a story of a million-years-old intergalactic war

Thousands of years, since the Movieverse finally did away with that silly "millions of years" thing.

Death, however gruesome, is inevitable.

Death itself is fine. It is a war, after all. How it's handled, however, is important as well.

Considering being directly hit by a blast as big as it was, as you said, wouldn't his body have had a lot more damage than just tattered clothes, some bruises and a little blood? I think Prime did the same with him as he did with the CW soldiers at the beginning: shot at the ground under them. But, we'll see what happens in the next film. But even if Prime did kill him, he was just making good on the promise he made earlier about finding Ratchet's killer. Attinger didn't pull the trigger, but he authorized the actions leading to his death. I'm not saying it was right (it wasn't), but if Prime did kill Attinger, it just closed that circle.

On another board, someone pointed out to me that Optimus didn't even know who Attinger was at the time since he had never met Attinger nor knew that he was the guy responsible for all his comrades being hunted and killed. Meaning that, in Prime's quick reaction to save Cade, he inadvertently killed the guy he said he would kill without even knowing it. So in that scene, Optimus gunned down a guy who, to him, was just a random human threatening one of his friends. So Prime wasn't trying to make good on his "when I find who's responsible, he's going to die," declaration, even if he wound up doing so anyway.

[Rodimus Prime]

this is a story of a million-years-old intergalactic war

Thousands of years, since the Movieverse finally did away with that silly "millions of years" thing.

That's me being stuck in G1 mode, I guess.

Considering being directly hit by a blast as big as it was, as you said, wouldn't his body have had a lot more damage than just tattered clothes, some bruises and a little blood? I think Prime did the same with him as he did with the CW soldiers at the beginning: shot at the ground under them. But, we'll see what happens in the next film. But even if Prime did kill him, he was just making good on the promise he made earlier about finding Ratchet's killer. Attinger didn't pull the trigger, but he authorized the actions leading to his death. I'm not saying it was right (it wasn't), but if Prime did kill Attinger, it just closed that circle.

On another board, someone pointed out to me that Optimus didn't even know who Attinger was at the time since he had never met Attinger nor knew that he was the guy responsible for all his comrades being hunted and killed. Meaning that, in Prime's quick reaction to save Cade, he inadvertently killed the guy he said he would kill without even knowing it. So in that scene, Optimus gunned down a guy who, to him, was just a random human threatening one of his friends. So Prime wasn't trying to make good on his "when I find who's responsible, he's going to die," declaration, even if he wound up doing so anyway.

Not necessarily. In the exchange between Cade and himself, Attinger admits to being in charge. Optimus wasn't far away, so it's not impossible that he didn't hear Attinger as he threatened Cade, even if he was in close-quarters combat. It's kind of thin, I know, but not totally out of the question. Also, considering the problems with the writing in the entire series, whether it be Kruger or Orci&Kurtzman, it's also possible that Kruger intended for Prime to kill Attinger to make good on Prime's previous promise, but he neglected to hammer out the details, such as Prime actually gaining knowledge of Attinger's identity. Details are not something the creators of these movies lose sleep over.
All of this, of course, is if Prime actually killed Attinger, which we won't know for sure until it's confirmed.

[ctrlFrequency]

That being said, I understand there's some complaints about Hound, Crosshairs, Drift, and Bee and their 'antics' and dialog...

With Hound, honestly, it felt as if the writers had been using him to poke fun at the old 'war hero' movies, from his cgi design to his personality, and John Goodman was perfect for the gritty 'almost John Wayne' style of voice. I did feel the cheesy lines were there as a poke at those old war movies and the way our American attitude is viewed by the rest of world, over the top violent dialog. Since the onslaught of World War II movies back in the late 40's, we've portrayed ourselves like that. Is it a bit much? Yeah, but if that was the intention, then it's more of chuckle on 'American Attitude' than just gratuitously violent dialog.
Though I did feel his dialog mirrored Ironhide's dialog from the first movie a bit too much at times.

Crosshairs, Drift, and Bee being a little harsh, with each other especially... it felt to me as if the writers were trying to get us to feel like they were a bunch of young guys, left in a very stressful (war) situation for many years and the fighting was more of the good natured blowing off steam. These guys have been being pushed around and hunted by creatures they could simply step on and kill; all the while not being able to leave the planet (and their problems) or retaliating at all or defending themselves. I would assume, that even a Cybertronian, caught in a perpetual state of tension and conflict would need a release, on their buddies... in a good natured way.

Last comment on that nature...

I'm one of those people who doesn't believe a person (or bot in this case) is all good or all bad. I hate that. Even the most downright evil person has something good about them.... it's just completely negated by all the nasty evilness they posses. Also, even the most honorable good person has an aspect that's not that great, but is negated by their good side.

In the end, the average person, and extending to the average bot, might be good, but it doesn't mean they have to be perfect. I want my characters to never be ALL good, have some irritating, annoying, less than savory, aspect to their personality.
It's why I won't really complain about Optimus' less than noble lines. I think they went to far... but then.. it's an action movie. Optimus should have some anger and lash out a bit (but they could have ended the bloodthirsty attitude in the beginning).

I get what you're saying, and while I do agree that I also wouldn't want the Autobots to be angelically perfect in their goodness (since that would be boring if it wasn't done for parody or satirical purposes), I still feel that what we get was too mean-spirited for their being the heroes of this movie. It's not just the fact that they act so callously, but that they do so without any remorse. Not one of them ever feels any regret for the less-than-noble actions they undertake in this movie. Hound and Crosshairs were especially the worst regarding this, since both of them were obsessed with homicide. They loved and relished committing acts of murder, and constantly spoke about how they wanted something to kill every chance they got. The two of them were practically addicted to murder, and that's far from being a healthy attribute of any characters, let alone members of the good guy hero team looked up to and admired by countless amounts of children since 1984.

Honestly, I get what you're saying, totally get it. I didn't think it was excessive but then... I live in a house full of men. On any given day you can hear me yell "Don't try to kill your brother!" (Well, I doubt any of them would actually do it, but they sure do seem to play rough)

I am not discounting your view, I just see it differently. Everyone's perspective is different. But then I've always liked the bad guys, so.. you know. I had no problems with letting my 6 year old watch it (though every 5 minutes I was saying "Don't repeat the swear words...." to him) The part he was most disturbed by was when Savoy and his men had their guns to Cade's, Lucas', and Tessa's heads. That part dragged on a long time for us as we had to keep telling him it wold be okay and hope they'd end it soon.

[kaijuguy19]

Regarding Megatron's head being able to live without his spine and body this happened as well in Animated where he was just a head without a body and spine to work with yet he still managed to live without it for most of the first season until the finale where he regains his body so it can be argued that he also found a way to keep his mind and head alive with the different resources KSI had at the time which may also be from the result of having the all spark thrust inside him in the first movie.

As for the complaint not being a kids movie with a kiddy toyline I want to say that we had toylines in the 80's and 90's for movies that were rated R which were even more unsuited for kids yet they managed to have toys for kids to play with even shows about them. So in a way what AOE did wasn't any different.

[SKYWARPED_128]

The whole no-soul thing wasn't the least bit bothersome to me.

Optimus thought he was born and not made, a notion Lockdown rudely dispelled him of. Who's to say Optimus couldn't also have been wrong about the mind resting in the spark? It's all speculation.

I was just happy to have Frank Welker put in some lines as Galvatron. Badass.

The problem with that is that the movie keeps selling the idea that sparks are like souls and that is what makes Autobots and humans alive, even after what Lockdown said.

Lockdown might have revealed that Cybertronians were built and not born, but here's where the narrative fails. Optimus doesn't seem to react at all to the revelation, and the movie continues to sell the whole "spark = alive" idea all the way to the end, where he asks Cade to look to the stars and think of one of them as his "soul." It's quite apparent that he still believes in the idea of souls and sparks.

If Lockdown's revelation wasmeant to change the set rules of the movieverse from "spark = alive" to "sentience =/= spark", then the dialogue and Optimus' reaction from that point onwards should have reflected that.

I've said this once too many times, but Kruger really needs to stay focused on his ideas and tighten up his writing.

[megatronus]

The whole no-soul thing wasn't the least bit bothersome to me.

Optimus thought he was born and not made, a notion Lockdown rudely dispelled him of. Who's to say Optimus couldn't also have been wrong about the mind resting in the spark? It's all speculation.

I was just happy to have Frank Welker put in some lines as Galvatron. Badass.

The problem with that is that the movie keeps selling the idea that sparks are like souls and that is what makes Autobots and humans alive, even after what Lockdown said.

Lockdown might have revealed that Cybertronians were built and not born, but here's where the narrative fails. Optimus doesn't seem to react at all to the revelation, and the movie continues to sell the whole "spark = alive" idea all the way to the end, where he asks Cade to look to the stars and think of one of them as his "soul." It's quite apparent that he still believes in the idea of souls and sparks.

If Lockdown's revelation wasmeant to change the set rules of the movieverse from "spark = alive" to "sentience =/= spark", then the dialogue and Optimus' reaction from that point onwards should have reflected that.

I've said this once too many times, but Kruger really needs to stay focused on his ideas and tighten up his writing.

I repeat: it's all speculation. At that point, I don't see any purpose in discussing it further.

[SKYWARPED_128]

The whole no-soul thing wasn't the least bit bothersome to me.

Optimus thought he was born and not made, a notion Lockdown rudely dispelled him of. Who's to say Optimus couldn't also have been wrong about the mind resting in the spark? It's all speculation.

I was just happy to have Frank Welker put in some lines as Galvatron. Badass.

The problem with that is that the movie keeps selling the idea that sparks are like souls and that is what makes Autobots and humans alive, even after what Lockdown said.

Lockdown might have revealed that Cybertronians were built and not born, but here's where the narrative fails. Optimus doesn't seem to react at all to the revelation, and the movie continues to sell the whole "spark = alive" idea all the way to the end, where he asks Cade to look to the stars and think of one of them as his "soul." It's quite apparent that he still believes in the idea of souls and sparks.

If Lockdown's revelation wasmeant to change the set rules of the movieverse from "spark = alive" to "sentience =/= spark", then the dialogue and Optimus' reaction from that point onwards should have reflected that.

I've said this once too many times, but Kruger really needs to stay focused on his ideas and tighten up his writing.

I repeat: it's all speculation. At that point, I don't see any purpose in discussing it further.

It's not my intention to speculate either. Just pointing out that the narrative was inconsistent and needed tightening up is all.

[megatronus]

It's not my intention to speculate either. Just pointing out that the narrative was inconsistent and needed tightening up is all.

That's fair.

[Sabrblade]

Regarding Megatron's head being able to live without his spine and body this happened as well in Animated where he was just a head without a body and spine to work with yet he still managed to live without it for most of the first season until the finale where he regains his body so it can be argued that he also found a way to keep his mind and head alive with the different resources KSI had at the time which may also be from the result of having the all spark thrust inside him in the first movie.

As I noted in my review, Animated Megatron's head falls into the category of having a "spark substitute substance" keeping his head alive with the magical life-giving powers of the AllSpark having restored Megatron's head to full life. KSI, however, had no such resources of magic at their disposal. In Joshua's own words "What we do here is science," not magic.

And the company as a whole likely viewed the dead TFs they had in their possession just as Darcy did: "Dead metal."

As for the complaint not being a kids movie with a kiddy toyline I want to say that we had toylines in the 80's and 90's for movies that were rated R which were even more unsuited for kids yet they managed to have toys for kids to play with even shows about them. So in a way what AOE did wasn't any different.

The difference there is that, as you said, those R-rated movies in the 80's had additional media that was appropriate for kids, allowing the toys to be connected to something suitable for the younger audiences that the toys were made for, in addition to being connected to the not-so-suitable R-rated films.

Whereas AOE is but a single piece of fiction. The closest things it had to external media appropriate for children are Rise of the Dark Spark (specifically the AOE-related portions) and the How To Ride Your/A Dinobot stuff, which is all way more obscure and far less mainstream than the movie itself is. After all, what average young fan outside of the hardcore fanbase would even be aware of the How To Ride Your/A Dinobot stuff that's had so little marketing exposure?

The problem with that is that the movie keeps selling the idea that sparks are like souls and that is what makes Autobots and humans alive, even after what Lockdown said.

Lockdown might have revealed that Cybertronians were built and not born, but here's where the narrative fails. Optimus doesn't seem to react at all to the revelation, and the movie continues to sell the whole "spark = alive" idea all the way to the end, where he asks Cade to look to the stars and think of one of them as his "soul." It's quite apparent that he still believes in the idea of souls and sparks.

If Lockdown's revelation wasmeant to change the set rules of the movieverse from "spark = alive" to "sentience =/= spark", then the dialogue and Optimus' reaction from that point onwards should have reflected that.

I've said this once too many times, but Kruger really needs to stay focused on his ideas and tighten up his writing.

I got the feeling that Lockdown's revelation was meant to clarify that the Transformers (or at least the very first ones, like the Knights and such), weren't simply created by chance, but were "intelligently designed". As though to say "You weren't birthed by the AllSpark like the later generations of your race. You were made directly by your godlike creators instead." It's as though Lockdown revealed Prime to be like the TF equivalent of Adam, and I'm sure that man had a soul.

[SlyTF1]

They preserved his mind.

"They" who? Certainly not KSI, since they lacked both the means to and the intention of doing so, since what they were doing was science, not alchemy.

Plus, as Prime said, the mind is in the Spark, which wasn't in Megatron's head and Galvatron didn't have.

The little doctor drones. They backed Megatron's mind up like you'd do a hard drive.

[Sabrblade]

They preserved his mind.

"They" who? Certainly not KSI, since they lacked both the means to and the intention of doing so, since what they were doing was science, not alchemy.

Plus, as Prime said, the mind is in the Spark, which wasn't in Megatron's head and Galvatron didn't have.

The little doctor drones. They backed Megatron's mind up like you'd do a hard drive.

They weren't in this movie.

[Fires_Of_Inferno]

They preserved his mind.

"They" who? Certainly not KSI, since they lacked both the means to and the intention of doing so, since what they were doing was science, not alchemy.

Plus, as Prime said, the mind is in the Spark, which wasn't in Megatron's head and Galvatron didn't have.

The little doctor drones. They backed Megatron's mind up like you'd do a hard drive.

They weren't in this movie.

I think he meant the tiny insecticon-like thingies.

[Sabrblade]

I think he meant the tiny insecticon-like thingies.

The drones that were crawling around in Megatron's head in DOTM. AOE showed the Insecticons, but as far as I'm concerned, they're the same entity.

[SKYWARPED_128]

I got the feeling that Lockdown's revelation was meant to clarify that the Transformers (or at least the very first ones, like the Knights and such), weren't simply created by chance, but were "intelligently designed". As though to say "You weren't birthed by the AllSpark like the later generations of your race. You were made directly by your godlike creators instead." It's as though Lockdown revealed Prime to be like the TF equivalent of Adam, and I'm sure that man had a soul.

That's an interesting take on things. My understanding of it is that Lockdown was referring to Cybertronians as a whole when he said "you." As in, Cybertronians in general got it wrong about how they were created.

Your theory puts this situation in a completely different light. It does make sense, come to think of it. Lockdown's mission was to capture all the knights, the last remaining one still at large one being Optimus. He doesn't seem to be the least interested in any of the other Autobots. In fact, Ratchet was just collateral damage, a potential source of information of his whereabouts.

And in case you wonder, the point of my last post was simply to state that if Lockdown's words seem to either validate or invalidate the "soul = spark" idea, it's more due to the fact that the loose ends Kruger left untied gave one the impression of it.

[Sabrblade]

That's an interesting take on things. My understanding of it is that Lockdown was referring to Cybertronians as a whole when he said "you." As in, Cybertronians in general got it wrong about how they were created.

Yet, the first two films do show us onscreen examples of the AllSpark giving new life to new members of their race, so the Cybertronians had to be at least right in that regard.

[SKYWARPED_128]

That's an interesting take on things. My understanding of it is that Lockdown was referring to Cybertronians as a whole when he said "you." As in, Cybertronians in general got it wrong about how they were created.

Yet, the first two films do show us onscreen examples of the AllSpark giving new life to new members of their race, so the Cybertronians had to be at least right in that regard.

That's a good point. The more I think about it, the more your theory about Optimus being a sort of "Cybertonian Adam" makes sense.

I'm interested in where they'll take this story in TF5. I do hope it's more carefully planned than the first trilogy.

[Sabrblade]

That's an interesting take on things. My understanding of it is that Lockdown was referring to Cybertronians as a whole when he said "you." As in, Cybertronians in general got it wrong about how they were created.

Yet, the first two films do show us onscreen examples of the AllSpark giving new life to new members of their race, so the Cybertronians had to be at least right in that regard.

That's a good point. The more I think about it, the more your theory about Optimus being a sort of "Cybertonian Adam" makes sense.

I'm interested in where they'll take this story in TF5. I do hope it's more carefully planned than the first trilogy.

Though, this would also mean that Optimus, who is supposed to be the last living descendant of the Dynasty of Primes, now precedes the original Seven Primes.

[SKYWARPED_128]

That's an interesting take on things. My understanding of it is that Lockdown was referring to Cybertronians as a whole when he said "you." As in, Cybertronians in general got it wrong about how they were created.

Yet, the first two films do show us onscreen examples of the AllSpark giving new life to new members of their race, so the Cybertronians had to be at least right in that regard.

That's a good point. The more I think about it, the more your theory about Optimus being a sort of "Cybertonian Adam" makes sense.

I'm interested in where they'll take this story in TF5. I do hope it's more carefully planned than the first trilogy.

Though, this would also mean that Optimus, who is supposed to be the last living descendant of the Dynasty of Primes, now precedes the original Seven Primes.

As far as I'm concerned, ROTF never happened.

EDIT: Seriously though, that's the problem with the first 3 movies. New ideas get piled on top of earlier ones, and they keep contradicting each other. Not only that, many of the ideas that were presented weren't even properly introduced.

We roughly know that TF's were created by the Allspark, although what actually gets created seems random (from feral little mindless creatures to what seems like a hostile but fully grown Cybertronian, as seen in the vending machine). Do these mindless little bots eventually grow up or evolve to become sentient Cybertronians, or does the Allspark choose what to make on it's own? The movies never did answer these questions. Frankly, I doubt the writers even bothered to think of a proper "biological" theory for TF's to begin with.

In ROTF, we see 'hatchlings', but they look just as feral as the random kitchen bots. One could come to the conclusion that these are Decepticon attempts to create artificial TF's, but nothing is confirmed or disproved in the movie itself, or in DOTM.

[Rodimus Prime]

That's a good point. The more I think about it, the more your theory about Optimus being a sort of "Cybertonian Adam" makes sense.

I'm interested in where they'll take this story in TF5. I do hope it's more carefully planned than the first trilogy.

Though, this would also mean that Optimus, who is supposed to be the last living descendant of the Dynasty of Primes, now precedes the original Seven Primes.

I'm not much for superstitious things such as religion, but if Kruger is going to take that route, perhaps Optimus is not "Adam" in the line of creation, but 1 rung further down the ladder, perhaps in the spot of Cain and Abel. That would mean the Primes before him could be the "1st created" in the Transformers race. The "creators" were most likely non-mechanical, going by the hand we saw at the beginning of Age of Extinction.

But if Lockdown said Optimus was not born but built, does that mean he was built by the creators to be a knight and explore the universe, while the other Primes stayed on Cybertron? That wouldn't make him a true "descendant" of the Dynasty of Primes, as Jetfire stated. Or was he built by the previous Primes, perhaps at the instruction of the "creators." My memory is a bit fuzzy on this, but isn't that what the Quintessons did in the G1 cartoon? Built some Transformers, and then let those they 1st build start building other Transformers? These are a lot of questions, mostly speculative, based on very little information given us in Age of Extinction. I really hope it wasn't just some stuff Kruger and Bay threw at a wall to see what would stick, and there will be some concise follow-up.

[SKYWARPED_128]

That's a good point. The more I think about it, the more your theory about Optimus being a sort of "Cybertonian Adam" makes sense.

I'm interested in where they'll take this story in TF5. I do hope it's more carefully planned than the first trilogy.

Though, this would also mean that Optimus, who is supposed to be the last living descendant of the Dynasty of Primes, now precedes the original Seven Primes.

I'm not much for superstitious things such as religion, but if Kruger is going to take that route, perhaps Optimus is not "Adam" in the line of creation, but 1 rung further down the ladder, perhaps in the spot of Cain and Abel. That would mean the Primes before him could be the "1st created" in the Transformers race. The "creators" were most likely non-mechanical, going by the hand we saw at the beginning of Age of Extinction.

Makes sense, and there seems to be nothing in the movies that contradicts this idea.

Or perhaps chronology doesn't have anything to do with it. Perhaps the Creators might have simply directly created knights to do their bidding as and when they needed knights, while the Allspark was more like a "mass-production" device to make TF's for menial grunt work.

Just speculation on my part, but the so-called Primes and knights might just be purpose-built Cybertronians that were placed above other Allspark-born Cybertronians as administrators, explorers and enforcers.

[Sabrblade]

Except that there does exist official canon material that depicts the original Seven Primes as having been created by the AllSpark. So if the Knights were made by the Creators, which came first? The Knights or the Primes?

Plus, there's also the question if the Knights even have any affiliation with Cybertron at all. Aside from Optimus, we know nothing of their history as far as where lived or what places they explored. For all we know, the Creators could have built the Knights in some place off of Cybertron, maybe even aboard their own vessels (there sure were a lot of them at the beginning of this movie). So now the question is how Optimus came to even be on Cybertron if he wasn't already born there.

Ugh, why did they have to bring it this Creators thing to make everything so confusing?