The Energon Pub

As with most people here, I grew up with Transformers. I do like what Bay has done to the franchise. He has brought in a new crowd to see that these things are frickin awesome! The only thing I don't like about some of this is that he isn't bringing in some of the main characters from the show (i.e. Hot Rod, Prowl, Shockwave, etc.). That is my only complaint about them, other than that can't wait for ROTF!

As with most people here, I grew up with Transformers. I do like what Bay has done to the franchise. He has brought in a new crowd to see that these things are frickin awesome! The only thing I don't like about some of this is that he isn't bringing in some of the main characters from the show (i.e. Hot Rod, Prowl, Shockwave, etc.). That is my only complaint about them, other than that can't wait for ROTF!

Shadowman wrote:So how many heroic Decepticons have there been in the history of TFs?

I dont remember any, but I also dont remember any that didnt look they could also be an autobot if they had a few color changes and a new set of eyes.

Shadowman wrote: So...because kids can't draw them, that means terrible designs? Most schoolkids aren't exactly Picasso, (and that works on multiple levels) so I don't think kids inability to draw certain characters is a reflection of the characters' designs.

In my opinion, yes, especially since its being marketed to kids. Its not specifically kids drawings, its the ability to make something recognizable without making it too detailed. Ive seen MANY kids drawings of Batman, spiderman, superman etc.

Shadowman wrote: So your main problem is that the massive unexplained cube which has no known origin and can bring machines to life, can also change it's size as well as make additional parts on it's creations?.

Not my main problem, but one for sure, especially when the selling point of the movie was realism and the things the cube did were specifically described by the movie makers as "unrealistic". Again, I am not talking about the plot, I am talking about how the designers laughed off things like mass shifting and blocky robots as silly, then made the AllSpark mass shift and a block, when it could have been anything else.

Shadowman wrote: Energon Megatron, RID Megatron, and Movie Megatron, all have very similar jet modes, so you can't bash one without bashing all of them."

I was more referring to how the Fallen also becomes a Cybertronian Jet. For megatron, I never saw that form as being more famous than his gun or tank forms. I dont mind cybertronian jet, but when the main bad guy is a cybertronian jet twice in a row? Its not very creative.

Shadowman wrote: ..Its not a kids movie, I thought the guy getting impaled by the scorpion made that clear.

I thought the toy line, pee/masturbation jokes, Sector 7 as comic relief, etc made the opposite clear. BTW that guy was impaled for about two seconds and it wasnt very bloody. I dont really want to debate the movie though, to be honest. Just the designs. And if the designs were not for kids, that even less reason for them to look "X-treme" and more to look actually fearsome...like Alien, Terminator..y'know real looking and for adults.

shadowman wrote:1. The Fallen, if I recall, is supposed to have CGI fire covering him (Simon Furman's idea), and I'd be pretty intimidated by a massive alien robot coming at me while he's on fire.
2. Megatron is a monster. He killed his own planet because he didn't have as much power as he would have liked (He was already co-ruler), and intended to do the same to Earth.
3. Don't use toys as a way of saying designs are unrealistic.

Ok no toys, I do tend to go off OT. Megatron as a character is usually a mastermind, but ok, for Bay he may be a monster which is fine. But he looks like a monster literally. It is a little 2D for me. I always though bad guys that didnt look scary were the scariest. For example if he looked more like prime, but went around dispatching autobots like it aint no thing.

CGI fire covering a robot? I'm honestly not too familiar with the Fallen. But a robot on fire makes sense I guess, if its explained somehow...I can reserve judgement on that. All I know is the CGI Fallen I have seen doesnt look very strong or fearsome, so instead he'll just be really big, which is better! Right? Honestly, I was excited when I saw the teaser poster, and crinkled my nose when I saw the render. Why did they keep "hes on fire" part, but not the hes a "strong looking guy" part? I dont know.

Shadowman wrote:Yes, why did Michael Bay design robots the way he wanted to, and not the way the fans did? It's almost like he's trying to make a movie the way he wants to....

Its not so much "the way he wants to" as "the way that will make the most money and be totally different" which is what he seems to want and not "the way that will be remembered as a great update for those who grew up with it, and make the same impression on kids". I submit for criticism the movie versions of LOTR, Iron Man, and The Dark Knight. All respectful of source material. All updated. All pleasing most old school fans. All loved by children too.

Shadowman wrote:1. I'd show it to my kids one day

2. I can't even go twenty minutes into the original movie because it is so very ridiculous.

1. Ok.
2. thats fine, it was a childrens cartoon, but I was talking about the designs, not the story. Maybe its cause I was younger, but the visuals from the old movie inspired a lot more imagination in me than the new ones do, and I am being honest.

At any rate, Im not in charge of anything, and Im happy with what I have. I really just wanted some designs I could get behind and re fall in love with..like the Dreamwave starscream. I guess we'll just wait and see which stuff people are collecting, making masterpiece versions, and re-releasing in 20 years. I think Binaltech and Beastwars will make it. RID, Bayformers, I doubt. But thats for the toy forum

NewFoundStarscreamLuv wrote:CGI fire covering a robot? I'm honestly not too familiar with the Fallen. But a robot on fire makes sense I guess, if its explained somehow...I can reserve judgement on that. All I know is the CGI Fallen I have seen doesnt look very strong or fearsome, so instead he'll just be really big, which is better! Right? Honestly, I was excited when I saw the teaser poster, and crinkled my nose when I saw the render. Why did they keep "hes on fire" part, but not the hes a "strong looking guy" part? I dont know.

There's a screen cap going around (I think from one of the trailers) with the Fallen in it. He actually looks a lot less spindly from what I can tell.

And being skinny and being strong are not two separate things. For example, Bruce Lee.

[quote="NewFoundStarscreamLuv] In my opinion, yes, especially since its being marketed to kids. Its not specifically kids drawings, its the ability to make something recognizable without making it too detailed. Ive seen MANY kids drawings of Batman, spiderman, superman etc.[/quote]

I've seen many kids' drawings of eyeballs on fire and car crashes. And I've seen hundreds of drawings by little boys that are immensely detailed 'techno' drawings of like space ray guns and the like. Besides, they draw and what sparks their narrative imagination (what they make stories about) aren't necessarily the same.

I was more referring to how the Fallen also becomes a Cybertronian Jet. For megatron, I never saw that form as being more famous than his gun or tank forms. I dont mind cybertronian jet, but when the main bad guy is a cybertronian jet twice in a row? Its not very creative.

Weeeeeelll, I remember always being weirded out by Megatron in G1 becoming a gun that someone else fired. That seemed...really unleaderlike to be that dependent on someone else in non-robot mode. Besides, what car manufacturer would want to be *Megatron*? And we humans have always been impressed with that whole 'flouting gravity' thing called flight, so it kinda makes sense to make the superbaddies have flight capabilities--that makes them so much further out of reach than a, say, Pontiac, which I can see in my neighbor's yard. It also makes it harder for them to blend in, which can be a minus for them, but a statement of disdain for the 'filthy humans' and their pitiful stuff as well.



[/quote]
Ok no toys, I do tend to go off OT. Megatron as a character is usually a mastermind, but ok, for Bay he may be a monster which is fine. But he looks like a monster literally. It is a little 2D for me. I always though bad guys that didnt look scary were the scariest. For example if he looked more like prime, but went around dispatching autobots like it aint no thing.[/quote]

Think of the movie situation--he's been held prisoner and experimented on for how many years while in cryostasis which is apparently quite painful (Bumblebee seems unhappy when they try it on him). If you wake up outta that, you're gonna be crabby too. Might take a minute for the genius mastermind to throttle up. As to why he looks monstrous, if it is, as you argue, a kid's movie, the baddies SHOULD look like baddies. Now you say you want a Megatron that's like John Wayne Gacy? So kids figure, what? Pleasant looking and polite can mean sociopath?

[quote}
I really just wanted some designs I could get behind and re fall in love with..like the Dreamwave starscream. [/quote]

Ahhhh, I agree. Scrumptious, that dreamwave starscream.

I think the movie tried to do what Star Wars (the original) did--which was be able to have some appeal across demographics. (Compare with whatever Star Wars travesty that had that moron Jar Jar in it--that movie skewed way too obviously for the little folk). I saw Star Wars when I was seven, and I loved it. Could I draw the Millenium Falcon? No way! Did that stop me from making up my own Star Wars stories? No. And as an adult, I can still see and like that '77 movie release. It's hard to pull off that balance of having a little bit of something that entirely different sections of the population can enjoy. Maybe Bay didn't get an A on that, but he got a solid B at least!

HK, who has to go empanel her action figures about a student who wants her to change *his* grade so he can play baseball this season. What would Megatron do?

NewFoundStarscreamLuv wrote:
A) for beings involved in a civil war, that are supposedly characters, they are designed to be remarkably one dimensional. The bad guys look like monsters, the good guys look like knights. Its not subtle. Its like the old movies when the bad guys have moustaches and top hats. I have no reason to even like the decepticons at all. They move like animals and are look like they hate everything, rather than being a military faction that actually has some brains and a plan. In other words, they look like sci-fi channel level bad guys. The autobot style is what the decepticons should have looked like too.


C) ... Youd think war machines that transform would be more modular and armored and not so fluid and organic. I know they are alien. But they are not magic.

Very well said. I too was hoping the robot modes would be more armored, sturdy looking. Its as though they are vehicles that can now transform into robots (Innards exposed and all) and not the other way around ... Iron Hide comes to mind. In truth I was hoping they would have a more Gundam-like appearance ... solid, built for battle and just generally not give the impression that they will break if they fall.

Hi!
Why bayformers is a horrible movie and the second will probably be even worse: The autobots and decepticons are ancient super advanced shape shifting robots. Military masterminds who happens to believe that the best way to infiltrate an alien civilization is to shoot across the sky as flaming meteorites and crash land into densely populated areas. then sneak off and find some local machinery to scan and transform into. A bit late for stealth maybe?

Also the gmc product placement is horrible. the solstice, stingray, trax or whatever are not cool or great cars. They look like cheap knock offs from real supercars. Why is there a helicopter in almost every scene (even in the ROTF trailer)? And the music... same crap he used in "the rock" and "Armageddon".

the thing is; Bay has been making the same movie for years. He is a dinosaur who refuses to evolve. The action is great but the rest is just utter garbage.

mordi wrote:Hi!
Why bayformers is a horrible movie and the second will probably be even worse: The autobots and decepticons are ancient super advanced shape shifting robots. Military masterminds who happens to believe that the best way to infiltrate an alien civilization is to shoot across the sky as flaming meteorites and crash land into densely populated areas. then sneak off and find some local machinery to scan and transform into. A bit late for stealth maybe?

In G1, didn't they begin interacting with humans almost immediately? Even so, the disguises worked in both, right? Well, except for when someone knew what they were looking for.

mordi wrote:Also the gmc product placement is horrible. the solstice, stingray, trax or whatever are not cool or great cars. They look like cheap knock offs from real supercars.

The difference between the Solstice and "real" supercars is that the Soltice is actually real.

mordi wrote:Why is there a helicopter in almost every scene (even in the ROTF trailer)?

Because helicopters are better at low altitudes than jets, and typically have better maneuverability in cities.

mordi wrote:And the music... same crap he used in "the rock" and "Armageddon".

Not really. Same composer, different music.

mordi wrote:the thing is; Bay has been making the same movie for years. He is a dinosaur who refuses to evolve. The action is great but the rest is just utter garbage.

Transformers made over $700,000,000 dollars, (Off of a $150,000,000 budget) The Rock made over $300,000,000 ($75,000,000 budget) and Armageddon made over $500,000,000. ($140,000,000 budget) So I'd say that the "utter garbage" is good enough to make back the budget several times over.

Mr Shadowman, god of the transformers, I am well aware that Bay is a commercial successful director/producer, but his movies are not good. I could argue with you all day and night and get nowhere because you obviously like his movies (at some extent so do I). But there is a HUGE difference between movie quality and $$$ quantity. None of his super duper box office hits are anywhere near the imdb top 250. So I'd say if a good movie for you is one that makes a lot of money, then yes, you like "utter garbage". All though I realize the whole Transformers concept is not art for the sake of art but a way to sell toys, comics and tickets.

You also missed my point with the arrival of the transfomers on earth. Why do you think it worked out in the movie and in G1? It's still silly I think. It would probably be more believable if they crashed in the Mojave desert or in the ocean (not on a aircraft carrier with helicopters)

And yes, the Solstice is a cheap knock off and makes Jazz look like some pet spoiled girls get at their sweet 16. A new real supercar priced at $25000... I don't think so. And as for the helicopters. There is just no way of justifying the number of helicopter shots in a movie about a boy and his "car".

mordi wrote:Mr Shadowman, god of the transformers, I am well aware that Bay is a commercial successful director/producer, but his movies are not good. I could argue with you all day and night and get nowhere because you obviously like his movies (at some extent so do I). But there is a HUGE difference between movie quality and $$$ quantity. None of his super duper box office hits are anywhere near the imdb top 250. So I'd say if a good movie for you is one that makes a lot of money, then yes, you like "utter garbage". All though I realize the whole Transformers concept is not art for the sake of art but a way to sell toys, comics and tickets.

You also missed my point with the arrival of the transfomers on earth. Why do you think it worked out in the movie and in G1? It's still silly I think. It would probably be more believable if they crashed in the Mojave desert or in the ocean (not on a aircraft carrier with helicopters)

And yes, the Solstice is a cheap knock off and makes Jazz look like some pet spoiled girls get at their sweet 16. A new real supercar priced at $25000... I don't think so. And as for the helicopters. There is just no way of justifying the number of helicopter shots in a movie about a boy and his "car".

I think Shadowman is giving you logical reasons that may have influenced the decisions that were made in the production of the first film. Also, I don't think he is a fan of "utter garbage", but he is simply stating a fact of life that Michael Bay gets hired because he consistently makes money on the movies he directs. People have to make money, or there isn't going to be a movie to gripe about at all. The bottom line really is money.
The fact is that if the movie bothered you this much, then you should really decide whether or not you should watch the second movie. I wouldn't watch it if the first movie had such a negative effect on you.

I think I am one of the few that liked the movie designs from the begining. It is a drastic change from the cartoon design wise but I think it was kinda called for. I also am a G1 loyalist but I look at the movie version of transformers as a whole new thing. I try to not even compare it to the G1 cartoon or toys.

AutoShermatic wrote:I think I am one of the few that liked the movie designs from the begining. It is a drastic change from the cartoon design wise but I think it was kinda called for. I also am a G1 loyalist but I look at the movie version of transformers as a whole new thing. I try to not even compare it to the G1 cartoon or toys.

me too. it is just like a totally different world that is related to the past incarnations. I think the designs are certainly valid in their own right. G1 is the best for me, but I don't see the point on dwelling in the past either. I'm just happy there was a movie, and I'm glad that it made enough money to spawn a second entry.

mordi wrote:Mr Shadowman, god of the transformers,

This is the title, isn't it? I can't pick the title, it comes with the post count. I'd prefer something along the lines of "rapscallion" but it doesn't really matter.

mordi wrote:I am well aware that Bay is a commercial successful director/producer, but his movies are not good. I could argue with you all day and night and get nowhere because you obviously like his movies (at some extent so do I). But there is a HUGE difference between movie quality and $$$ quantity.

Obviously it has some quality to have so many people net it such huge revenue.

mordi wrote:None of his super duper box office hits are anywhere near the imdb top 250.

#249 on that same list is Planet of the Apes, so no, I don't expect that, at all. But then there are a lot of great movies that aren't on the list, like Ghostbusters, Predator, or Black Hawk Down.

mordi wrote:So I'd say if a good movie for you is one that makes a lot of money, then yes, you like "utter garbage".

A good movie is one that I enjoy. "Utter garbage" is in the eye of the beholder, I guess you could say.

mordi wrote:All though I realize the whole Transformers concept is not art for the sake of art but a way to sell toys, comics and tickets.

And in that sense, and many others, it was a huge success.

mordi wrote:You also missed my point with the arrival of the transfomers on earth. Why do you think it worked out in the movie and in G1? It's still silly I think. It would probably be more believable if they crashed in the Mojave desert or in the ocean (not on a aircraft carrier with helicopters)

1. There's nothing to reformat to in the Mojave desert, they'd end up wasting valuable time getting to where they needed to be just to reformat. And even so, it worked better in the movie because at least they didn't immediately start socializing with as many humans as possible.

2. Those weren't helicopters on that aircraft carries, though most if not all aircraft carries have helicopters. But the one in the trailer was lines with jets. What is with your obsession with helicopters?

mordi wrote:And yes, the Solstice is a cheap knock off and makes Jazz look like some pet spoiled girls get at their sweet 16. A new real supercar priced at $25000... I don't think so.

The thing about GM is that they offered Mr. Bay around $3,000,000 worth of vehicles, which is $3,000,000 he was able to spend on making the rest of the movie.

Erm...knock off of what?

mordi wrote:And as for the helicopters. There is just no way of justifying the number of helicopter shots in a movie about a boy and his "car".

Not including Blackout, there were maybe three scenes in the whole movie making use of helicopters. The Sector 7 vs. Autobots scene (Where a jet or grounded vehicle would definitely not work) and the helicopter taking Sam, Mikaela, Glenn and Maggie to Hoover Dam, and the Black Hawks who attempted to retrieve the AllSpark.

Even so, I don't know what you have against helicopters.

What's this about the Solstice? I love those cars. XD
Bay didn't really want Jazz to be a Solstic though. He wanted something bigger.
But that wasn't part of the deal they had with General Motors. It was make him the Solstice, or spend another 3 mill.

I'm pretty sure that's what I read.

Siren Prime wrote:What's this about the Solstice? I love those cars. XD
Bay didn't really want Jazz to be a Solstic though. He wanted something bigger.
But that wasn't part of the deal they had with General Motors. It was make him the Solstice, or spend another 3 mill.

I'm pretty sure that's what I read.

That had something to do with it I am sure. It's not like the movie is depicting the Pontiac Solstice as a super car anyway. BTW, the Saturn Sky looks a little tougher to the guys.

Also, to Shadowman, you really don't need to waste time explaining yourself. Your points were valid, and they were presented in a nonoffensive way, so I wouldn't worry about it. God of Transformers!
That's a pretty tricky title to pull off!

rapscallion as in antisocial kid?

#249 on that same list is Planet of the Apes, so no, I don't expect that, at all. But then there are a lot of great movies that aren't on the list, like Ghostbusters, Predator, or Black Hawk Down.

ok no i laugh. Planet of the apes is a classic, please do read up on your movie history. Black hawk down, ghostbusters and predator?! Apparently we are on different planets when it comes to taste of movies.

Not including Blackout, there were maybe three scenes in the whole movie making use of helicopters. The Sector 7 vs. Autobots scene (Where a jet or grounded vehicle would definitely not work) and the helicopter taking Sam, Mikaela, Glenn and Maggie to Hoover Dam, and the Black Hawks who attempted to retrieve the AllSpark.

Even so, I don't know what you have against helicopters.

3 scenes?! I suggest you sit down with a pen and a piece of paper and count every time there is a shot of a helicopter in TF. I think you will find that there is someone else who has a helicopter obsession. And while you're at it, look at the underwater scene in the trailer...

The thing about GM is that they offered Mr. Bay around $3,000,000 worth of vehicles, which is $3,000,000 he was able to spend on making the rest of the movie.

Erm...knock off of what?

Just think about what you are saying here. Do you seriously believe that GM was the only company that offered their services to a Steven Spielberg production? The product placement takes a way so much of the movies credibility. I will be laughing out loud when/if the twin-bots "land" in Paris and find two Chevy hatchbacks to scan and transform into. If you want a real roadster with some flair and muscle, you don't buy a Solstice. And wasn't jazz a Porsche (a REAL supercar) in G1?

The fact is that if the movie bothered you this much, then you should really decide whether or not you should watch the second movie. I wouldn't watch it if the first movie had such a negative effect on you.

It's not a good movie. that's all. Giant robots fighting: great stuff! Everything else, not so good. It bothers me that people argue that this is the best TF movie that could ever be made and that Bay is still getting work (as you say, a fact of life). I hope you watch the second movie, don't let my taste for movies decide what movies to watch

mordi wrote:

#249 on that same list is Planet of the Apes, so no, I don't expect that, at all. But then there are a lot of great movies that aren't on the list, like Ghostbusters, Predator, or Black Hawk Down.

ok no i laugh. Planet of the apes is a classic, please do read up on your movie history. Black hawk down, ghostbusters and predator?! Apparently we are on different planets when it comes to taste of movies.

Ghostbusters is considered one of the top comedy movies of all time. Predator isn't on the list, but Terminator, Terminator 2, Alien, and Aliens are? Black Hawk Down is honestly one of the best modern war movies ever made (If you watched it, you wouldn't be making fun of it), but then We Were Soldiers isn't on the list either. (My American Military History teacher several years ago told us to watch that. It was a really fantastic Vietnam movie) And V for Vendetta WAS on the list? I mean, it was a good movie, but I wouldn't have put it there instead of one of the one's I listed.

mordi wrote:

Not including Blackout, there were maybe three scenes in the whole movie making use of helicopters. The Sector 7 vs. Autobots scene (Where a jet or grounded vehicle would definitely not work) and the helicopter taking Sam, Mikaela, Glenn and Maggie to Hoover Dam, and the Black Hawks who attempted to retrieve the AllSpark.

Even so, I don't know what you have against helicopters.

3 scenes?! I suggest you sit down with a pen and a piece of paper and count every time there is a shot of a helicopter in TF. I think you will find that there is someone else who has a helicopter obsession. And while you're at it, look at the underwater scene in the trailer...

I didn't count every shot, I counted every scene, which is a collection of shots, and not including Blackout, I came to three.

mordi wrote:

The thing about GM is that they offered Mr. Bay around $3,000,000 worth of vehicles, which is $3,000,000 he was able to spend on making the rest of the movie.

Erm...knock off of what?

Just think about what you are saying here. Do you seriously believe that GM was the only company that offered their services to a Steven Spielberg production? The product placement takes a way so much of the movies credibility. I will be laughing out loud when/if the twin-bots "land" in Paris and find two Chevy hatchbacks to scan and transform into.

Yes, yes I do. Even so, it's a Michael Bay movie first, Spielberg production second.

mordi wrote:If you want a real roadster with some flair and muscle, you don't buy a Solstice. And wasn't jazz a Porsche (a REAL supercar) in G1?

Yes, but in case you hadn't noticed, this isn't G1.[/quote]

I didn't count every shot, I counted every scene, which is a collection of shots, and not including Blackout, I came to three.

now when you count the scenes with helicopter shots in them and still get the number 3? common, you are clueless, I am sorry.

why dont you see the difference between the predator and alien movies, even terminator 1 and 2, it is not just a movie about shooting aliens, robots and spaceships exploding. There is something more underneath the surface so to say. You know sci-fi is a way of commenting on contemporary society?

The reason why black hawk down is not on that list... I've seen it and as many others, saw it as badly disguised us military propaganda. It is actually one of the worst on monotone war movies, along with We were soldiers, I have ever seen. Give my regards to you american military history teacher. you actually have american military history teachers? is this your credible source for good movie material?

Ghostbusters is a pretty good comedy, I cannot argue that and V for Vendetta is maybe even worse than pearl harbor.

Yes, yes I do. Even so, it's a Michael Bay movie first, Spielberg production second.

spielberg had the rights, he promoted it, he has the biggest name. but i guess that's just two different ways of seeing it.

In G1, didn't they begin interacting with humans almost immediately? Even so, the disguises worked in both, right? Well, except for when someone knew what they were looking for.

in case you had not noticed, this is not g1.

mordi wrote:

I didn't count every shot, I counted every scene, which is a collection of shots, and not including Blackout, I came to three.

now when you count the scenes with helicopter shots in them and still get the number 3? common, you are clueless, I am sorry.

Alright, you're the hotshot film genius, you tell me every single scene with a shot of a helicopter.

mordi wrote:why dont you see the difference between the predator and alien movies, even terminator 1 and 2, it is not just a movie about shooting aliens, robots and spaceships exploding. There is something more underneath the surface so to say. You know sci-fi is a way of commenting on contemporary society?

All three are primarily action flicks, Terminator and Alien happen to have sci-fi elements, though that's not to say Predator doesn't also have those same elements, just to a lesser extent.

mordi wrote:The reason why black hawk down is not on that list... I've seen it and as many others, saw it as badly disguised us military propaganda.

Black Hawk Down was based on a true story, and even so, I don't think it's military propaganda, unless they really wanted people to sign up under the belief that, upon joining the Army, you too may get shot down over a hostile village and have to trek from one end to the other, avoiding innumerable villagers who all want you dead! Doesn't exactly look good in a recruiting office.

mordi wrote:It is actually one of the worst on monotone war movies, along with We were soldiers, I have ever seen.

Incidentally, Black Hawk Down was directed by Ridley Scott (One of the best directors of all time) and produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. (The same)

mordi wrote:Ghostbusters is a pretty good comedy, I cannot argue that and V for Vendetta is maybe even worse than pearl harbor.

V for Vendetta wasn't bad. It got a lot of credibility back for the Wachowski's after the Matrix sequels...but it's still a comic book movie, and not even on the caliber of Batman Begins, and somehow higher up than Spartacus. (To be fair, they then dropped all the credibility on Speed Racer)

I really have a lot of problems with the IMDb Top 250. Kill Bill is higher up than Patton? That list is ridiculous.

mordi wrote:

In G1, didn't they begin interacting with humans almost immediately? Even so, the disguises worked in both, right? Well, except for when someone knew what they were looking for.

in case you had not noticed, this is not g1.

You missed my point entirely (Multiple times, actually, but that's beside yet another point): Why, in G1, did they even need disguises for if they were just going to make themselves known to the general public? At least into he movie they tried their best to stay hidden.

Before Bay's movie, I was (and still am) a pretty devoted fan of the G1 cartoons (and movie) and the G1 and G2 toys. Besides a few figures here and there, I didn't really like what came after.

However, I thought the first Bay movie was a great update and adaptation to live action. I really like the toys too--in fact, I'm probably in the minority, but I like the movie toys even better than the classics toys (which I like too). I think they are a good update and their look fits more with the increased "realism" of live action (yeah, yeah, as real as giant transforming robot aliens who fight each other gets).

I am definitely looking forward to the next installment of Bay-formers as well as the new line of toys

mordi wrote:rapscallion as in antisocial kid?

#249 on that same list is Planet of the Apes, so no, I don't expect that, at all. But then there are a lot of great movies that aren't on the list, like Ghostbusters, Predator, or Black Hawk Down.

ok no i laugh. Planet of the apes is a classic, please do read up on your movie history. Black hawk down, ghostbusters and predator?! Apparently we are on different planets when it comes to taste of movies.

Not including Blackout, there were maybe three scenes in the whole movie making use of helicopters. The Sector 7 vs. Autobots scene (Where a jet or grounded vehicle would definitely not work) and the helicopter taking Sam, Mikaela, Glenn and Maggie to Hoover Dam, and the Black Hawks who attempted to retrieve the AllSpark.

Even so, I don't know what you have against helicopters.

3 scenes?! I suggest you sit down with a pen and a piece of paper and count every time there is a shot of a helicopter in TF. I think you will find that there is someone else who has a helicopter obsession. And while you're at it, look at the underwater scene in the trailer...

The thing about GM is that they offered Mr. Bay around $3,000,000 worth of vehicles, which is $3,000,000 he was able to spend on making the rest of the movie.

Erm...knock off of what?

Just think about what you are saying here. Do you seriously believe that GM was the only company that offered their services to a Steven Spielberg production? The product placement takes a way so much of the movies credibility. I will be laughing out loud when/if the twin-bots "land" in Paris and find two Chevy hatchbacks to scan and transform into. If you want a real roadster with some flair and muscle, you don't buy a Solstice. And wasn't jazz a Porsche (a REAL supercar) in G1?

The fact is that if the movie bothered you this much, then you should really decide whether or not you should watch the second movie. I wouldn't watch it if the first movie had such a negative effect on you.

It's not a good movie. that's all. Giant robots fighting: great stuff! Everything else, not so good. It bothers me that people argue that this is the best TF movie that could ever be made and that Bay is still getting work (as you say, a fact of life). I hope you watch the second movie, don't let my taste for movies decide what movies to watch

I will, indeed watch the second movie. I don't think anyone is saying that it (TF1) is "the best TF movie that could ever be made". Noone is disputing whether it is perfect or not. However,it is the ONLY live action TF movie that has been made. Until someone else takes the steering wheel on the franchise, then we are kind of stuck with what's going on. I didn't bust my ass for years to be a big-time movie director, so it's pretty hard for me to sit back and disrespect someone else's work. I guess it just seems like you are very upset that other people don't hate it as much as you. It isn't perfect, but that's life. Also, don't worry; I will absolutely watch the second movie-I won't be worried at all about your particular taste in movies.

wow this topic is getting alot of hits keep it comming!!!!!!

I'll try to keep this one short, since it's probably obvious I typemuch text. The product placement was annoyingly obvious, esp since all cars were 2009 or 2010 models and clean . Jazz couldn't be porsche cause it's a german company; they don't license to violent movies. I believe even the old jazz had licensing issues.

Although I think the designs are xtreme, and it would be awesome to have a director who loved transformers and could make a great reboot to satisfy all, I am also thankful the movie did not go the way of res evil, mortal kombat, or mario bros! I can always hope for another reboot like batman, but I'll watch what we get ( & it won't be laughably bad). Still think bayformers are ugly though

NewFoundStarscreamLuv wrote:I'll try to keep this one short, since it's probably obvious I typemuch text. The product placement was annoyingly obvious, esp since all cars were 2009 or 2010 models and clean . Jazz couldn't be porsche cause it's a german company; they don't license to violent movies. I believe even the old jazz had licensing issues.

Although I think the designs are xtreme, and it would be awesome to have a director who loved transformers and could make a great reboot to satisfy all, I am also thankful the movie did not go the way of res evil, mortal kombat, or mario bros! I can always hope for another reboot like batman, but I'll watch what we get ( & it won't be laughably bad). Still think bayformers are ugly though

Let's hope it doesn't go like Mortal Kombat; the first one was awesome, and probably the best game adaptation ever, with the only major change being Shang Tsung's age. Then the sequel happened, and it was bad.

Shadowman wrote: All three are primarily action flicks, Terminator and Alien happen to have sci-fi elements, though that's not to say Predator doesn't also have those same elements, just to a lesser extent.

True, but mordi's right that sci-fi is often political commentary. The creation of the 'alien' or the 'terminator' bundles together a bunch of social fears. Terminator--what are we afraid of? Things that look like human but are not; unstoppable forces; a future where robots rule everything; emotionlessness...etc.


[quote}Black Hawk Down was based on a true story, and even so, I don't think it's military propaganda, unless they really wanted people to sign up under the belief that, upon joining the Army, you too may get shot down over a hostile village and have to trek from one end to the other, avoiding innumerable villagers who all want you dead! Doesn't exactly look good in a recruiting office.[/quote]

And _Bram Stoker's Dracula_ was 'based on' Bram Stoker's _Dracula_. Tell my students who decided to see the movie instead of reading the novel (and who subsequently failed the exam) that 'based on' means 'accurate depiction'.

Propaganda does not necessarily mean 'positive message'. War movies made while a war is on are almost always propaganda--_Green Berets_ is 'positive' propaganda for the VN conflict. During WWII, the US War Department actually set forth rules as to what messages were acceptable to appear in movies. Results? MOvies like Bogey's _Sahara_, a propaganda piece (but still a great flick). _Redacted_ is also a propaganda film, but no one thinks that's gonna get recruits. BlackHawk Down is a very anti-military flick: Bowden got all sorts of access when writing the book and adapting the screenplay (He was constantly mucking around Bragg). After the movie came out, the Army felt viciously betrayed. They thought it was a heroic story of buddy-sacrifice--Bowden and Scott turned it into a lecture on military incompetence.

V for Vendetta wasn't bad. It got a lot of credibility back for the Wachowski's after the Matrix sequels...but it's still a comic book movie, and not even on the caliber of Batman Begins, and somehow higher up than Spartacus. (To be fair, they then dropped all the credibility on Speed Racer)

Yes, but check this: the graphic novel upon which it is based was mid to late '80s and a story about the repressive Thatcher regime. The movie itself attempts to hype sympathy for the 'homegrown' terrorist, which, after 9/11 in America, is not coincidental. Going back to Mordi's point, movies aren't just 'entertainment'.

I don't think comic book movies are all equal. Ang Lee's (horrendous) _Hulk_ is self-described as an 'essay on anger'. Not exactly Stan Lee's vision. I fear for _Watchmen_ because I heard they were at one point trying to remove all the Nixon stuff and replace it with Bush and GWOT stuff. (Naaaaah, that's not propaganda). Alan Moore apparently ran in terror from having his name on the project, but, well, Alan Moore *is*...ummm, kinda weird.

Comic book movies can fall into at least two poles: those that really try to be totally for the fans, and are full of in-jokes and mythological allusions; and those who veer to 'too fluffy' to try to hook new audiences. Judge Dredd and Tank Girl are perfect examples of the former type, Fantastic Four the latter.

HK, nerd