The Energon Pub

wingdarkness wrote:That’s the whole thing, there we no TF’s like Frenzy I can remember (Especially in design)…

So what? Is it so horrible to have a character type that hasn't been tried before?

Shadowman wrote:

wingdarkness wrote:That’s the whole thing, there we no TF’s like Frenzy I can remember (Especially in design)…

So what? Is it so horrible to have a character type that hasn't been tried before?

Nothing's horrible unless it's horrible...I have no problem with new stuff being tried IF it works...To me IT didn't work...By letting him TF into anything (short of a bassmasters' fishing pole I'd suspect)...You made him plothax...Plus he's fugly as fug...

wingdarkness wrote:By letting him TF into anything (short of a bassmasters' fishing pole I'd suspect)...You made him plothax...

None of that made any sense at all.

Shadowman wrote:

wingdarkness wrote:By letting him TF into anything (short of a bassmasters' fishing pole I'd suspect)...You made him plothax...

None of that made any sense at all.

Jesus Skywalker...[non clever interweb talk] By letting the smallish Decepticon Frenzy transform into seemingly anything it gave him an ability to cut through the plot for convenience...Since he easily turned into items within his vicinity, there's probably many more items he could have easily become in theory, which is something quite foreign to the TF franchise (obscure references in some aspect of the lore notwithstanding)...In short the little, fugly bastard with no soul could probably turn into a bassmasters' fishing pole if it was the only thing in the room, and that's part of the reason he sucked to me...[/non clever interweb talk]

But if you want me to be even more simple than that, he was fugly and dumb with plothax...Didn't impress me...Ok?

Okay, I see. let me break it down for you: Since mass shifting isn't allowed in the movies (Or at least only allowed in small doses) a TF can only transform into something of similar size, which is why everyone didn't just format themselves into tanks or jets. Bumblebee reformatted himself just for the sake of it. Likewise, Frenzy didn't just "turn into anything" he reformatted himself into a smaller form so he could keep close to his target. As for 'plot hax' or whatever that means, someone had to give the location of the AllSpark away and free Megatron.

I always hate critics, who knows what their paid to say. If a movie looks good to you see it, if not deal with it. I tried hard to go into the theater excited and just enjoy the movie,at the end it was a great movie, but now much to rewatch.

Magnus_Rex wrote:Transforming robots with feelings don't make sense and is not realistic.

What would make transforming robots more realistic?

GetterDragun wrote:

Magnus_Rex wrote:Transforming robots with feelings don't make sense and is not realistic.

What would make transforming robots more realistic?

I think you confused my comment. I wasn't commenting on how realistic they are or how can you make them more realistic. They did an awesome job of pulling that off. What I was saying is that I didn't like what Michael Bay said during production of the first movie. That the Transformers having human looking features didn't make sense because they're aliens, and that was part of his excuse for radically changing their designs. Transforming robots aren't realistic, but it's your job as a filmaker to suspend the audiences belief. Which was done. If you can make be believe that a vehicle can transform into a robot, and that that robot also has human like feelings, then you can also make me believe that robot has human like features.

Check out my movie review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009). It also has comments about Roger Ebert.

Magnus_Rex wrote:

GetterDragun wrote:

Magnus_Rex wrote:Transforming robots with feelings don't make sense and is not realistic.

What would make transforming robots more realistic?

I think you confused my comment. I wasn't commenting on how realistic they are or how can you make them more realistic. They did an awesome job of pulling that off. What I was saying is that I didn't like what Michael Bay said during production of the first movie. That the Transformers having human looking features didn't make sense because they're aliens, and that was part of his excuse for radically changing their designs. Transforming robots aren't realistic, but it's your job as a filmaker to suspend the audiences belief. Which was done. If you can make be believe that a vehicle can transform into a robot, and that that robot also has human like feelings, then you can also make me believe that robot has human like features.

I didn't confuse your comment at all. How do you know what features an alien race would have that would make them more realistic? I think Bays interpretation really was the best way to portray them. I mean in reality they could have transformed into a pile of metal with a bunch of metal appendage, but who'd want to see that?

Mike Bay.......is the next Salvador Dali!!!! Woohoo!

who gives a crap what he thinks. He's not the be all end all of movie critics. Your most favorite movie in the world could be a movie he saw and gave 1 star.

Sorry for resurrecting this but I couldn't help responding to what Roger Ebert said. After reading a lot of replies in this thread, I can tell a lot of you didn't actually read Roger's whole article or didn't read it very closely. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and it's perfectly ok for someone to think differently. The problem that bothered me the most is that Roger Ebert said it's NOT a matter of opinion, but an actual fact that the movie is horrible. A lot of you keep saying he's entitled to his opinion but you missed that entire part of his article.

I also take serious offense to the part where he said you're not evolved if you think the movie was good or great. He basically says that if you liked the movie at all, you're a Neanderthal and are not capable of determining the quality of a movie. I really used to respect this guy but after reading this pile of garbage, I completely lost respect for him. Seriously, who the hell does he think he is? He spends half the article talking about being educated and education being a valueable thing. I don't care how "educated" he is. I'm educated as well and I am perfectly capable of deciding if a movie I watch is good or not. If he is so "educated", why can't he understand why people like this movie? It seems pretty ignorant to say some of the things he said in that article. He even tries to sell us that he's not full of himself but in the same article he says the quality of a movie is not a matter of opinion, but fact, which only he is capable of deciding apparently. That to me shows he is completely full of himself.

my sentiments exactly. He acts like there's no movies worse than ROTF - which is not true.