Transformers and More @ The Seibertron Store
Details subject to change. See listing for latest price and availability.
Sabrblade wrote:I didn't say that (if it was implied, though, that was never my intention). I meant that new fans could use the films as a jumping on point for them to get into the brand and potentially seek out more beyond the films, not that they must immediately jump ship to drown out the films with other TF works.Capt.Failure wrote:Sabrblade wrote:Yet, my first post in this thread spoke in defense of the movies for their success.Capt.Failure wrote:It's nice to see the rabid, drooling fanboys get mad because other people enjoy something they hate. Your tears fuel me.
I'm aware. However, further remarks about the films including the belief that new fans should immediately disregard or be forced to change their opinions are ill informed and uncalled for. If new fans love the films, then so be it. Harboring the belief they need to be "steered the right way" is wrong.
I don't hate the films, and I appreciate the positives that they have done for the brand. I just don't find them to be the best representations of the Transformers. If others like them, very well.
But, answer me this honestly. The fight/chase/action scenes, the explosions, the eye candy, the etc. can all be considered the icing on the cake, right? Well, take away the icing, leaving only just the cake, and what all is left of the films to consist of the cake?
I've one other question after this, but it depends on what this answer to this is.
Sabrblade wrote:That's kind of a bold statement to make since, well, what exactly is the definition of "a real Transformers experience" (if there even is one)?Xephon0930 wrote:But fans can't get a real Transformers experience with the films as they are now.
Oh, I don't think ALL other works are better. I'd think at least the first movie had more coherent a dialogue script than either Armada or Energon's cartoons (note that I'm only speaking of the dialogue scripts). Though, there's little that can be considered worse than Energon's cartoon in general.Capt.Failure wrote:I see, well thanks for better explaining your viewpoint. I disagree that the films are shallow compared to the rest of Transformers but I can respect your opinion.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:Also, still waiting on the question's answer.
Sabrblade wrote:Oh, I don't think ALL other works are better. I'd think at least the first movie had more coherent a dialogue script than either Armada or Energon's cartoons (note that I'm only speaking of the dialogue scripts). Though, there's little that can be considered worse than Energon's cartoon in general.Capt.Failure wrote:I see, well thanks for better explaining your viewpoint. I disagree that the films are shallow compared to the rest of Transformers but I can respect your opinion.![]()
Also, still waiting on the question's answer.
But, answer me this honestly. The fight/chase/action scenes, the explosions, the eye candy, the etc. can all be considered the icing on the cake, right? Well, take away the icing, leaving only just the cake, and what all is left of the films to consist of the cake?
MINDVVIPE wrote:The cake is a lie.
Sabrblade wrote:The difference between continuing the movie continuity and continuing the G1 continuity is that the former is still fairly recent and the most mainstream thing with Transformers of today, while the latter is over two decades old and more niche with today's audiences. "Currently mainstream" is more appealing for good business than "currently niche" is.inspider wrote:I'm pretty neutral about the films right now, I don't tend to get too bent out of shape when it comes to them but...
I just find it kind of interesting that Hasbro won't consider revamping G1 because they want to continue moving forward with the franchise (which I think in a lot of ways makes sense no matter how sad it makes me). It doesn't really make sense to me, at least in regards to their feelings about moving ahead with Transformers instead of dwelling on older continuities, that they would make another trilogy. Especially since it won't be a real departure from what has already been done.
Shall I say it's a little hypocritical, or is that too harsh?
Anyway, I suppose it is simply the nature of the beast.
MINDVVIPE wrote:Might not be funny, but definitely apt.
GI Joe was better than all 3 TF movies combined.
MINDVVIPE wrote:Might not be funny, but definitely apt.
GI Joe was better than all 3 TF movies combined.
Even with the action scenes eliminated as I asked?Capt.Failure wrote:Oh, I missed that. Well, not sure how you'll react but I'll be 100% honest:
Take that away and you're left with a trio of pretty good action adventures.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:Even with the action scenes eliminated as I asked?Capt.Failure wrote:Oh, I missed that. Well, not sure how you'll react but I'll be 100% honest:
Take that away and you're left with a trio of pretty good action adventures.
RAcast wrote:MINDVVIPE wrote:Might not be funny, but definitely apt.
GI Joe was better than all 3 TF movies combined.
You mean the new one? Is it actually not bombing like the last few in the box offices?
MINDVVIPE wrote:RAcast wrote:MINDVVIPE wrote:Might not be funny, but definitely apt.
GI Joe was better than all 3 TF movies combined.
You mean the new one? Is it actually not bombing like the last few in the box offices?
Meh, box office sales don't mean anything to me. Movie quality does, and GI Joe has TF movies beat. Whats there to discuss? None of us are really going to change our views with this ongoing thread. We just shoot the ****, voice our opinions, whatever. You guys are taking me way too seriously. Thats my Job.
I honestly won't have my opinion changed about Mark Wahlberg just because he stars in a crappy movie. He is just an actor in movies that, ideally, I like. Hes better than Shia, sure. But this is a Transformers movie, made by Bay, so I will never get my satisfying Transformer interactions like I do in the comics, and so Mark would probably just be annother interuption from the ongoing Transformers action.
Capt.Failure wrote:Right...ignoring you now.
Capt.Failure wrote:MINDVVIPE wrote:RAcast wrote:MINDVVIPE wrote:Might not be funny, but definitely apt.
GI Joe was better than all 3 TF movies combined.
You mean the new one? Is it actually not bombing like the last few in the box offices?
Meh, box office sales don't mean anything to me. Movie quality does, and GI Joe has TF movies beat. Whats there to discuss? None of us are really going to change our views with this ongoing thread. We just shoot the ****, voice our opinions, whatever. You guys are taking me way too seriously. Thats my Job.
I honestly won't have my opinion changed about Mark Wahlberg just because he stars in a crappy movie. He is just an actor in movies that, ideally, I like. Hes better than Shia, sure. But this is a Transformers movie, made by Bay, so I will never get my satisfying Transformer interactions like I do in the comics, and so Mark would probably just be annother interuption from the ongoing Transformers action.
So we're back to, "I don't like it, so shut up!"
Right...ignoring you now.
Which is why my question was a hypothetical one, not grounded in the realm of realistic belief.Capt.Failure wrote:Sabrblade wrote:Even with the action scenes eliminated as I asked?Capt.Failure wrote:Oh, I missed that. Well, not sure how you'll react but I'll be 100% honest:
Take that away and you're left with a trio of pretty good action adventures.
You won't like the answer to that aspect of your question, but the answer is that isn't happening. You may as well ask for the romance scenes in Titanic to be removed, or for the body horror scenes in The Thing to be removed. It is quite simply and unreasonable request to ask for the core aspect of a genre film to be gutted in some misguided attempt to show the film is weak. Loaded questions don't belong in discussion or discourse.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:Which is why my question was a hypothetical one, not grounded in the realm of realistic belief.Capt.Failure wrote:Sabrblade wrote:Even with the action scenes eliminated as I asked?Capt.Failure wrote:Oh, I missed that. Well, not sure how you'll react but I'll be 100% honest:
Take that away and you're left with a trio of pretty good action adventures.
You won't like the answer to that aspect of your question, but the answer is that isn't happening. You may as well ask for the romance scenes in Titanic to be removed, or for the body horror scenes in The Thing to be removed. It is quite simply and unreasonable request to ask for the core aspect of a genre film to be gutted in some misguided attempt to show the film is weak. Loaded questions don't belong in discussion or discourse.
"No action scenes" =/= "devoid of any action or activity at all". By "action scenes" I mean the fast-paced, fighting, chasing, running, jumping, yelling, screaming, blood-pumping, adrenaline-rushing, risk-taking, death-defying, daredevil scenes. The stuff that's there to arouse raw excitement that typical popcorn flicks are (in)famous for.Capt.Failure wrote:Then there's no point to the question at all. You could ask it of any film in any genre, ask for that genre's core aspect to be removed, and you'd get the same answer: a movie where nothing happens because what drives the plot is gone.
I don't really see where you're trying to go with this.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:"No action scenes" =/= "devoid of any action or activity at all". By "action scenes" I mean the fast-paced, fighting, chasing, running, jumping, yelling, screaming, blood-pumping, adrenaline-rushing, risk-taking, death-defying, daredevil scenes. The stuff that's there to arouse raw excitement that typical popcorn flicks are (in)famous for.Capt.Failure wrote:Then there's no point to the question at all. You could ask it of any film in any genre, ask for that genre's core aspect to be removed, and you'd get the same answer: a movie where nothing happens because what drives the plot is gone.
I don't really see where you're trying to go with this.
Burn wrote:I do so love being ignored.
griftimus prime wrote:this mtv dude must really get paid a lot to say all of this hero praise bs about bay
Return to Transformers Live Action Film Forum
Registered users: Bing [Bot], blokefish, Crosswise93, Glyph, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Grahf_, Ig89ninja, Maikeruu, MSN [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]