The Energon Pub

Sabrblade wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

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.

Yet, my first post in this thread spoke in defense of the movies for their success.

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 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.

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.

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.

Sabrblade wrote:

Xephon0930 wrote:But fans can't get a real Transformers experience with the films as they are now.

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)?

A true Transformers experience is one you enjoy. That's as simple as you can put it.

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.

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.

Also, still waiting on the question's answer.

Sabrblade wrote:Also, still waiting on the question's answer.

The cake is a lie.

Sabrblade wrote:

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.

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.

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?

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. The films are overall pretty well plotted overall(RotF less so but I blame the writer's strike for that, same as other films that year) and it makes for an entertaining story. The best I've seen? Hardly. However they provide a solid framework for the action. I also like the central characters and agree some of the secondary bots could have been more developed. Ultimately it's just fun to see the characters I grew up with again in a big budget blockbuster.

MINDVVIPE wrote:The cake is a lie.

Remember when that meme was funny? Yeah, I don't either.

Might not be funny, but definitely apt.
GI Joe was better than all 3 TF movies combined.

Sabrblade wrote:

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.

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.

An excellent point.
Keeping with the current films definitely exposes a whole new group of viewers to Transformers which is ultimately better for business and the franchise as a whole.
It is undeniable that the current stuff acts as a good introduction for many into the wider Transformer world.

MINDVVIPE wrote:Might not be funny, but definitely apt.
GI Joe was better than all 3 TF movies combined.

Would it actually hurt that much to discuss things with people rather than make your constant, "That's wrong, stop being wrong!" assertions?

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?

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.

Even with the action scenes eliminated as I asked?

Sabrblade wrote:

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.

Even with the action scenes eliminated as I asked?

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.

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.

To answer Sabrblades question. A movie needs story. The whole point of a movie is story. If the story is weak, (come on, try and defend that) it is a weak movie. A story is the integral part, and part of the "cake". The icing is nothing without the cake, and shouldn't be for ticket buyers.

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.

Capt.Failure wrote:Right...ignoring you now.

Hey, you're just a pretender, you shutup. j/k

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.

I don't think he meant it that way. I certainly didn't read it that way. And I totally understand ya MINDVIPE, but then I don't really care about GI Joe, so I don't have any interest in it. I'll just say what I said earlier. They're Michael Bay films, so you know what you're getting. It's good fun, so if you go see it, enjoy it! (the following sentence isn't directed at anyone, just a general thought) But don't whine and complain when you don't get a complex plot. The Transformers movies have all been very fun and enjoyable, if not deep.

Capt.Failure wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

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.

Even with the action scenes eliminated as I asked?

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.

Which is why my question was a hypothetical one, not grounded in the realm of realistic belief.

Sabrblade wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

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.

Even with the action scenes eliminated as I asked?

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.

Which is why my question was a hypothetical one, not grounded in the realm of realistic belief.

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.

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.

"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.

Hi guys!

Let's try something different and get the thread back on topic and NOT debate the pros and cons of the last three movies and whether Michael Bay movies are good or not, 'cause you know, there's a few hundred other threads that haven't already been ruined by that discussion.

A bit of a late reply but to be honest,I can't tell other people what a "True Transformers Experience" is. That is something you'll make for yourself but I do believe basing your entire experience based on one continuity whether negative or otherwise,well it does hamper the experience.

TBH,if I were a parent,I wouldn't want my kids to watch the Bay films moreover that there are some very inappropriate moments that would make me take my hypothetical kid out of the theater and then demanding the same theater to get my money back.

Sabrblade wrote:

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.

"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.

I would ask the necessity of removing it. Are you trying to say there's nothing outside the action scenes? I would definitely drop the BS flag on that declaration since the majority of plot of each film is driven by non-action sequences and character interaction. Sure there's large scale action scenes, but that's hardly the only thing in each film.

I do so love being ignored.

Burn wrote:I do so love being ignored.

Heh, sorry Burn. I had that response written up for awhile but didn't post it until after your response.

this mtv dude must really get paid a lot to say all of this hero praise bs about bay

griftimus prime wrote:this mtv dude must really get paid a lot to say all of this hero praise bs about bay

Or maybe he's a fan? Is it really that hard to believe that people like Bay's movies? You don't earn a billion or more dollars per film because the moviegoing public hates you.

inb4 "IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!" or "The moviegoing public are idiots!!!" and other tired, canned responses

Well if this means more merchandise then ok i guess.I just hope nobot dies after .-.