Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

That's right.

I've read lot of Youtube comments saying "there can be no transformers without Micheal Bay", "Micheal Bay's TF is better than this ****"(referring to G1), and those comments saying how awesome Micheal Bay's TF movies are.

So I dare people that say those things to say this..

Micheal Bay's Transformers is the best even WITHOUT ILM!

I look back throughout the whole Bayverse. I have seen people watching ROTF 8 times in a week. With a huge smile in their face. I asked them why do you watched it that much? Did you like the romance between Sam and Mikaela? Did you like watching agent Simmons antics?

"Of course not! I came here for the awesome robots, the cool fight scenes and awesome transformations!"

"Optimus's fight scene is the best!"

"The CGI is awesome, that's why only Micheal Bay can do Transformers"

Based on these statements, what are these people praising about Bayverse TF? The comedy? The The sexual references? Sam's constant screaming?

No, they are praising towards ILM's awesome CGI efforts.

I know there are a LOT of people out there that loved Bayverse, but I dare to say without ILM, they won't even have another look at it. It was not Bay that brought the TF fans, it was ILM's CGI.

So, let it be Bay, James Cameroon, Guillermo Del Toro or even Christopher Nolan, it doesn't really matter, coz we like the movie bcoz of the CGI.

People said there can be no Spiderman without Tobey, but recently these same people said "Andrew Garfield FTW!"

I remember ILM sending a thank you card to Micheal Bay for having them involved in TF. Well, to me, Bay is the one who should send them a thank you card.

Don't be restricted with only Micheal Bay. He didn't do the CGI's that you loved watching. He's a good director. But it was not his directing that brought us to the cinemas right?
It was the CGI, it was bcoz of Transformers. Give other directors a shot, and maybe they'll impress us.

So, can you truly say Micheal Bay's TF is the best even without ILM?

... this is going to be one of those fun headache filled threads I just know it.

Oh and ...

People said there can be no Spiderman without Tobey, but recently these same people said "Andrew Garfield FTW!"

I sure wasn't one of them. Did not like the new Spidey movie one bit.

Burn wrote:... this is going to be one of those fun headache filled threads I just know it.

Making you earn your keep for a change?

Anyway, I did see all TF movies multiple times in theaters, and I went for the robots and the action, which means I went for the CG. So without it, the movies would have been non-existent. Bay himself said so in the commentary for the first film. The story and the concept of shape-changing mechanoids had to wait for technology to catch up, or rather, evolve to the point where it can be used to accurately portray the movements and likenesses of the Transformers.

Oh and ...

People said there can be no Spiderman without Tobey, but recently these same people said "Andrew Garfield FTW!"

I sure wasn't one of them. Did not like the new Spidey movie one bit.

Tobey Maguire was the worst thing about the Spider-man Trilogy. Not only can he not act worth a damn, he didn't even look like Peter Parker. James Franco would have made a better Peter. Andrew Garfield did well enough, even if the story could have been better. I prefer the new Spider-Man over the "old" one. I did like Spidey 2 very much, because Doc Oc is my favorite villain. They did pretty good with him, but it had nothing to do with Maguire. That guy sucks.

Yeah- but who directed those awesome robot fight-scenes? Har. Har. Har.

I'm no fan of Bay's, but to his credit (or discredit, for those who hate the movieverse look), he was very particular in the design of the robots and insisted in making them as complex as possible, to replicate the intricate muscle groups of organic beings. This is to make them more realistic as naturally evolved alien beings.

He felt the traditional simplistic and blocky designs made them look man-made and wanted the TF's to look more like they naturally evolved from a mechanical planet.

Also, the early concept art that some of the designers came up with were hideous, and he insisted in a complete overhaul.

Whatever I might feel about his stupid jokes, military worship and haphazard editing, he did good in his participation in the designing process and choreographing the CGI fight scenes.

I loved the first one. The second one was the worst kind of crap I've ever seen. The third was better than the second, but still a turd.

The robots were awesome. The action great. But is it too much to ask for a good plot and believable human characters? The Transformers fans of the 80s are now grown ups, surely we've evolved beyond fart jokes and under the table racism.

I'll be here all night if I start ranting about what was wrong with ROTF and DSOTM.

Transformers can exist beyond Bay. [and perhaps they could hire real actresses instead of undies models]

Just Negare wrote:I loved the first one. The second one was the worst kind of crap I've ever seen. The third was better than the second, but still a turd.

The robots were awesome. The action great. But is it too much to ask for a good plot and believable human characters? The Transformers fans of the 80s are now grown ups, surely we've evolved beyond fart jokes and under the table racism.

I'll be here all night if I start ranting about what was wrong with ROTF and DSOTM.

Transformers can exist beyond Bay. [and perhaps they could hire real actresses instead of undies models]

Preach on my sister!

I agree with some of this. You can tell by watching ILM's behind-the-scenes and such that they come up with a lot of we like: The movements, choreography, etc. Also, I doubt Digital Domain or any other company could've pulled off things like Devastator (yes, I'm aware DD also works on the films). They definitely don't get enough credit for how innovative they have to be to pull off some of these shots, and the animators are quite talented to make you believe that the TFS are alive and moving.

You do have to give Bay some credit though, as a director he decides whether he wants BB to just tumble over on the freeway at normal speed, with the camera 100 feet in the air, or if he wants an epic slow-motion shot of BB flipping over with Sam, with the camera right under them. Same goes for cool stylistic choices like Bonecrusher's transformation, Optimus falling from the plane, and of course some not-so-good choices, like the shaky cam action and such.

Both Bay and ILM deserve credit. ILM and other CG companies are amazing for producing the things we see, but they wouldn't have the opportunity to make them if some director (and producers, writers, concept artists, etc) didn't tell them to make it.

Also, I must mention that Cristopher Nolan SHOULD get most of the credit for his films. Those films wouldn't be nearly as good if not for his refusal to use a lot of CGI (see: The Making of Inception).

Just Negare wrote:I loved the first one. The second one was the worst kind of crap I've ever seen. The third was better than the second, but still a turd.

I disagree with that order. I thought DoTM had the best story, along with the most bot action and cast, followed by the 1st film story-wise, then finally RoTF, with **** story, awesome fight scenes, and wasted opportunities and CG time.

zwann wrote:That's right.

I've read lot of Youtube comments saying "there can be no transformers without Micheal Bay", "Micheal Bay's TF is better than this ****"(referring to G1), and those comments saying how awesome Micheal Bay's TF movies are.

So I dare people that say those things to say this..

Micheal Bay's Transformers is the best even WITHOUT ILM!

I look back throughout the whole Bayverse. I have seen people watching ROTF 8 times in a week. With a huge smile in their face. I asked them why do you watched it that much? Did you like the romance between Sam and Mikaela? Did you like watching agent Simmons antics?

"Of course not! I came here for the awesome robots, the cool fight scenes and awesome transformations!"

"Optimus's fight scene is the best!"

"The CGI is awesome, that's why only Micheal Bay can do Transformers"

Based on these statements, what are these people praising about Bayverse TF? The comedy? The The sexual references? Sam's constant screaming?

No, they are praising towards ILM's awesome CGI efforts.

I know there are a LOT of people out there that loved Bayverse, but I dare to say without ILM, they won't even have another look at it. It was not Bay that brought the TF fans, it was ILM's CGI.

So, let it be Bay, James Cameroon, Guillermo Del Toro or even Christopher Nolan, it doesn't really matter, coz we like the movie bcoz of the CGI.

People said there can be no Spiderman without Tobey, but recently these same people said "Andrew Garfield FTW!"

I remember ILM sending a thank you card to Micheal Bay for having them involved in TF. Well, to me, Bay is the one who should send them a thank you card.

Don't be restricted with only Micheal Bay. He didn't do the CGI's that you loved watching. He's a good director. But it was not his directing that brought us to the cinemas right?
It was the CGI, it was bcoz of Transformers. Give other directors a shot, and maybe they'll impress us.

So, can you truly say Micheal Bay's TF is the best even without ILM?

Here, let me paraphrase your entire post into a simple statement:

Forget the chef who put your meal together. The people who harvested the vegetables and raised the cattle deserve all the credit. Anyone could have made that meal, so the chef isn't worthy of praise

Your argument is, for lack of a better term, objectively wrong. I won't even say more since that would be giving it credit.