The Energon Pub

Divebomb01 wrote:id like to hear the reaons why they enjoyed it when all logic points to it being a boring b movie

Logic isn't the same from person to person.

As for why it was enjoyable? *shrugs shoulders* The action ... the fact that the two and a half hours flew by quickly. To me that's a good indication that the movie held my attention and didn't reach a point where I got bored.

It's not much but eh, I enjoyed it, that's enough for me. Others didn't, that's enough for them.

Burn wrote:

Divebomb01 wrote:id like to hear the reaons why they enjoyed it when all logic points to it being a boring b movie

Logic isn't the same from person to person.

As for why it was enjoyable? *shrugs shoulders* The action ... the fact that the two and a half hours flew by quickly. To me that's a good indication that the movie held my attention and didn't reach a point where I got bored.

It's not much but eh, I enjoyed it, that's enough for me. Others didn't, that's enough for them.

Fair do's, the movie did the direct opposite for me and dragged. But i kind of expected my reaction, i didnt expect my reaction where Bay's name popped up at the end and i gave it two fingers, and im kind of glad its getting critically panned atm by the British press.

Divebomb01 wrote: @ Thenedain, Bay cant create classics, Star Wars had a back story, Bay couldnt even agree with writters of the novel about which dates were true.

Personally, I loved how he'd been so proud of his editing job, yet managed to get the name of one of the characters completely wrong, but I digress.

Actually, my opinion is that the movie was plagued with amazingly crappy communication, both within the actual people working on it, the fans, the studio, everything. Half the incessant arguing over the movie could have been settled if they'd just come out from the get go and said, "This Transformers movie, while based off the franchise you may know, will not be connected to any previous incarnations except perhaps in name only".

That whole mess over the leaked images of the designs COULD have been totally blasted away if they would have just slowly but surely released the images themselves. Marketing is more than just product placements, when done well, you can make the release of a single image fire up people more than anything else. Take a look at the current marketing campaign for stuff like Iron Man and the Dark Knight. Instead of getting angry because a picture they didn't want people to see got leaked, they're putting it out where people can see it. They're showing us a picture and saying, "This is Iron Man." and people are eating it up. Still nearly a year out from release and they've already got a nicely building hype machine going.

Of course, both those movies seem to be aggressively targeting the fans with their marketing. The average joe movie goer probably never caught the two Dark Knight viral marketing websites, but the fans did. The sad thing with Transformers was the guys behind the film seemed to almost want to treat the fandom as this bizarre die cast encrusted parasitic creature and tried to keep it as far away from the film for as long as possible. They should have tried to get the fandom on their side as early as possible, not by basing their choices on fan opinion, but just by letting the fans know about the choices they've made and taking time to explain them as early as possible. Be up front about it, don't try to be all 'hush hush zomg secret' about it, 'cause eventually your 'secret stuff' gets leaked and we've seen how that can of worms turned out.

All in all, the Movie is what it is. Personally, I think it'll turn out like Beast Wars or Beast Machines. It'll initially divide the fanbase, but will slowly grow over time to win over some of it's detractors. I'm just hoping that with the first one done and financially successful, they slow down and learn to better communicate before rushing into the sequels.

Divebomb01 wrote:im kind of glad its getting critically panned atm by the British press.

Yeah, but does that really mean anything?

Just a bunch of people (more often than not) paid to express their opinions, the majority of them with an air of superiority.

Guess you could say I never pay any attention to reviews because i'd much rather form my own opinion.

Burn wrote:

Divebomb01 wrote:im kind of glad its getting critically panned atm by the British press.

Yeah, but does that really mean anything?

Just a bunch of people (more often than not) paid to express their opinions, the majority of them with an air of superiority.

Guess you could say I never pay any attention to reviews because i'd much rather form my own opinion.

I know you would rather form your opinion, but its not influencing as many people as a tabloid newspaper. I thought the film failed on cinematic level more so then it did replicating the transformers we know and love.

As some have commented on this thread, what really bugs me is how the producers kept on saying that they are always listening to the fans and that the fans are important to the project. In truth, the fans were used to give positive publicity for this product and will now be tossed away for future sequels since money has been made.
Bayformers is a product aimed to promote GM/ebay and ofcourse...THE AMERICAN ARMY!

Trying to make a film that had all the good bits of G1 in it was tossed away...sad.

To note, the only reason why Transformers is so popular and lasted was because of G1...for any of those saying that G1 should be put away so that this new incarnation can now appear.

There are many things that they did for the fans, that they didn't have to do. You are just to close minded to either see them, or look for them. They are there, things that only transformers nerds would recognize.

I'm not sure if you understand the word "sponsorship", but it applies greatly in a film that needs more money. Bay saves 3mil by making Jazz a solstice? Sounds like a reasonable business move to me.

If you can't handle some company logos, then I suggest not stepping out into the real world.

Don't forget Bay having to make the Army look good by taking out a few Decepticons. After all, the army gave him a tank...he has to repay them in the movie.

briggs wrote:
If you can't handle some company logos, then I suggest not stepping out into the real world.

I step outside my front door and i see fields...by your logic i should GMC written on every Cow....and my vision should zoom real close to it as i wiz by. Real world corporate advertising isnt that in your face, even in the city. I agree that funding has to come from somewhere, but how come Pearl Harbor maganged to keep the Original Zero's 'Pepsi/Mountain Dew/ Nike' free?

Divebomb01 wrote:

briggs wrote:
If you can't handle some company logos, then I suggest not stepping out into the real world.

I step outside my front door and i see fields...by your logic i should GMC written on every Cow....and my vision should zoom real close to it as i wiz by. Real world corporate advertising isnt that in your face, even in the city. I agree that funding has to come from somewhere, but how come Pearl Harbor maganged to keep the Original Zero's 'Pepsi/Mountain Dew/ Nike' free?

I'm sure you'll see quite a few GMC logos on the vehicles driving down your street.

Not sure about where you live, but I see lots of mountain dew logos splashed infront of my face before I walk into walmart.

By my logic? Where are you from? If you are walking down a city street, a downtown area, you are going to get advertising, it's simple as that, this movie has a good chunk of it taking place in a city setting.

lol.. asking how pearl harbor kept pepsi and nike out of the movie, classic.

My logic.. end of.

Gah.. the ol' product placement arguement..

Bay didn't invent capitalism folks;

He might have made some controversial changes for the movie but I don't think even Conceptron can pin that on him...

If you're intelligent enough to spot product placement I would think you're also smart enough to be able to appreciate something regardless. Ever used myspace or facebook? Absolutely COVERED in ads. Doesn't make them any less useful or popular.

Virtually everything has a brand name on it, good or bad, its just a fact of life.

Bay didn't invent capitalism folks;

No he only puts it on as a condom before he bangs barely legal a$$...

I've seen product placement in movies for years..But there's a subtle way to do it and still be effective (Minority Report, Total Recall, Back to the Future 2, etc.) then there's the HEAVY-HANDED BAY WAY..Where you turn a friken Mountain Dew machine into a decepticon...The reason people who didn't like it complain is because it's so over the top that it seems like a straight up commercial...You don't go to the movie to see 100% commercials (That's why they've used subliminal messages for years)...But Bay is a Commercial director, he's made GMC commercials for years, so he has no context between a subtle commercial placement and whipping his johnson out on your face and saying "Eat this!!" The guy is a music video slash tv commercial director who made it by kissing Jerry Brukheimers a$$...That's it, period...

Awaits apologists...

The sad thing with Transformers was the guys behind the film seemed to almost want to treat the fandom as this bizarre die cast encrusted parasitic creature and tried to keep it as far away from the film for as long as possible.

Yet many of us don't have the right to be upset, bitch and moan and whatever else that helps us cope with this...QFTness

Bay doesn't give a f*ck...The fact that many fans hated what he was doing only fueled him a trillion percent which is his nature...Orci and company couldn't do $hit really as Bay didn't even want to let them on set or tell him anything (In artcles Bay's laffs and is proud of the fact he barely talked to the guys during production and wouldn't even acknowledge their suggestions on set)...Steven Speilberg I assume busy with Indy 4 has simply lost touch with anything but special effects...Indy 4 will look the best and probably have the least memorable story, bet on it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1-1Q_51kUw

wingdarkness wrote:

Bay didn't invent capitalism folks;

No he only puts it on as a condom before he bangs barely legal a$$...

I've seen product placement in movies for years..But there's a subtle way to do it and still be effective (Minority Report, Total Recall, Back to the Future 2, etc.) then there's the HEAVY-HANDED BAY WAY..Where you turn a friken Mountain Dew machine into a decepticon...The reason people who didn't like it complain is because it's so over the top that it seems like a straight up commercial...You don't go to the movie to see 100% commercials (That's why they've used subliminal messages for years)...But Bay is a Commercial director, he's made GMC commercials for years, so he has no context between a subtle commercial placement and whipping his johnson out on your face and saying "Eat this!!" The guy is a music video slash tv commercial director who made it by kissing Jerry Brukheimers a$$...That's it, period...

Awaits apologists...

Its funny how you're totally against product placement in the Transformers film. You're against the Mountain Dew Decepticon, yet you don't say anything about the Optimus Prime Pepsi edition.... You're ragging on Bay as a commercial director; he makes ads for GMC. Yet you don't say anything about the G1 toys where the tires had "Dunlop" on them. Oh, and let's not forget about the Nike Sports Label Transformers. Now thats some product placement right there, isn't it? Theres so much crap out there thats on the Transformers label, yet you speak nothing of it. I'm pretty sure you seen these toys, heck you might even own some. And yet, you only talk **** on the Transformers movie and Michael Bay. If you're gonna talk mess, broaden your horizons. You shouldn't only be hating on the TF movie and Bay, cause if you're against them for product placement, you should be against the whole Transformers line. So you shouldn't even be here, and go to some anti-capitalist forum instead. peace.

Divebomb01 wrote:I know you would rather form your opinion, but its not influencing as many people as a tabloid newspaper.

True. And I have no desire to influence people either.

I was fortunate enough to see the movie three weeks before it officially opened in Australia and then America. It was requested we not post reviews until a week before it opened, when that time came, I posted my review and thoughts on the movie.

I received a couple of pm's from people thanking me for it as it helped address some of their concerns. And you know what? That freaked me out. Because in no way did I want to influence people, I just wanted to share my thoughts on the movie. I would much rather people go out and watch something because they want to, not because someone told them they should. (Even though at the end of my post I did tell everyone they should see this movie )

I thought the film failed on cinematic level more so then it did replicating the transformers we know and love.

And you came to that conclusion yourself. Not because some newspaper told you about it. Plus you managed to not insult other TF fans in the process, for that, I give you two smileys.

cause if you're against them for product placement, you should be against the whole Transformers line

QFT

Every cartoon series is product placement. Maybe Michael Bay was inserting a bit of Irony when he added the Nokia/Dew bots.

As a fan I don't care. If a few frames of product placement is what it takes to bring the series to the big screen then so be it.

Burn wrote:

Divebomb01 wrote:I know you would rather form your opinion, but its not influencing as many people as a tabloid newspaper.

True. And I have no desire to influence people either.

I was fortunate enough to see the movie three weeks before it officially opened in Australia and then America. It was requested we not post reviews until a week before it opened, when that time came, I posted my review and thoughts on the movie.

I received a couple of pm's from people thanking me for it as it helped address some of their concerns. And you know what? That freaked me out. Because in no way did I want to influence people, I just wanted to share my thoughts on the movie. I would much rather people go out and watch something because they want to, not because someone told them they should. (Even though at the end of my post I did tell everyone they should see this movie )

I thought the film failed on cinematic level more so then it did replicating the transformers we know and love.

And you came to that conclusion yourself. Not because some newspaper told you about it. Plus you managed to not insult other TF fans in the process, for that, I give you two smileys.

by no means am i trying to insult others. if i post on here im not babbling senseless hate, rather constructive arguments. im just stating the facts

wingdarkness wrote:

Bay didn't invent capitalism folks;

No he only puts it on as a condom before he bangs barely legal a$$...

I've seen product placement in movies for years..But there's a subtle way to do it and still be effective (Minority Report, Total Recall, Back to the Future 2, etc.) then there's the HEAVY-HANDED BAY WAY..Where you turn a friken Mountain Dew machine into a decepticon...The reason people who didn't like it complain is because it's so over the top that it seems like a straight up commercial...You don't go to the movie to see 100% commercials (That's why they've used subliminal messages for years)...But Bay is a Commercial director, he's made GMC commercials for years, so he has no context between a subtle commercial placement and whipping his johnson out on your face and saying "Eat this!!" The guy is a music video slash tv commercial director who made it by kissing Jerry Brukheimers a$$...That's it, period...

Awaits apologists...

Do you have to put one word in red in every one of your posts?

tom brokaw wrote:by no means am i trying to insult others. if i post on here im not babbling senseless hate, rather constructive arguments. im just stating the facts

Much appreciated!

Unfortunately there are some who didn't like the movie that feel the need to insult those that do by saying they're true fans, unevolved apes, or some other general insult.

briggs wrote:

Divebomb01 wrote:

briggs wrote:
If you can't handle some company logos, then I suggest not stepping out into the real world.

I step outside my front door and i see fields...by your logic i should GMC written on every Cow....and my vision should zoom real close to it as i wiz by. Real world corporate advertising isnt that in your face, even in the city. I agree that funding has to come from somewhere, but how come Pearl Harbor maganged to keep the Original Zero's 'Pepsi/Mountain Dew/ Nike' free?

I'm sure you'll see quite a few GMC logos on the vehicles driving down your street.

Not sure about where you live, but I see lots of mountain dew logos splashed infront of my face before I walk into walmart.

By my logic? Where are you from? If you are walking down a city street, a downtown area, you are going to get advertising, it's simple as that, this movie has a good chunk of it taking place in a city setting.

lol.. asking how pearl harbor kept pepsi and nike out of the movie, classic.

My logic.. end of.

Pearl Harbor Budget $132,250,000
Transformers Budget $147 million

Pearl Harbor, the movie, made without the massive corporate tie ins for less money. And ironically a movie with a similar pointless love angle. And im sorry a rhetorical question had to be answered.

Also fyi i live in the UK, as it says in my title, so i guess advertising isnt as 'in your face' were i live and GMC trucks are a very rare sight. The only enforced advertising i have to put up with is in Bf2142... and even then its still optional as to whether i play the game.

(Edit) As i've just seen the post below i dont want really argue this point of were Michael Bays soul really rests. Its a moot factor now as the exists, you can choose to hate it or love it, just dont start a crusade...

Blackout -You know, the real problem has nothing to do with the fact that you don't like the movie. No one cares about that, Wingbaby. It's that you are on some strange crusade againts the movie when you should have better things to do. I'm not saying "oh get out of here hater, we cant stand your opinion". What I mean is that you seem to see 'sin' where there really isn't. Or, more probably, chose to focus on Bay and ignore the rest of the movie and television business. Bay utilised GMC to make it cheaper to film TFs - just like thousands of movies (there's more product placement in Close Encounters) and TV shows. And what is objectively wrong with the Mountaindew machine? You act as though it's evil . In the context of the film or story, it's use is blameless. To wit: it doesn't alter the narrative or scene in anyway. However, you've made a major error in thinking it somehow detracts from the scene because it's a 'capitalist thing'. If it helped Bay make a cheaper movie, yes. But beyond that, the product placement is meaningless and hardly a crime. Sure, you can act 'noble' and make petty comments about Bay and doing something to 'a's with dollar signs attached to them but you probably will conviently forget the entire TF story has really been one big advertisement.

Wow that's awesome...Attack my posting style as if that advances any argument...Don't get hype, I've posted like this for year$ and like I said earlier some people like it some people hate it (sorta like this movie and Bay's birth)...

All too easy...Ok where to begin? Ah,...

Tran$former$ has always been a capitalist venture

Bay didn't invent capitalism folks;

Only heard this flawed argument a thousand times...As I said before every cartoon, every comic book, every toy franchise (The ones that have been most prevelant in marketing that is) has been motivated by making money...Surely your mommy bought you more than TF-toys when you were a kid..Just because something is out to sell something doesn't mean it can't have integrity and sensibility that doesn't just cater to the most generic aspect of society...Those whose lives revolve around the lowest common denominator of entertainment will flock regardless...TF would have made however many millions it made whether you whored GMC and Burger King or handled the advertisement with subtelty...

My argument isn't merely based upon product placement but WHO places the product and Micheal Bay is a human set of external speakers, a woofer box who has no clue that you can't hear the music as clearly when you have the volume so loud the knob twists off the console...Some people can hear the music without it blasting their eardrums off...That's called a metaphor BTW...

You can whore products two kinds of ways, The prostitute with 6-inch red pumps on the corner with flashy sequence way and the elegant call-girl who meets you in a swanky hotel way...Both sex for pay, one subtle, one over the top...Guess who Bay's sleeping with?


Finally Bay has a plethora of source material that only enhances his handling of commercialism...There's a evolution there not an isolated and//or random occurance that takes place in all movies like you want to make it out to be...I own like a hundred blockbuster films, and prolly a tenth of them whore on Bay's level (and I wish I was just talking commercial products)...

Its funny how you're totally against product placement in the Transformers film. You're against the Mountain Dew Decepticon, yet you don't say anything about the Optimus Prime Pepsi edition.... You're ragging on Bay as a commercial director; he makes ads for GMC. Yet you don't say anything about the G1 toys where the tires had "Dunlop" on them. Oh, and let's not forget about the Nike Sports Label Transformers. Now thats some product placement right there, isn't it? Theres so much crap out there thats on the Transformers label, yet you speak nothing of it. I'm pretty sure you seen these toys, heck you might even own some. And yet, you only talk **** on the Transformers movie and Michael Bay. If you're gonna talk mess, broaden your horizons. You shouldn't only be hating on the TF movie and Bay, cause if you're against them for product placement, you should be against the whole Transformers line. So you shouldn't even be here, and go to some anti-capitalist forum instead. peace.

Same goes to you Brokaw, so spare me your wack-analysis when you are missing my point...Oh I'm against all product placment huh?--Read between the lines (Good God)cause I never said that, just against Bay's Heavy-handed approach to EVERYTHING he does as a director...This is the type of guy that if he had to blow on a hot bowl of soup he'd bring a windmill with him...

Wow, I feel sorry for this video guy.

He's like.. Transformers has nothing to do with humans why did they do a film about humans... Well, it *was* about humans, they came to OUR world, how can it not be about humans and how humans affect the Transformers.
If it really was JUST about transformers, G1 would have been set completely on Cybertron and nothing to do with Earth. Having humans is how they make something relate to us, without that it would just become sci-fi tripe.
Story? Let's be honest here, G1 didn't have much of a story or "plot". Robots came to Earth, two warring factions that are good vs evil, fighting over energy resources, and they just throw new characters into it for the sake of more toys. There was no plot as to why more robots appeared, the only ones that really had plot then were the Dinobots. The others may as well have popped out of the ground!
And as for his "dark and evil" speech, I'm sure having Megatron crushing people in his hands and underfoot would have been good, but let's face it, Transformers IS a family show. To say it should be dark like that is to say you've thought WAY too much about it and forgotten what it's really about.
"We should be scared when Transformers invade".. uhm.. I'm fairly sure the soliders and civilians in the battle sequences weren't laughing and joking. And it wasn't like Sam was perfectly happy with his car transforming at first.

Quite the product placement arguement too I see. To be honest I didn't really acknowledge it as a Mountain Dew decepticon until I read it here, guess it's bigger in America. Didn't you see the Mountain Dew cans in the storage room on Air Force One too? As for Nokia, well, I didn't realise Nokia was from Finland, guess I learned something from that particular "evil" placement.
Ebay/world wide web? So what, the Transformers are robots, they can access information electronically. For them to know everything about us as quickly as possible, as time was a factor, they couldn't really go and read books now could they? The internet was an obvious method. Ebay, well, Sam put the glasses on ebay to sell them (that's what he would probably do) so they found him that way.
To be fair, films based in the real world would naturally have these things. Perhaps not ALL the cars would be GMC, but it's hardly a new thing in cinema to get wound up about. "I Robot" had horribly obvious product placement.
Looking at it from another view it could be worse, if Bay made a film set in the UK only, yet the streets were plugged with GMC cars.. that would be a bit stupid. I know, I know, America isn't filled with them either, but if it makes the film cheaper in that respect and allow more money for CGI or any other important function of film-making, I have no problem with it.

Its funny how you're totally against product placement in the Transformers film. You're against the Mountain Dew Decepticon, yet you don't say anything about the Optimus Prime Pepsi edition.... You're ragging on Bay as a commercial director; he makes ads for GMC. Yet you don't say anything about the G1 toys where the tires had "Dunlop" on them. Oh, and let's not forget about the Nike Sports Label Transformers. Now thats some product placement right there, isn't it? Theres so much crap out there thats on the Transformers label, yet you speak nothing of it. I'm pretty sure you seen these toys, heck you might even own some. And yet, you only talk **** on the Transformers movie and Michael Bay. If you're gonna talk mess, broaden your horizons. You shouldn't only be hating on the TF movie and Bay, cause if you're against them for product placement, you should be against the whole Transformers line. So you shouldn't even be here, and go to some anti-capitalist forum instead. peace.

Same goes to you Brokaw, so spare me your wack-analysis when you are missing my point...Oh I'm against all product placment huh?--Read between the lines (Good God)cause I never said that, just against Bay's Heavy-handed approach to EVERYTHING he does as a director...This is the type of guy that if he had to blow on a hot bowl of soup he'd bring a windmill with him...[/quote]

Ah, okay I see. You're not against product placement. Or, maybe you are against it. Or maybe you're against it here, and just allow it there. Am i right? So you're saying it's all good as long its a matter of who does it and how its done. Okay. So in all reality, this whole fiasco isn't about product placement or commercialism, but rather "Wingdarkness (and a bunch of others) hates Michael Bay and everything he does with a passion!" All right, thats cool with me, its your say. No one is forcing you to love him. But in all honesty, I think he did a pretty damn good job. But what bothers me is when you say you're against Bay's heavy handed approach to everything. So you're saying that you didn't want anything over the top? Then what exactly did you want? I Don't know how else a movie director could've done the best he could without making everything more dramatic than it really is. Homie, its a movie, made by a movie director, its their job to go all out and make the most boring thing look like the greatest thing in the world. Michael Bay isn't the only director with a heavy handed approach to everything, its pretty much every director's job to do things that way. It's their job to make the most boring thing look visually appealing. Artists, writers, comics pencilers, and directors are encourage to approach everything over the top, its called making everything dynamic. If you're against Michael Bay's over the top approach, you might as well be against Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis, Brian Michael Bendis, Tim Burton.... pretty much every person out there in any creative business. I've read countless books on film and comics and how to break into the business. And believe it or not, its encourage to go over the top. Because if you wanna get noticed by anyone, you gotta "bring a windmill when you only need to blow on a hot bowl of soup." Honestly the TF movie budget couldve been half that it was. They couldve went to some small time special fx studios. Got some no name director and hired no name actors. And it couldve been the most mediocre **** you've ever seen. Just like all the rest of the comics movies produced by Avi Arad. They make good quick $$ but they all suck. And Transformers could've been just as easily one of those films. 150mil budget, Steven Spielberg, Michael Bay, Industrial Light and Magic.... Thats pretty damn good, and I'm pretty sure they tried their best to make a good film to please the fans. Theres always gonna be haters....Honestly, I'd like to see what kind of movie you couldve came up with without a "heavy handed" approach.