Roberto Orci wrote:Autobotcity wrote:No mass shifting, but scanning and becoming a truck in 5 seconds is so much better.
Oh how I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. Evening. I meant evening. ¬_¬'
Who wants to be the first to make up excuses and come up with sci-fi explanations! Come on, bring on those nanobots and self chaning metal parts that don't need any forging, welding or anything silly like that!
(Please apply it to vocalisers too!)
Me thinks the first of many plotholes is in. Btw, who needs Wheeljack or Ratchet if everyone can reconstruct themselves in under a second? Oh... Everything but useful stuff.
I wonder how many missiles like that Ironhide packs.
I'll be the first. They're called TRANSFORMERS, not MASS SHIFTERS. Therefore, they're really good at TRANSFORMING and not so good at MASS SHIFTING.
Morning. (Now it is
)
Yes, of course they're good at transforming, into the mode they have. Doesn't mean they're good at doing so into alternate modes they don't have been engineered for.
Because how are you going to explain 'war wounds' if they can change their own design to fit anything in 5 seconds? Means they can regenerate or reconfigure any other parts in the same timeframe as well.
As you're portraying them all like super-engineers that can morph (!) all their parts into new parts without an external force applied. To be honest, these designs are so complex, an intelligence rating below 10 is not optional, it's a requirement. Unless you'd think someone with Hulk or Thing level mental capacities can reformat themselves this way with no problems... Sure they could be programmed for it, but if they can be programmed for that, they can be programmed for anything at once. Medic, engineer, handyman, baker, barber, infiltration, bladibladibla. Individually, they'd all have the same skills, because there's no reason not to have them if you work alone as you suggest Bumblebee has been doing for x years.
But anyway, where does the rubber for the tires come from if you just landed in a metal spaceship? It's all exactly enough material? Where... Oh never mind, it's not like you'd listen to an engineer.
By the way, where do they regroup by the way? Spike's backyard in the dog shed? Where's their command base? How do they communicate over long distances? They morph themselves into satellite dishes? But can transmit through solid bedrock as there's no orbital satellites they can use? (again with the morphage).
Sorry, I'm not really impressed, at all.
I'm highly doubting the 'realism' factor of this movie.
I still wonder how you're going to have Scorponok tiptoe around lose sand on knives... last I checked I couldn't balance 12 tons of robot on 6 points.
Did you know that you don't design for example an aircraft floor for elephant weight? Yes they could carry an elephant. But there are worse loads: females with high heels. It's all about force concentration and weight distribution... That Scorponok can't distribute its weight, not on a metal sheet, but DEFINITELY not on lose sand... Maybe check Scorpion feet next time you lot have a robotic scorpion designed.
In any case, avoidable plotholes. Should have used that big ass spaceship you thought was silly to be driven by 'vehicles'. Last I checked audiences LOVE space travel and space fights though. Besides, who are better suited for space travel (which takes a long time!) than robots? Want to visually impress? Get a spaceship (usefull for ANY function!) the size of a small town in. But that's too late now, I know.
Sorry, but this plot is going to be worse than most of the other Transformer shows, and there's been pretty bad plots before. I give it a rough "Carnage in C-Minor" rating. Nothing personal, just an observation from an engineering pov. I somehow know you prolly won't listen and take any of these crits into account for a next movie though... :/
By the way, made some polls on non-TF boards showing a revision of the movie Megs and Prime. 65% of the general audience prefered
MY adapted version, with a more classical look. 20% thought both versions looked bad (equally good) the remaining 15% voted pro-movie design because he didn't care either way and the one they got was 'good enough'. The commenters usually didn't care either way, especially as it was 'too late' and the debate was old (apparently the debate lived outside of the fandom for a long time as well). In one of the other poll, the movie designs got 0% votage, only equally good and equally bad.
On TF forums, EVERY fan liked the classical designs (I wonder why?
), and again the fast majority that responded would have prefered them, overall, about 80% in favour, 10% didn't care either way cause they liked both and 10% favoured the alien design.
What do you mean, homages not being possible because it'd be silly? :/ It's not asking for a cartoon or old toy design (as you and a lot of fans seem to think), it's asking for being more traditional in appearance, characters being instantly recognisable. But that's something movie people can't do. I guess it's a handicap. No movie person has ever been able to accept that sticking to something that's very popular, popular enough to make a movie about it, could work without a total rewrite of the concept. No without a love story. Sorry, but that's so shortsighted. You won't be attracting people to this movie for Spike's love story...
Who in this thread commented on the chick?
Nobody.
Who commented on the explosions and big ass robots? Virtually everyone. So why make it revolve around a love story? What does it add to a plot about intergalactic warfare?
It'll be a reasonable actionflick of course. I mean it has explosions and chases and robots, that's enough to draw in a crowd. But you're not making an epic movie or something groundbreaking. Instead you rely on really old cliché plots, even make it revolve around the mysticism of the Allspark in a sci-fi war movie. You think the audience will care for the Allspark and not laugh at its concept?
You're focussing on the wrong elements. You could have been original and have focussed the plot on the alien side of the story. Make it huge and have an army of robots on each side, not something squad sized. Show the bigger picture. How they arrive on Earth, how they perceive humans, how they explore the Earth, how they set up a base of operations, what their command structure is like, their thoughts and ideas etc. But you don't. On the contrary, this movie seems to be around wandering loner robots that occasionally fight hostile wandering robots. There's no structure. Certainly no sense of big scale war. A fued at most. It's like having ant eaters walk around an ant nest. Sure it may be war to the ants, but hardly a war between ant eaters, but more as if a few ant eaters would squable over their food.
It's small scale. Imagine what you could have done with hundreds of slightly less complex robots. You could have given each a speciality, make them interact more than you can do with just a few on each side. Make the altmodes depend less on chance but on personal preference through a selection and a rebuilt rather than scanning the first thing that comes along and cheap self-adaption... So much more you could have done with these concepts.
Sorry, but you lot made this into a lower quality movie by underestimating the possibilities and limiting yourself. Could have been a near Star Wars sized warfare plot that happened to make Earth their battleground. Independence Day and War of the Worlds were invasions. You go for the SEAL team expedition thing. But SEAL teams don't normally send in the commanders in chief... Basically you're sending G.W. Bush on a mission to retrieve WMDs from Iraq, where the whole enemy is Saddam Hussein and his 8 chiefs of staff, as they pillage the lands to scramble for that nuke.
You want to be original? Have them bring their armies and do an Alexander, Spartacus or Gladiator type warfare: leaders of
armies, not squads, that actually do front line battle themselves. Maybe then you can talk about "Their War, Our World".
PS: Most people here commenting on how good it is, are just impressed by visuals of giant robots, it's new. They're usualy not in any state to provide critique as the drool is still coming out of their mouths and the pants are still wetting themselves.
No offense guys, but the majority of people here would not critique after being blown away by visual action scenes. There's plenty to critique. And critique does make things better.
PS2: What did I like? Tough question. The CGI is of course in itself pretty good. I don't expect anything else from ILM, they're professionals afterall. They would have done the same quality with any other robot format though. The camera angles are okay, but Bay can do that, never questioned that. But Macross Zero impressed me much more in those respects.
