The Energon Pub

News Credits: 668 · by **Autobot032** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:19 pm

Blackout wrote:
Riotflea wrote:
Autobobby1 wrote:
Robinson wrote:
Riotflea wrote:If you were allergic to peanuts and someone tried to give you a peanut butter sandwich on the basis that by the time they were done working on it, it'd taste GREAT... it wouldn't matter how much jelly (extreme CGI), marshmallow topping (explosions) or high quality bread (a handful of tossed in tips of the hat to G1) were added... you'd STILL be in physical harm's way from the peanut butter itself (cheesy acting, ass designs, inadequate character airtime, cliche humor).

And then the food preparer would have the nuts to ask you to pay for it, just to see if you like it first?

And to make things more preposterous, you hear him working in the kitchen, telling someone, "LOL, I'm gonna' spit in it lol!" (Bay's G1 comments definitely jive on that one).

THat has got to be the most hair brained analogy I have ever read.

Ditto. It tried to make sense, but didn't. Even if you hated the movie, you weren't harmed, just annoyed. And let's face it, G1 sucked, and Michael Bay has the right to voice his opinion.

Carpal tunnel syndrome.

A wrist problem?

Well, it's possible, he *IS* being a jerk off...

News Credits: 5 · by **decepticonjon** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:27 pm

Robinson wrote:
Riotflea wrote:If you were allergic to peanuts and someone tried to give you a peanut butter sandwich on the basis that by the time they were done working on it, it'd taste GREAT... it wouldn't matter how much jelly (extreme CGI), marshmallow topping (explosions) or high quality bread (a handful of tossed in tips of the hat to G1) were added... you'd STILL be in physical harm's way from the peanut butter itself (cheesy acting, ass designs, inadequate character airtime, cliche humor).

And then the food preparer would have the nuts to ask you to pay for it, just to see if you like it first?

And to make things more preposterous, you hear him working in the kitchen, telling someone, "LOL, I'm gonna' spit in it lol!" (Bay's G1 comments definitely jive on that one).

THat has got to be the most hair brained analogy I have ever read.

it may be hairbrained, but i like it! *thumbs up*
that took more thought an effort than a 2 1/2 hour movie.. wowee zowee

by **Obi-Wan Kenobi** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:32 pm

Buttz wrote:I know it's the summer and movies don't stay at the top for very long during the summer, but Transformers has a lot of things going against it. First of all, the novelty has worn off. Everyone who wanted to go see giant robots fighting has already gone and done so. And let's face it, that turned out to be the only thing the movie has going for it. Which brings me to my second point: what keeps a movie afloat after its opening weekend is repeat viewings, and what keeps people coming back is having an emotional connection to the characters. Star Wars, Titanic, Lord of The Rings, all of these, despite being heavy on the effects, had characters with genuine human conflicts, passions, emotions, etc. Establishing a connection with the one-dimensional archetypes in Transformers is not possible. They are, at best, forgettable.

So we've seen the robots, and we don't care much for the humans. Then we have the luke-warm reviews. Which, had they been favorable, might have convinced the fence-sitters to go watch it, but will most likely encourage them to go watch a different summer action flick instead, like Die Hard. These reviews are also a reflection of the bad word of mouth this movie has been getting. While the average joe may not know or care what the critics are saying, his friends' opinion may be enough to sway him one way or the other.

And finally, and possibly worst of all, you have Harry Potter coming out next week. Aimed at roughly the same target audience, it will severely cut into Transformers' second week profits. I'm sorry to say this, but I seriously doubt Transformers will pass the $200 million mark domestically.

Ummm, you taking wagers. I'll take the over thank you.

by **Obi-Wan Kenobi** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:33 pm

Buttz wrote:I know it's the summer and movies don't stay at the top for very long during the summer, but Transformers has a lot of things going against it. First of all, the novelty has worn off. Everyone who wanted to go see giant robots fighting has already gone and done so. And let's face it, that turned out to be the only thing the movie has going for it. Which brings me to my second point: what keeps a movie afloat after its opening weekend is repeat viewings, and what keeps people coming back is having an emotional connection to the characters. Star Wars, Titanic, Lord of The Rings, all of these, despite being heavy on the effects, had characters with genuine human conflicts, passions, emotions, etc. Establishing a connection with the one-dimensional archetypes in Transformers is not possible. They are, at best, forgettable.

So we've seen the robots, and we don't care much for the humans. Then we have the luke-warm reviews. Which, had they been favorable, might have convinced the fence-sitters to go watch it, but will most likely encourage them to go watch a different summer action flick instead, like Die Hard. These reviews are also a reflection of the bad word of mouth this movie has been getting. While the average joe may not know or care what the critics are saying, his friends' opinion may be enough to sway him one way or the other.

And finally, and possibly worst of all, you have Harry Potter coming out next week. Aimed at roughly the same target audience, it will severely cut into Transformers' second week profits. I'm sorry to say this, but I seriously doubt Transformers will pass the $200 million mark domestically.

Ummm, you taking wagers. I'll take the over thank you.

News Credits: 11 · by **Robinson** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:39 pm

decepticonjon wrote:
Robinson wrote:
Riotflea wrote:If you were allergic to peanuts and someone tried to give you a peanut butter sandwich on the basis that by the time they were done working on it, it'd taste GREAT... it wouldn't matter how much jelly (extreme CGI), marshmallow topping (explosions) or high quality bread (a handful of tossed in tips of the hat to G1) were added... you'd STILL be in physical harm's way from the peanut butter itself (cheesy acting, ass designs, inadequate character airtime, cliche humor).

And then the food preparer would have the nuts to ask you to pay for it, just to see if you like it first?

And to make things more preposterous, you hear him working in the kitchen, telling someone, "LOL, I'm gonna' spit in it lol!" (Bay's G1 comments definitely jive on that one).

THat has got to be the most hair brained analogy I have ever read.

it may be hairbrained, but i like it! *thumbs up*
that took more thought an effort than a 2 1/2 hour movie.. wowee zowee

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, but of all the possible ways to dreate an analogy he chose peanut oil :shock:

by **Riotflea** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:53 pm

Autobot032 wrote:
Blackout wrote:
Riotflea wrote:
Carpal tunnel syndrome.

A wrist problem?

Well, it's possible, he *IS* being a jerk off...

(I swear, noone has a sense of humor...)
One has to get abstract and try new ways to say the same thing, for a few still don't seem to understand how one could not like this movie.

I don't know how else to convey that the script was bad, the acting was annoying, there was too much goofiness, too little robotness, too much shakey cam, plot holes, incoherent fighting, wretched designs, insulting stereotypes, repetitive potty humor, and way too little character developement.

People were taken in by giant robots, recognition of the word "Transformers", explosions, and as someone else said, WB humor.

So great, it's become something the whole family can enjoy, from grandma all the way down to little Billy.
It's now been packaged in such a way your mom and dad think it's "funny".

THIS is what Transformers fans have envisioned for years as being the pinnacle, shining moment that their favorite toy line, Transformers, was leading up to for decades?

And, with all intellectual honesty, are some of you truly able to say that the fans couldn't have been brought to tears of happiness while still being profitable to the mass market?
SERIOUSLY?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, but of all the possible ways to dreate an analogy he chose peanut oil Shocked

Be fair. Who doesn't know what peanut butter is?
Was it TRULY that confusing?
Did you really not understand it?

News Credits: 11 · by **Robinson** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:58 pm

Im not saying I didnt understand it. (you say we don't have a sense of humor). What I am saying is of all possible analogies to be used, the one you chose to run with was an allergy to peanut oil. :-?

by **Riotflea** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:02 pm

Blackout wrote:Fair enough, but I don't get the reference to a disorder of the wrist.

Secretaries and computer programmers get it... from typing too damn much. ;;)

Lol. Oh hell. G'night.

News Credits: 972 · by **i_amtrunks** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:28 pm

Most movies drop off in their 2nd week, especially when another big movie comnes out almost straight away. Harry Potter will take the #1 spot from Transfomers, but remember, it has had the 6 books, and 4 previous movies in which to garner fans, Transformers did not.

In 3 weeks time the Simpsons movie will blow Harry Potter away, and I would bet that Harry Potter has a bigger difference in Audience share in its 3rd week than transformers does.

And to be honest, the Transformers movie brought in alot of viewers, who wouldnt have watched it otherwise thanks to it's great final trailer, heavy advertising and word of mouth.

Harry Potter has not done any of this, the trailer is terrible, there has been no real advertising, and since none of the films are as good as the books, word of mouth is not so good either. Meaning that after all the fans of the books and previous movies have seen Harry Potter, thats it. Not like Transformers where friends and family go to see the film after being recommended, or people go and watch it multiple times.

by **Castle74** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:32 pm

I'm definetaly going to see it again. Heck, when "Harry Potter" comes out I'll go see it then too.
From the numbers this movie is putting out, it will make a sizable sum before Potter comes out.