The Energon Pub

News Credits: 1 · by **Leonardo** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:02 am

I think a few sequences in the trailer have indicated collateral damage, particularly a scene involving what looks to be an office and a broken window.

by **Magnus' Mate** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:59 am

Nico wrote:The movie is going to be much darker and violent then G1. If it wasnt violent, people who arent Transfan wouldnt want to see it.

This doesn't follow. So the moviegoing public will only go and see a movie if it has violence!?!

To clarify my earlier post: I too expect there to be "action" in this movie, and part of that action is an element of violence. I'm totally happy with that. But some of you sound like you want "The Texas Chainsaw Transformer".

To the person who said the same level as in X-Men/Spidey and other similar movies - I agree. It should be comicbook (which isn't the same as slapstick and can still be scary, gritty etc) violence, befitting the franchise from which it was spawned.

News Credits: 4 · by **the purifyer** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:24 am

I always wanted massive violence and Transformers together. It seemed more appropriate. The Decepticons were never dark or evil enough to really fit their persona. Taking over a planet is much more than building a raygun that transcends time and sace or just hunting for power. DW G1 issues 1-6 were great for violence. Unfortunately I don't think Hasbro wants to be labled 'War toys' again.

by **kjeevah** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:49 am

Wolfguard wrote:"Don't do it! The people!"

-Superman, Superman II

One of the worst things in the cartoons of both TFs and G.I. Joe was every character and non character seemed to have a "lucky parachute," i.e. the mortality rate on either show was ZERO. No wonder the Autobots, Decepticons, Joes and Cobras were always able to keep fighting - no one ever died; not until the damn movies at least. And who cares if the humans and civilians are in trouble - they'll be rescued in the end.

Now considering all the ultraviolence in so many more movies out there, the fact that a bus with an unknown amount of passengers gets totalled by a big robot without showing blood and guts is cupcakes in my opinion. The idea of people's mortality makes the viewing experience more real because the stakes have been raised, no one knows who's gonna fall next, and it keeps you on the edge of your seat. The concept is simple - the viewer should be afraid of the Decepticons, and in contrast, feel a sense of hope that people will be saved from harm when they see the Autobots.

there was a huge and constant mortaility rate in the UK comics.. you should read them, they are so much better than the cartoons

by **Magnus' Mate** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:07 am

kjeevah wrote:there was a huge and constant mortaility rate in the UK comics.. you should read them, they are so much better than the cartoons

Yes, they were so much better. The definitive Transformers continuity IMO.

However, perhaps we should distinguish between TF-on-TF violence and TF-on-human violence? Methinks we'll see plenty of the former (the argument the Marvel UK team used to use was "they're not humans, so we can do anything we want to them!"), not so much the latter.

News Credits: 1 · by **Leonardo** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:10 am

Magnus' Mate wrote:
kjeevah wrote:there was a huge and constant mortaility rate in the UK comics.. you should read them, they are so much better than the cartoons

Yes, they were so much better. The definitive Transformers continuity IMO.

However, perhaps we should distinguish between TF-on-TF violence and TF-on-human violence? Methinks we'll see plenty of the former (the argument the Marvel UK team used to use was "they're not humans, so we can do anything we want to them!"), not so much the latter.

Agreed. At best, we'll probably have humans die in the blind space of the film or have it suggested during scenes of collateral damage. Nothing gruesome, though.

by **Screambug** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:31 am

I think PG-13 is best for a movie based on childhood heroes.

But, it still looks like this is not the movie meant for infants after all.

by **Transgojobot** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:08 pm

Nightwatcher wrote:
Canned Pasta wrote:
Bottom Out wrote:i wish it stayed with the R rating, hopefully the DVD will hace the delted scenes...most likely it will.

Bay refused to cut anything out of the movie after it was given the "R", and he sent Mr. Spielberg in to the ratings board, who walked out with a "PG-13" for the movie.

Yup. Nothing was cut from the movie. It's still an R movie but is officially rated as PG-13.

Actually, it has been said that when Shia said that Transformers got an R rating and Spielberg got it knocked down, he was actually talking about Disturbia, not Transformers. Transformers has not been submitted for a rating yet. This is why the latest TV spots still show the film as not being rated yet.

News Credits: 1 · by **Bottom Out** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:49 pm

Transgojobot wrote:
Nightwatcher wrote:
Canned Pasta wrote:
Bottom Out wrote:i wish it stayed with the R rating, hopefully the DVD will hace the delted scenes...most likely it will.

Bay refused to cut anything out of the movie after it was given the "R", and he sent Mr. Spielberg in to the ratings board, who walked out with a "PG-13" for the movie.

Yup. Nothing was cut from the movie. It's still an R movie but is officially rated as PG-13.

Actually, it has been said that when Shia said that Transformers got an R rating and Spielberg got it knocked down, he was actually talking about Disturbia, not Transformers. Transformers has not been submitted for a rating yet. This is why the latest TV spots still show the film as not being rated yet.

you sure about that? i find it hard for him to get the movies mixed up. not saying your wrong, just wanting to make sure

by **Cybereetta** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:37 am

yep its not rated yet, just check the official movie pages..

If Im wrong just say: Shoot her!!

by **Faceful of Kitchen** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:25 pm

remember, shia's the same guy who informed us that megatron would be turning into a "razor" in the movie. and the whole "they gave it an r because the action was so intense" thing isn't realistic at all: the only thing that would cause the mpaa to rate something r for violence is if it's gory; it doesn't matter how "intense" it is, if there's no blood there's no r rating. given his track record, general policy should be to call bull on anything shia says about the movie until someone else confirms it.

News Credits: 2 · by **Decepticon Spike** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:44 pm

Canned Pasta wrote:Well, the movie DID initially get an R rating...

It did? When?

by **Sentinel Pax** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:49 pm

I can't say I've seen all of Bay's work, but from what I have seen, he's not one for a whole lot of gory violoence. Fighting and explosions, yes, but like I said, I haven't seen too much gore. On that note, I hope that they show the Autobots taking care not to injure humans and maybe Ratchet tending to a wounded person, and then going berserk on a 'Con when that person dies. As long as it is realistic without being senseless, I'm good.

by **Faceful of Kitchen** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:15 am

Decepticon Spike wrote:
Canned Pasta wrote:Well, the movie DID initially get an R rating...

It did? When?

when shia lebeouf decided that saying that would get the fans hyped up for the movie (because not lying in interviews is so unhip) and gullible fans blindly accepted it as the undisputed truth, ignoring the lack of any confirmation whatsoever and the fact that shia has that pesky little habit of making stuff up in intervews because he thinks it sounds cool. granted, this particular tale was probably based on the fact that something similar happened with rear wind... i mean "disturbia," but i don't buy for a second the notion that he actually confused the two movies. to paraphrase megatron, he's either lying or he's stupid. and, whichever the case may be, it means he's definitely not the person who should be doing the bulk of the interviews for this movie.

News Credits: 2 · by **Decepticon Spike** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:41 pm

Faceful of Kitchen wrote:
Decepticon Spike wrote:
Canned Pasta wrote:Well, the movie DID initially get an R rating...

It did? When?

when shia lebeouf decided that saying that would get the fans hyped up for the movie (because not lying in interviews is so unhip) and gullible fans blindly accepted it as the undisputed truth, ignoring the lack of any confirmation whatsoever and the fact that shia has that pesky little habit of making stuff up in intervews because he thinks it sounds cool. granted, this particular tale was probably based on the fact that something similar happened with rear wind... i mean "disturbia," but i don't buy for a second the notion that he actually confused the two movies. to paraphrase megatron, he's either lying or he's stupid. and, whichever the case may be, it means he's definitely not the person who should be doing the bulk of the interviews for this movie.

hmm, kinda glad I missed that interview.

News Credits: 1 · by **Brakethrough** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:33 pm

Cybereetta wrote:yep its not rated yet, just check the official movie pages..

If Im wrong just say: Shoot her!!

I don't think we'll shoot you, regardless of being right or wrong. Well, most of us won't, right folks?

News Credits: 2 · by **Decepticon Spike** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:24 pm

Brakethrough wrote:
Cybereetta wrote:yep its not rated yet, just check the official movie pages..

If Im wrong just say: Shoot her!!

I don't think we'll shoot you, regardless of being right or wrong. Well, most of us won't, right folks?

Well.....