The Energon Pub

Shia Labeouf, the star of the Transformers Live Action Films, is well known for having controversial comments. The latest happens to be on Transformers 3. Labeouf sat down with Total Film, and had the following to say,

“My mind battles with me all the time. My mind hates the fact that I’m going back to transformers 3, but the kid in me loves it. The actor in me, who is looking to challenge himself, isn’t going to get it on in Transformers and I know that.

“But that doesn’t mean that I’m any less dedicated to that movie being perfect. I wasn’t happy with the second movie and unless the third one is better than both, then we failed.”

Check out the entire article here.

Keep it at Seibertron.com - The Ultimate Transformers Resource!

My word...He's right

Bay said #3 will be more 'emotive' (then again, that could mean a good guy dies in the many of his big booms) so lets hope that it will give Shia something to work on.

Damn! Even the main actor in ROTF doesnt like it! And think its the greatest movie of all time! Does this mean my mind is utterly f*ked!?

SlyTF1 wrote:Damn! Even the main actor in ROTF doesnt like it! And think its the greatest movie of all time! Does this mean my mind is utterly f*ked!?

Nah, you're just young. You'll understand the values of characterization and proper storytelling when you age. Right now you're easily satisfied with explosions, and that's okay.

Trust me, I remember that age well enough.

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:Damn! Even the main actor in ROTF doesnt like it! And think its the greatest movie of all time! Does this mean my mind is utterly f*ked!?

Nah, you're just young. You'll understand the values of characterization and proper storytelling when you age. Right now you're easily satisfied with explosions, and that's okay.

Trust me, I remember that age well enough.

I'm 27 and I loved it. I have no doubts the 3rd one will be better though. Believe it or not Bay listened to the criticisms of the first movie and improved it in RotF. More focus on the robots, better camera work, Optimus put up a fight. Plus there won't be a writer's strike this time rushing production.

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:Damn! Even the main actor in ROTF doesnt like it! And think its the greatest movie of all time! Does this mean my mind is utterly f*ked!?

Nah, you're just young. You'll understand the values of characterization and proper storytelling when you age. Right now you're easily satisfied with explosions, and that's okay.

Trust me, I remember that age well enough.

But thats not it. I think the score is awesome too. And a few other things that I dont feel like writing

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:Damn! Even the main actor in ROTF doesnt like it! And think its the greatest movie of all time! Does this mean my mind is utterly f*ked!?

Nah, you're just young. You'll understand the values of characterization and proper storytelling when you age. Right now you're easily satisfied with explosions, and that's okay.

Trust me, I remember that age well enough.

I'm 27 and I loved it. I have no doubts the 3rd one will be better though. Believe it or not Bay listened to the criticisms of the first movie and improved it in RotF. More focus on the robots, better camera work, Optimus put up a fight. Plus there won't be a writer's strike this time rushing production.

Thats what Im saying. everything that people said he got wrong with the first one, he got right with the second, but everyone still hates it. No one is happy

Shia, you won't be winning an Oscar anytime soon. Since 2007 your non-Transformers movies have been Surf's Up, Eagle Eye, Disturbia and the Indiana Jones movie nobody liked.

You probably need to shut up, collect your paycheck, and don't pin your hopes on that Wall Street sequel.

Usually, the third movie in a trilogy outdoes the first two. I'm remaining cautiously optimistic, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

SlyTF1 wrote:Damn! Even the main actor in ROTF doesnt like it! And think its the greatest movie of all time! Does this mean my mind is utterly f*ked!?

Yup, cuz ROTF was a sh*tburger. I don't care how much money it made, it was crap. The first one was much better, but that ain't sayin' much. The only way TF 3 will be any better is if you can Bay, LeBeouf, Fox, and the actors who play the parents. Oh, and also get some writers that don't have the minds of 12 year olds.

Wow. I'm not sure what to think about this one.

On the one hand, I'd love to see TF3 top ROTF (which I thought was excellent, and definitely better than the first one) and I hope it will.

However, I'm not impressed with his comments. I get what he's saying, and I agree that the movies aren't thought provoking, but they did put him on the map. He can say whatever he wants, and yes, he's talented, but he's not that great.

He would've never gotten anywhere near Indy 4 if he hadn't pulled off a hilarious performance in TF1.

Megan Fox has had bad taste comments, Shia's having them, and it just reeks of ungratefulness. If it weren't for the movies, they'd be nobodies.

They don't have to bend over backwards and be all "YEAH! GREATEST EVAR!", but they should at least have the decency to say "Okay, it wasn't perfect, but it made me famous and it was fun to do."

It could be worse...they coulda go (chris)Topher Grace to play Spike. And while i'm on,
(chris)Topher, why the hell is this guy still acting in movies i like? he sucked in Spider-Man and now Robert Rodriguez has him shittin Predators all up. That dude needs to go do some mangina flicks for oxygen so his career can hurry up and die.

Yes!! Thank you Shia! I just love it when the actors come out and admit a movie they were in sucked, due to it not being thought provoking or deep.

And even so, TransFormers is based off of a cartoon means nothing!!! Idea's are to be built upon!! So what many of you are saying is that, ANY movie that started off as a cartoon will become nothing at all. And there for, become nothing more than a joke on the big screen. You're saying it is impossible to make anything deeper then a pudlle.

Wow, then I guess Bay is doing his job. Seeing that almost nobody has an imagination. For those of you who do, stay smart my friends.

When I was a kid in the 90's, one of my friends loved Armageddon, Independence Day, etc... All the rest of us didn't like them. Now that we are in our mid 20's he came up to me not long ago, haven't seen him in years and he said, "I can't believe I loved those movies, they really do suck."

Now, he did like ROTF a lot. But I still think it is because he saw it at a midnight showing and he was really, really high.

A Good Point!
Reasons why a TransFormers film can be made with little to no humans.

Let me start out by saying, I am not a G1 fan. I became a fan of TransFormer later on in life. So, save your fingers and don’t bother calling me a G1’er.
I find it rather funny that people say the TransFormers movies are has good as they could get. NOT SO.

Let’s look at something very interesting. Bay said, “you can’t make a TransFormers movie without any humans.” Well, why not? At first you think, you need it to be relatable to the viewers, right? Sure, but that doesn’t mean that the movies have to be dominated by humans.

Why?

Let’s look at some really big box office hits that had little to no humans.

1. Toy Story, now this movie was huge. Made lots of money. And yes, there were humans in it but not all the time. How could we relate to toys? The toys were very human themselves, they had emotions and not to mention most had human like forms.

2. Cars. Really? Cars? Yes, this movie was another big hit and there were NO humans in this film. How could we relate to a car? Same thing as Toy Story. They had human emotions and had problems in their lives that they had to deal with. We can all relate, it really is that simple.

3. The Lion King, same thing people. No humans, but the animals were very human in their personalities and so, relatable.

4. Finding Nemo, need I say more?

You get it?

Just make your characters relatable, human like in emotion, problems, love, caring, passion, etc…

How many movies and TV shows have talking animals in them? Lots!

I could go on, and I know not all are Disney movies. But the point is, yes, you can make a TransFormers movie with little human interference.

As for me? I’m would say, IF you have the TransFormers on Earth then yes, you should have humans in the movie. BUT, you don’t need them to dominate the movie with tons and TONS of nonsense.

Your characters need to help MOVE THE STORY FORWARD!

How can we relate to the TransFormers? Read the above, they are VERY human like. Emotions, form…well when in robot mode. They have problems in their lives like we do. Some are kind, some are mean, some are quiet some are loud and boisterous, some lead, others fallow.

Lastly, I know these are just movies people, I get it, we all get it. But many people, MANY, young too, want to be writers and filmmakers. So, keep this in mind!! You can make a TON of money writing! And you can make a TON of money making films. So it’s kind of a little more than, just showing kids a stupid movie with lots of explosions. They can learn how a story works and how it is put together.

And I must say, ROTF is a perfect example of how you shouldn't write/make a story.

A tip from RoTF:

If you need to write a scene where, over halfway through your movie, a new character appears and simply explains to the audience what the plot is, you have failed. Jetfire in RotF = The Architect in Matrix 2. Pure movie disasters both times. Making it a CGI dude and putting in lots of needless helicopter shots does not make 15+ minutes of exposition a good idea.

Ah, I just love it when people act like Roger Ebert, and tell us we have no taste, no class, and basically limited intelligence because we liked the movie. (That's sarcasm, btw)

And almost everyone in the fandom was enraged and offended by his words.

Now, they not only echo them, they make them worse by adding that someone must be too young to appreciate finer works. Really? So now they're too young to know better and be smarter about their movie going experiences?

Do you have any idea how incredibly rude that is?

I'm 29 years old, and I've enjoyed movies from every genre, some downright stupid, some incredibly mind blowing, and I loved ROTF. I saw it for what it was: A good old fashioned sci-fi action adventure flick. And it delivered. It was funny, it had cool scenes and giant robots, and it's based off of a cartoon that has the depth of a puddle. So, expecting the movies to be Oscar caliber, thought provoking, heart wrenching epic Odysseys, makes you look far more foolish than it does us, because we watched the movies for what they were, and expected nothing more, and no one really should.

Some people enjoyed it, some didn't. That's fine. But you should be able to feel how you feel without someone critiquing who you are as a person, and where you are mentally as they do it. But, it's been proven time and again that we can't, that no one can have their opinion in peace. Fine, you want to be that way? Well I wipe crap off of my shoes with your opinion, and then PISS on it because that's what it deserves.

And you, the person, don't deserve much better, because you crossed a line when you called people stupid and too immature to appreciate the "fine" art of cinema.

Grown men and women on a message board devoted to collecting TOYS, talking about a maturity level and stupidity? What a bunch of friggin' hypocrites you are. We're here for the FUN, you're here for the...well, to be honest, I'm not really sure what you're gaining out of this, it's actually kind of pathetic.

No. It's quite pathetic, actually.

Thank You Thank You Thank You Autobot032.
Like Shia said, he didn't feel challenged as an actor in RotF and that's because he wasn't supposed to be. Like you said, based of a cartoon with the depth of a puddle. I don't know what the other folks are looking for, but I saw the film for what it was, I enjoyed it at the time and so long as I don't watch the DVD all that often, I can still enjoy it for exactly what it was meant to be. Simple entertainment with a whole lot of eye-candy from various different categories. Don't know what everyone else was expecting but quite frankly I have to sit back and laugh at all those who were disappointed or who absolutely hated it. Those people got exactly what they deserved for their selfish, narrow-minded and utterly unrealistic points of view.

ConBotFormer wrote:Let’s look at something very interesting. Bay said, “you can’t make a TransFormers movie without any humans.” Well, why not? At first you think, you need it to be relatable to the viewers, right? Sure, but that doesn’t mean that the movies have to be dominated by humans.

Cars, Lion King.. whatever, Toy Story and Finding Nemo even had humans, so I don't get your point saying that one. It's just that Transformers for the past TWENTY FIVE years has not been without Humans, other than the Beast Era. Transformers coming to Earth is the essence of the Transformers lore. You can't change that. And when they're on Earth in a LIVE-ACTION FILM, do you expect there to be little to no human interaction? What.. the Autobots and Decepticons are going to battle on some iceberg in the Arctic?

Let's be realistic here. Humans are required for a Transformers movie. They're going to look better in TF3 because we have better writer. End of story.

ConBotFormer wrote:Let’s look at some really big box office hits that had little to no humans.

1. Toy Story, now this movie was huge. Made lots of money. And yes, there were humans in it but not all the time. How could we relate to toys? The toys were very human themselves, they had emotions and not to mention most had human like forms.

2. Cars. Really? Cars? Yes, this movie was another big hit and there were NO humans in this film. How could we relate to a car? Same thing as Toy Story. They had human emotions and had problems in their lives that they had to deal with. We can all relate, it really is that simple.

3. The Lion King, same thing people. No humans, but the animals were very human in their personalities and so, relatable.

4. Finding Nemo, need I say more?

Notice anything about your list? Toy Story? Kids movie. Cars? Kids movie. Lion King? Kids movie. Finding Nemo? (mediocre) kids movie. Kids are simply more open minded than adults; they have minds that for allow the possibility of talking cars, taking fish, imaginary friends, etc. If you were to say one of these movies waas aimed at the 18-34 crowd, you would be LAUGHED out of Hollywood. It is an ENTIRELY different audience. You simply CANNOT compare the current TF films to any of these because they are aimed at two very differing target audiences, any more than you can compare Citizen Kane to Mickey Mouse.

I guess I can understand why Shia Labeouf would say this, but to knock the movies that rocketed him to superstardom is kind of ridiculous. Despite if the film is going to challenge you as an actor or not everyone loves the character that you portary and the battle of good and evil that goes on around you. Yes, the 2nd movie had some flaws but people still loved it for what it was, A Good Movie. It was a nonstop explosion-fest which might have been a little overdone but still posted huge profit because of the people who love this movie. I cannot wait until the 3rd one comes out and will once again be the first person in line to see it.

Blurrz wrote:

ConBotFormer wrote:Let’s look at something very interesting. Bay said, “you can’t make a TransFormers movie without any humans.” Well, why not? At first you think, you need it to be relatable to the viewers, right? Sure, but that doesn’t mean that the movies have to be dominated by humans.

Cars, Lion King.. whatever, Toy Story and Finding Nemo even had humans, so I don't get your point saying that one. It's just that Transformers for the past TWENTY FIVE years has not been without Humans, other than the Beast Era. Transformers coming to Earth is the essence of the Transformers lore. You can't change that. And when they're on Earth in a LIVE-ACTION FILM, do you expect there to be little to no human interaction? What.. the Autobots and Decepticons are going to battle on some iceberg in the Arctic?

Let's be realistic here. Humans are required for a Transformers movie. They're going to look better in TF3 because we have better writer. End of story.

No No, I didn't say there shouldn't be humans in the movie. I agree with you. But here's the thing. What is the point of lots of the humans scences in ROTF? Parents? Did they help move the story at all? If so, how? Ransom? I don't want to see the TF's fighting on some random iceberg.

First-Aid wrote:

ConBotFormer wrote:Let’s look at some really big box office hits that had little to no humans.

1. Toy Story, now this movie was huge. Made lots of money. And yes, there were humans in it but not all the time. How could we relate to toys? The toys were very human themselves, they had emotions and not to mention most had human like forms.

2. Cars. Really? Cars? Yes, this movie was another big hit and there were NO humans in this film. How could we relate to a car? Same thing as Toy Story. They had human emotions and had problems in their lives that they had to deal with. We can all relate, it really is that simple.

3. The Lion King, same thing people. No humans, but the animals were very human in their personalities and so, relatable.

4. Finding Nemo, need I say more?

Notice anything about your list? Toy Story? Kids movie. Cars? Kids movie. Lion King? Kids movie. Finding Nemo? (mediocre) kids movie. Kids are simply more open minded than adults; they have minds that for allow the possibility of talking cars, taking fish, imaginary friends, etc. If you were to say one of these movies waas aimed at the 18-34 crowd, you would be LAUGHED out of Hollywood. It is an ENTIRELY different audience. You simply CANNOT compare the current TF films to any of these because they are aimed at two very differing target audiences, any more than you can compare Citizen Kane to Mickey Mouse.

Yes!! You got it!! I guess you win!! KIDS MOVIES!!!!!! I didn't say anything close to these movies being aimmed at 18-34 crowd, that's not what I was saying so DON'T put words in my mouth. I know what you're trying to say but like you said, they're kids movies. Where in any of the films I mentioned have, testicles, the word **** & ****, constant farts, pot jokes, pointless parts that do nothing to move the story forward?

I'm not starting a war here, just showing people the relation of characters to humans.

Autobot032 wrote:Ah, I just love it when people act like Roger Ebert, and tell us we have no taste, no class, and basically limited intelligence because we liked the movie. (That's sarcasm, btw)

And almost everyone in the fandom was enraged and offended by his words.

Now, they not only echo them, they make them worse by adding that someone must be too young to appreciate finer works. Really? So now they're too young to know better and be smarter about their movie going experiences?

Do you have any idea how incredibly rude that is?

I'm 29 years old, and I've enjoyed movies from every genre, some downright stupid, some incredibly mind blowing, and I loved ROTF. I saw it for what it was: A good old fashioned sci-fi action adventure flick. And it delivered. It was funny, it had cool scenes and giant robots, and it's based off of a cartoon that has the depth of a puddle. So, expecting the movies to be Oscar caliber, thought provoking, heart wrenching epic Odysseys, makes you look far more foolish than it does us, because we watched the movies for what they were, and expected nothing more, and no one really should.

Some people enjoyed it, some didn't. That's fine. But you should be able to feel how you feel without someone critiquing who you are as a person, and where you are mentally as they do it. But, it's been proven time and again that we can't, that no one can have their opinion in peace. Fine, you want to be that way? Well I wipe crap off of my shoes with your opinion, and then PISS on it because that's what it deserves.

And you, the person, don't deserve much better, because you crossed a line when you called people stupid and too immature to appreciate the "fine" art of cinema.

Grown men and women on a message board devoted to collecting TOYS, talking about a maturity level and stupidity? What a bunch of friggin' hypocrites you are. We're here for the FUN, you're here for the...well, to be honest, I'm not really sure what you're gaining out of this, it's actually kind of pathetic.

No. It's quite pathetic, actually.

Best damn post I ever read about the movies. Every word typed is truth!

My mind hates that he's going to be in it too.

Autobot032 wrote:Ah, I just love it when people act like Roger Ebert, and tell us we have no taste, no class, and basically limited intelligence because we liked the movie. (That's sarcasm, btw)

And almost everyone in the fandom was enraged and offended by his words.

Now, they not only echo them, they make them worse by adding that someone must be too young to appreciate finer works. Really? So now they're too young to know better and be smarter about their movie going experiences?

Do you have any idea how incredibly rude that is?

I'm 29 years old, and I've enjoyed movies from every genre, some downright stupid, some incredibly mind blowing, and I loved ROTF. I saw it for what it was: A good old fashioned sci-fi action adventure flick. And it delivered. It was funny, it had cool scenes and giant robots, and it's based off of a cartoon that has the depth of a puddle. So, expecting the movies to be Oscar caliber, thought provoking, heart wrenching epic Odysseys, makes you look far more foolish than it does us, because we watched the movies for what they were, and expected nothing more, and no one really should.

Some people enjoyed it, some didn't. That's fine. But you should be able to feel how you feel without someone critiquing who you are as a person, and where you are mentally as they do it. But, it's been proven time and again that we can't, that no one can have their opinion in peace. Fine, you want to be that way? Well I wipe crap off of my shoes with your opinion, and then PISS on it because that's what it deserves.

And you, the person, don't deserve much better, because you crossed a line when you called people stupid and too immature to appreciate the "fine" art of cinema.

Grown men and women on a message board devoted to collecting TOYS, talking about a maturity level and stupidity? What a bunch of friggin' hypocrites you are. We're here for the FUN, you're here for the...well, to be honest, I'm not really sure what you're gaining out of this, it's actually kind of pathetic.

No. It's quite pathetic, actually.

That's kinda like the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? "I don't like the movie and you're stupid cuz you do." "Yeah, well, I like the movie and you're pathetic cuz you don't." Sounds like pointless bickering to me. You like it, cool. You don't, cool. End of story.

But the whole, "It's based on a cartoon/toyline, so don't expect it to be good" argument annoys me to no end. Look at X-men 1 and 2, Spiderman 1 and 2, and Ironman. By your reasoning, these should've been crappy movies too. Because comic books, though enjoyed by adults as much as kids, are for the most part marketed to a younger audience. But, those movies were generally well received by fans, critics, and the general public because they were good movies. I ain't askin' for Oscars outta Transformers, but a little plot and focus on the title characters(last I checked the movies aren't called Sam, Mikeala, Sam's parents and the Transformers) would be nice.