The Energon Pub

First-Aid wrote:

amtm wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:What in Christ's name is that!? Usually, I've been supporting M Bay's TF movies, but I just cant do it this time! He has finally done it. Michael Bay has finally ruined Transformers.

What you mean is he's managed to ruin Transformers THREE TIMES IN A ROW! World record!!!

Yep, he ruined it for you but obviously not for the hundreds of thousands who watched and enjoyed the movies.

lets not forget all those people are not transformers fans and they probably dont know alot about transformers you can like the movie but bay has ruined them for me i like the comics on the movies but not the movies

UM Prime wrote:

First-Aid wrote:

amtm wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:What in Christ's name is that!? Usually, I've been supporting M Bay's TF movies, but I just cant do it this time! He has finally done it. Michael Bay has finally ruined Transformers.

What you mean is he's managed to ruin Transformers THREE TIMES IN A ROW! World record!!!

Yep, he ruined it for you but obviously not for the hundreds of thousands who watched and enjoyed the movies.

lets not forget all those people are not transformers fans and they probably dont know alot about transformers you can like the movie but bay has ruined them for me i like the comics on the movies but not the movies

Oh, I understand that. But like I and others have mentioned, if they made a movie aimed specifically at us fans there would be a lot of references in it that the average moviegoer would simply not understand, causing a loss of interest and failure of the movie altogether. WHen you make a movie like this you HAVE to aim for a broad audience in order to make up the cost of the movie. BOth TF movies so far have made at least 5 times what they cost. If they simply broke even, sequels would never have been made. They appealed to a broad audience. I think it's best to let the fans handle material they want and not trust Hollywood to make anything other than eye candy/popcorn movies BASED ON Transformers.

Or they could just write a decent story that focused on relatable characters and decent action pieces with real conflict.

Since there are apparently no stories anywhere in pre-existing canon good enough to be filmed we should settle for what the movies have created for us. I mean, "Magic Glasses" and "Sock Dust" are way cooler than "Golden Discs" or "The Main Character Human Is Actually A Robot" or "The Transformers Are All Dead."

I know I fondly remember my first trip to college when my mother ate pot brownies and tackled someone. I mean, isn't that something everyone can relate too? I can't imagine what it would be like as a single parent trying to run a small business with a headstrong son- that just sounds way too out there! Does anyone actually live like that?

And the ending of the first film was so awesome. I mean, I never thought film making could get any better than tightly edited action with good framing- but then I was dazzled by the complexity of shaky cam and indistinguishable grey masses of metal rolling around city streets. And the loss of "Lil' Bitches" shook me to the core.

But then the second film came 'round and we were treated to a half hour long climax in some desert with a bunch of indistinguishable grey masses of metal rolling around city streets in the sand.

So surely in the third film, the zenith of film making will be met as the M.A.S.K cars with guns and indistinguishable grey masses of metal roll around the Chicago streets and the purple one with the red eye growls menacingly at Sam and says something like, "Give me the glasses, matrix, sock, time machine, boy!"

It can't get any cooler than that. Not even if it involved some kind of giant planet eating robot monster thing. That just sounds dumb.

The problem is that "relatable characters" is relative. FOr us, we KNOW these characters. For Joe Shmoe and his kids on the street, they could care less...and they don't know the characters. Look at the ones that are in the movies: outside of Sideswipe (cameo) and Jolt (who?), they are the same characters from virtually EVERY line of Transformers. Actually, I correct myself: they are the same NAMES. It's all about name recognition. Why? Because people on the streets are shown to have issues identifying with aliens (with the rare exception) or non-humanoid characters. That's partly why there are humans in the movies, too (outside of the fact that this war IS on Earth). In a lot of cases, people identify with the stars- not the characters they are playing. WHy do you think majority of stars get stereotyped and locked into one type of role (Will Ferrell, anyone?). If you have an inhuman character, it is simply harder for the general audience to identify with them- it's a fact of psychology. Too much difference leads to contempt and apathy; they just can't understand them, no matter how human-like they are...especially when they don't recognize the voices; and let's face it: the voices actors for the bots aren't very well known (outside of Hugo Weaving, mildly). Prime and Bumblebee are the two most popular TF's among kids right now- hands down. Megatron follows. Everyone else is just filler in their minds. So why not take advantage of that marketability and focus on those characters? And honestly, in popcorn movies like this, character makes little difference. THey don't pay to see that; they pay to be entertained by giant robots and humans blowing each other up.

SoooTrypticon wrote:Or they could just write a decent story that focused on relatable characters and decent action pieces with real conflict.

.

Exactly. Its not like anyone has had a friend like movie Bumble Bee that sticks by your side through thick and thin and helps you out in your time of need. Or someone like Optimus who puts everyones elese well being in front of his own. Don't know about you, but i do have people like that i could relate to.
Or maybe you haven't come across anyone like that in your life. If thats the case, then i'm sorry.

as far as stories go, TF has never been about stories. It was about robots beating the crap out of each other, whitch is what we got. As far as action goes, sorry. Your just plain wrong. Action was top notch. The "Skaky cam" was taken care of in ROTF. Nearly every robot action scene was slowed down a bit, or done in complete slow motion. So there really is no room what-so-ever to bitch about that.

Robot combat in the first movie was cut down with camera angles and "shaky camera" in order to save costs without sacrificing too much action. THe first movie cost $150 million to make. ROTF cost $200 million. Now that the TF franchise is a proven money maker, I expect a higher budget once again. Look at it this way. The combined cost of the first two movies was $350 million. The combined intake for the first two movies was $1.5 BILLION worldwide. At this point they could throw another $350 million into the movie and still come out with a 100% profit...and that's if the new movie made no money- as in zero dollars. I expect bigger, better, and more exciting action. And that;s what I'm looking for. Besides, we all know that actors read scripts before signing on and I really don't expect John Malkovich- a tremendously talented actor- to sign on for a movie that's mind-numbingly stupid. I give him more credit than that.

First-Aid wrote:Besides, we all know that actors read scripts before signing on and I really don't expect John Malkovich- a tremendously talented actor- to sign on for a movie that's mind-numbingly stupid.

Yeah, we'll leave that to Samuel L. Jackson(Snakes on a Plane) and Ron Perlman(Mutant Chornicles).

Midnight_Fox wrote:

First-Aid wrote:Besides, we all know that actors read scripts before signing on and I really don't expect John Malkovich- a tremendously talented actor- to sign on for a movie that's mind-numbingly stupid.

Yeah, we'll leave that to Samuel L. Jackson(Snakes on a Plane) and Ron Perlman(Mutant Chornicles).

Now wait a minute, Mutant Chronicles wasn't what I expected it to be, but it wasn't mind-numbingly stupid. It was well made, the visuals impressive, and the acting top notch. I'll grant you that the story didn't really win people over, but it's far better than Snakes On A Plane.

Autobot032 wrote:

Midnight_Fox wrote:

First-Aid wrote:Besides, we all know that actors read scripts before signing on and I really don't expect John Malkovich- a tremendously talented actor- to sign on for a movie that's mind-numbingly stupid.

Yeah, we'll leave that to Samuel L. Jackson(Snakes on a Plane) and Ron Perlman(Mutant Chornicles).

Now wait a minute, Mutant Chronicles wasn't what I expected it to be, but it wasn't mind-numbingly stupid. It was well made, the visuals impressive, and the acting top notch. I'll grant you that the story didn't really win people over, but it's far better than Snakes On A Plane.

Have you ever played Mutant Chronicles?

It was a bad interpretation of the game.

We'll also just have to agree to disagree on how well made or impressive the visuals are.

Midnight_Fox wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:

Midnight_Fox wrote:

First-Aid wrote:Besides, we all know that actors read scripts before signing on and I really don't expect John Malkovich- a tremendously talented actor- to sign on for a movie that's mind-numbingly stupid.

Yeah, we'll leave that to Samuel L. Jackson(Snakes on a Plane) and Ron Perlman(Mutant Chornicles).

Now wait a minute, Mutant Chronicles wasn't what I expected it to be, but it wasn't mind-numbingly stupid. It was well made, the visuals impressive, and the acting top notch. I'll grant you that the story didn't really win people over, but it's far better than Snakes On A Plane.

Have you ever played Mutant Chronicles?

It was a bad interpretation of the game.

We'll also just have to agree to disagree on how well made or impressive the visuals are.

There's a game? O_o

I had no idea. It was on HDNet and HDNet Movies before it came to DVD and it was free so I checked it out. Until now I had no idea it was more than just a movie.

Autobot032 wrote:There's a game? O_o

I had no idea. It was on HDNet and HDNet Movies before it came to DVD and it was free so I checked it out. Until now I had no idea it was more than just a movie.

It's based off of an old Pen and Paper RPG that also had a tabletop miniatures game. There were also some video games, comics, novels, and card games.

Part of the reason it got a bad reception was because of the history behind it(not unlike Bay's films, actually).

Midnight_Fox wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:There's a game? O_o

I had no idea. It was on HDNet and HDNet Movies before it came to DVD and it was free so I checked it out. Until now I had no idea it was more than just a movie.

It's based off of an old Pen and Paper RPG that also had a tabletop miniatures game. There were also some video games, comics, novels, and card games.

Part of the reason it got a bad reception was because of the history behind it(not unlike Bay's films, actually).

That explains why I hadn't heard of it then. I'm not a RPG kinda guy. I'm more into racing, action, etc.

Autobot032...grats on post number 5000!

We've reached the point where we're talking favorably about Mutant Chronicles... good gravy! Now I know I'm in trouble.

Exactly. Its not like anyone has had a friend like movie Bumble Bee that sticks by your side through thick and thin and helps you out in your time of need. Or someone like Optimus who puts everyones elese well being in front of his own. Don't know about you, but i do have people like that i could relate to.
Or maybe you haven't come across anyone like that in your life. If thats the case, then i'm sorry.

as far as stories go, TF has never been about stories. It was about robots beating the crap out of each other, whitch is what we got. As far as action goes, sorry. Your just plain wrong. Action was top notch. The "Skaky cam" was taken care of in ROTF. Nearly every robot action scene was slowed down a bit, or done in complete slow motion. So there really is no room what-so-ever to bitch about that.

Yes there is. Plenty of Bitch room. Five never ending hours of bitch room. The films are a mess- start to finish.

The Robots even counting as characters is one big joke. One minute, people defend the films saying that "it's the human element that Joe average filmgoer needs in order to shell out the bucks," but as soon as the laughably flat or downright freakish "humans" are revealed for what they are- the backpedaling begins and suddenly it's all about how well crafted the central robot characters are.

Optimus dies only because the writers wanted him to. The other Robots just disappear for convenience. That's not sacrifice, that's ugly and ill-considered plot mechanics.

Bumblebee disappears at the most inconvenient moments in both films just so Sam can flail around as yet another robot chases him. Yeah, he sure does stick with him through thick and thin.

But then it's not about the Robots being well written characters- it's actually about them blowing each other up.

So, the movies are about the humans because the public can't relate to Robots.

But it's openly admitted that the humans a terribly written, and only exist as lip service to dumb people (non-fans apparently) who can't relate to Robots.

But in the event we admit (which we just did) that the humans are flatly written pieces of cardboard with little chance of fostering a personal connection, then we must turn to the Robots as our emmotional pin in the films.

But the Robots are really only there to blow stuff up.

So... we don't like the Robots, but we needs them to blow stuff up- because we're too board with the lame story (and the stories have always been lame, apparently), so the movies should be about the Robots- but they aren't because we need the humans to stay interested- but the human story is boring...

And this is a good way to make a movie?

The films are a transparent cash grab not even attempting to carry a decent story or single well crafted character.

What confounds me is that almost every other iteration of Transformers has managed to dish out better story-telling, and yet defenders of the films claim that Transformers has never been about story-telling.

What has it been about then? It can't just be about about Robots fighting- because every incarnation of Transformers, up until the movie, has had a decent story- that's why the characters are so memorable.

Cheetor has more character than film Bumblebee.

Arcee has more character in the animated movie then she does in ROTF- and there are three of her in ROTF!

As far as action goes- you can slow down a mess- but it just looks like a mess in slow motion. During that last fight I though main characters died several times, but couldn't tell because it was so poorly done. And the fight with the Fallen was a joke.

Action works when you care about characters and understand what is at stake. With a movie as nonsensical as ROTF where anyone can die and it won't change the plot's trajectory- there is no suspense, no danger, and no surprise. You could kill Sam and Optimus (and they do) and it doesn't change a single darn thing.

There's always some random military laser gun thing to take care of business. There's always magic sock dust to bring back the dead. There's always an illogical run through a desert when your robot cast can turn into ANYTHING. There's always robot heaven.

And these films will always make money as long as there are people willing to settle for a lazy effort.

SoooTrypticon wrote:Optimus dies only because the writers wanted him to. The other Robots just disappear for convenience. That's not sacrifice, that's ugly and ill-considered plot mechanics.

But then it's not about the Robots being well written characters- it's actually about them blowing each other up.

...the humans are flatly written pieces of cardboard with little chance of fostering a personal connection...

The films are a transparent cash grab not even attempting to carry a decent story or single well crafted character.

What confounds me is that almost every other iteration of Transformers has managed to dish out better story-telling...

As far as action goes- you can slow down a mess- but it just looks like a mess in slow motion.

Action works when you care about characters and understand what is at stake.

SoooTrypticon, you are wise. Those defending the film are missing the point: We're not complaining that it's "different" from G1 or other iterations of Transformers, we're complaining that it fails miserably on every level as a movie. As a MOVIE. I never knew who Michael Bay was until I googled him after being disappointed by the first film's lack of character development, plot development, overcomplicated "transformations" that look more like CG metal in a blender, and impossible to decipher action scenes that are even more difficult to decipher because half the robots look the same.

As I looked deeper, I realized every movie he's ever made is just...disappointing. Or worse, laughable. The Island sounded cool in 2005...and then I saw it, and it traded a classic sci-fi basis and a good cast for a bunch of pointless shooting and chase scenes. Armageddon...having seen a few clips on TV, I can't believe people actually paid to see that joke. For all the claims that "they have to appeal to broad audiences", and that somehow justifies poor moviemaking, well, apparently you don't know what a classic is.

And by the way, SoooTrypticon, your comparison to Batman put it very well. It is possible to turn any concept into a great story, if you know what you are doing and care about it. And that's the problem: Movies are about story, not explosions, and story is what's missing from these...unlike the original cartoon where the voice actors, director, and writers all cared about making the best product they could...even though its purpose was to sell toys. When you get more character development--even for brand new characters--in a 22-minute cartoon than in a full-length feature film, something is wrong with the film.

The one solace is that, considering the latest film was universally panned by critics and huge numbers of the fans and non-fans who went to see it (for you skeptics, please google Transformers Revenge of the Fallen reviews before you try to argue that point), there's little chance the third movie will be as successful. Which is probably why they're willing to admit it's going to be the last for Michael Bay. And hopefully the last for robot faces like this one.

P.S.--Anyone know where to find replacement heads for Skids and Mudflap? I mean heads that don't look like the ones from the movie.

Hey there AMTM! Good to meet you!

Yeah, the movies are terrible- but I imagine the third will make tons of money too- I can always hope it fails- but the one thing that a lot of people defending the films seem to miss is that they'd make money regardless.

Transformers are a name brand at this point in time. The movie didn't do that. The toys have been around for 25 years. That's how they got into the public conscious.

The films are guaranteed to make money with a combination of nostalgia from two generations of people who might not own the toys, but remember them, their kids wanting toys, action fans, sci-fi fans, car buffs, military junkies, and cross marketing with retail and fast food joints.

By attaching Spielberg's name early on, and then using him at convention appearances and video chats, (for the first film), the public awareness was drummed up even more.

So with all this guaranteed cash about to come in, there's no defense for making lazy films. They knew they had a money making machine on their hands- but didn't bother to make anything worth a darn.

As far as the horrible Skids and Mudflap go- I would recommend looking to some of the new deluxe class toys from the "Hunt For Decepticons" line. Their heads are better designed than the earlier movie toys, and actually have faces.

But honestly, "The Generations" line is money better spent.

amtm wrote:Those defending the film are missing the point: We're not complaining that it's "different" from G1 or other iterations of Transformers, we're complaining that it fails miserably on every level as a movie.

That's your opinion.

It's not necessarily right.

It's not necessarily wrong either.

I just fail to see the point in STILL complaining about the movies. What do you hope it will achieve? Will it make you feel better? I dunno, the logical thing to me would be to get over it and move on and find something else to enjoy.

Why bother defending the movies then? Just get over them.

They're terribly crafted movies. The actual craft- how a movie is made, is broken with them. The editing, the logic, the script, the acting, the design, the suspension of disbelief. All the things that make a movie work, are broken here. Not an opinion, but actual "this is how a movie works" fact.

The fact that so many people say "turn your brain off" is proof in the pudding here. You shouldn't have to turn your brain off for a movie to work- it's actually the opposite.

A movie tricks your brain into going along with it- so your brain accepts movie as reality for a little while and you get all caught up in it.

If you have to turn your brain "off" to watch a movie, then that means if your brain was "on" it would be saying things like "that doesn't make any sense" and "why can't Megan Fox act?"

The Transformers films are akin to "Clip Shows" where there's a bunch of stuff strung together with little or no narrative thread, and the appeal relies on the work that came before.

You can personally enjoy a movie. I like bad horror movies. I like them because they make me laugh with friends and we drink beer and throw popcorn at the screen.

Admitting that you like a dumb action movie, because it has explosions and breasts is fine too. But don't delude yourself thinking that makes it a good movie.

I for one, will never say "Blood Shack" is a good movie. But you can have a good time watching it.

SoooTrypticon wrote:*snippity*

How about this? Can you at least meet people half way on this?

You can't stand the movies. That's fine, that's your right, that's your prerogative. You're entitled to it, and we have no right to take it from you.

ON THE FLIPSIDE!

We like/love the movies. That's fine, that's our right, that's our prerogative. We're entitled to it, and YOU have no right to take it from us.

So how about this? Instead of us both slamming our heads into the wall trying to get the other to see what we see, how about we just agree to disagree and just let it die?

Can you do that? Because I can, and I'm sure many others can if they're given the chance. I realize there's always a vocal minority that'll run their mouths no matter what, but I think you'd be happier instead of beating a dead horse, and us likewise.

Burn wrote:

amtm wrote:I just fail to see the point in STILL complaining about the movies.

Burn, I understand. But, it is a forum, and forums are there to share info and opinions, so...not sure there's any harm in complaining about the movies, either. Lots of people are complaining about the Movie 3 face on this thread, and I think many have good points. Anyway, I guess next time I'll try to remember to leave it alone. Thanks.

amtm wrote:

Burn wrote:

amtm wrote:I just fail to see the point in STILL complaining about the movies.

Burn, I understand. But, it is a forum, and forums are there to share info and opinions, so...not sure there's any harm in complaining about the movies, either. Lots of people are complaining about the Movie 3 face on this thread, and I think many have good points. Anyway, I guess next time I'll try to remember to leave it alone. Thanks.

You are very right that it's a forum and opinions can be shared. There's nothing wrong with that.

What Burn has a problem with (and I as well) is that people beat a dead horse over and over and over just to make the same point that's been made a million times.

We get it. Some people like this, some people don't like that, some are inbetween, some just don't care. That's all fine.

What's wrong with saying your piece, getting it said, making a defense or two if needed, and then just letting it go?

Why does everyone have to become obsessed with having the last word and beating the horse's bones now that they've beaten the tissue off of it?

It just leads to animosity and an overall unpleasant experience.

But that's what I'm saying. I understand people like the movies. Like I said, I like terrible movies too.

But that doesn't change that they're terrible movies.

Transformers deserved better treatment than it got. That's just how the cards were dealt unfortunately.

I buy up the classics/generations/reissues/animated toys and largely ignore the films- except when the attempt is made to pass the films off as quality- because they aren't.

I have zero anticipation/excitement for the films- and when I see the hype machine roll into gear for them on this site, like it did the last two- it bothers me.

Remember when everyone was all exited Soundwave was going to be in the last movie- and then he was a tentacle rape monster that didn't even have a vocoder effect on his voice and one lame toy?

How many toys did Skids and Mudflap get again?

The inclusion of Shockwave and Einstein-bot only deepen my loathing of these films- because yet again the filmmakers are trying to trick fans into thinking their product is worth buying, all the while being upfront about the big hairy mess the films actually are.

amtm wrote:

Burn wrote:

amtm wrote:I just fail to see the point in STILL complaining about the movies.

Burn, I understand. But, it is a forum, and forums are there to share info and opinions, so...not sure there's any harm in complaining about the movies, either. Lots of people are complaining about the Movie 3 face on this thread, and I think many have good points. Anyway, I guess next time I'll try to remember to leave it alone. Thanks.

I realise this and I know where you're coming from, and I apologise for getting you dragged into this. You're new and haven't really had a chance to voice your opinion, but ST has. Time and time again he has. Since the first movie came out he has. And it hasn't changed, it's the same repetative broken record spiel time and time again which he seems to feel he needs to push down everyone's throats.

And as I said, this isn't the thread for it. This is a thread for a news article on a new character for the next movie. It's not really a thread for people to voice their opinion, be it positive or negative, about the previous two movies.

So let's just drop things and get this thread back on topic.

SoooTrypticon wrote:But that's what I'm saying. I understand people like the movies. Like I said, I like terrible movies too.

But that doesn't change that they're terrible movies.

Transformers deserved better treatment than it got. That's just how the cards were dealt unfortunately.

I buy up the classics/generations/reissues/animated toys and largely ignore the films- except when the attempt is made to pass the films off as quality- because they aren't.

I have zero anticipation/excitement for the films- and when I see the hype machine roll into gear for them on this site, like it did the last two- it bothers me.

Remember when everyone was all exited Soundwave was going to be in the last movie- and then he was a tentacle rape monster that didn't even have a vocoder effect on his voice and one lame toy?

How many toys did Skids and Mudflap get again?

The inclusion of Shockwave and Einstein-bot only deepen my loathing of these films- because yet again the filmmakers are trying to trick fans into thinking their product is worth buying, all the while being upfront about the big hairy mess the films actually are.

*sighs* I give up. You win. I can't find middle ground it seems.

And tentacle rape monster? Really? That's just disgusting.

Burn wrote:So let's just drop things and get this thread back on topic.

My apologies. I didn't see that post right away. I'm done commenting on this stuff. Again, I apologize.

AMTM, Never give up! Never surrender!

As far as the Face of Einstein-bot goes, it is symptomatic of the massive fail that are the films.

I guarantee you he will have more screen time than Shockwave.

The best part about the defense given for the movies- is that it isn't needed for anything else in the franchise. You don't need to turn off your brain for Beast Wars, or Animated, or heck, even Armada, because those parts of the franchise all work better than the films.

Heck, Armada, which was wildly successful, and can be attributed to the relaunching of Transformers as a whole post Beast Wars, had some horrible toys, kid characters, and bizarre dialogue- and yet it managed to treat the Robots as characters better than the movie could ever dream of.

People admit that Armada had some really terrible moments, and a pretty lousy show, but it also had Unicron, and that was pretty cool.

Why can't people admit that the movies have some nice explosions and Megan Fox- but that they're pretty lousy films?