Transformers and More @ The Seibertron Store
![Visit shop.seibertron.com to buy "TRANSFORMERS #1 2nd ptg Cvr A Image Comics 2023 0923IM824 (CA) Howard 240210C"](https://www.seibertron.com/images/ebay/comic-books/image/transformers/01-2nd-ptg-A-240210C/t-DSC07428.jpg)
![Visit shop.seibertron.com to buy "FCBD ENERGON UNIVERSE Image Comics 2024 Skybound 1223IM804 (CA) Ottley"](https://www.seibertron.com/images/ebay/comic-books/fcbd/2024/energon-universe/t-DSC04357.jpg)
RhA wrote:Why should this frighten anyone? It's not like there's never going to be another movie with a decent story again. TF just didn't really have a deep and rich story. Loads of other movies do and are still being made. It frightens me to think that there are people out there that assess intelligence as something which is based on what someone is looking at for two and a half hours. It's not like people will stop reading, learning or intelligently discuss stuff, just because they sometimes look at something stupid. I personally love it when I an sit down and do it. Puts my mind at easy for a while. Turns out Bay really appeals to that part of me.
No. A story is not always needed. You may prefer it, that's your opinion and I'm fine with that, just don't state it as either a fact or something we should all adhere to.
To bad there are no "Breastmasters".RhA wrote:I'm holding out for 'Breastmaster'.
But why should these movies cater to just that group? Why should these films be deprived of a good story and characters in favor of explosions and fanservice? Why must those of us who actually WANT nutritional value in the movies based on the franchise we love and adore be rejected this? There's nothing wrong with implementing elegance and intelligence into films, and it only helps that these are what add to critical acclaim. The more praise a film gets, the more successful in becomes in more regards than just the box office. Why wouldn't anyone want these films to be even more recommended than they are? A good story and characters can only make these films an even greater success, and make us care about its components much more than we already do. What is so inhumanly taboo about enhancing the quality of these movies?RhA wrote:Why should this frighten anyone? It's not like there's never going to be another movie with a decent story again. TF just didn't really have a deep and rich story. Loads of other movies do and are still being made. It frightens me to think that there are people out there that assess intelligence as something which is based on what someone is looking at for two and a half hours. It's not like people will stop reading, learning or intelligently discuss stuff, just because they sometimes look at something stupid. I personally love it when I an sit down and do it. Puts my mind at easy for a while. Turns out Bay really appeals to that part of me.
No. A story is not always needed. You may prefer it, that's your opinion and I'm fine with that, just don't state it as either a fact or something we should all adhere to.
The thing about Mario is that we know those characters and can empathize with them. With these movies, however, we barely know anyone who isn't a human. These movies don't let us get to know the bots that well without us having had to read the accompanying tie-in comics (which not everyone has done). What do the movies really tell us about Ironhide, Ratchet, Sideswipe, Jolt, Arcee, and every Decepticon who isn't Megatron, Starscream, or The Fallen?Prankmeister wrote:A very good point. There's a reason why even with all of the complex, rich in detail games coming out nowadays like Skyrim and Arkham City, folks still enjoy saving the princess from the same damn giant turtle they've been saving her from for over twenty years. Movies are fully capable of being mindless fun just as games or books. Just because something is not "deep" or "intellectual" or what have you does not make it automatically bad in comparison. Not every film needs to be as detailed as The Godfather or as complicated as Inception to count as "good".
And you are one of the few people who will sincerely admit that.Prankmeister wrote:That being said, I count Revenge of the Fallen as "Not the worst film ever made" and thought Spider-Man 3 was really good, so to say that I have weird taste is like saying the sky is blue.
I don't.Prankmeister wrote:I would also like to remind everybody that the precious "G1" that everybody sets up on such a high pedestal all the time
Yep. Instead, we get fart jokes, potty humor, dog humping, robot humping, masturbation jokes, sex jokes, wrecking testicles, stereotyping, meaningless deaths, mooning, pants jokes, and more of all of the above. Real civilized stuff there.Prankmeister wrote:was twice the mindless toy commercial the Bayverse films ever were. At least Micheal Bay never had Seaspray hook up with a mermaid or have everybody go back in time and fight dragons or have a fricking entire planet full of opera singers.
Tis a shame since, a lot of times, comics can do things that movies/cartoons can't do. Looking at just the G1 cartoon vs. the Marvel comics, one can see that Marvel G1 had a solid overarching story with a richer history and wider cast of characters than the cartoon had.Prankmeister wrote:And no, the comics don't count as "G1" to me. I don't read comic books much, if at all. The Sunday Funnies is my limit. My exposure to the Transformers franchise is purely through television and film.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:Tis a shame since, a lot of times, comics can do things that movies/cartoons can't do. Looking at just the G1 cartoon vs. the Marvel comics, one can see that Marvel G1 had a solid overarching story with a richer history and wider cast of characters than the cartoon had.
And I am aware of the fact that not everyone is capable of reading comics these days. It is truly a sad reality. Especially with more and more bookstores closing their doors. Kids these days just aren't reading comics as much as those from earlier years, and thus they are missing out on a lot of great (as well as poor) stuff, and don't get the full fill of some of the best TF comic stories out there. I wish they were more widely available and promoted better than how they are now, with the cartoons and movies dominating the entertainment market of the franchise.
Sabrblade wrote:To bad there are no "Breastmasters".RhA wrote:I'm holding out for 'Breastmaster'.![]()
Sabrblade wrote:But why should these movies cater to just that group? Why should these films be deprived of a good story and characters in favor of explosions and fanservice? Why must those of us who actually WANT nutritional value in the movies based on the franchise we love and adore be rejected this? There's nothing wrong with implementing elegance and intelligence into films, and it only helps that these are what add to critical acclaim. The more praise a film gets, the more successful in becomes in more regards than just the box office. Why wouldn't anyone want these films to be even more recommended than they are? A good story and characters can only make these films an even greater success, and make us care about its components much more than we already do. What is so inhumanly taboo about enhancing the quality of these movies?RhA wrote:Why should this frighten anyone? It's not like there's never going to be another movie with a decent story again. TF just didn't really have a deep and rich story. Loads of other movies do and are still being made. It frightens me to think that there are people out there that assess intelligence as something which is based on what someone is looking at for two and a half hours. It's not like people will stop reading, learning or intelligently discuss stuff, just because they sometimes look at something stupid. I personally love it when I an sit down and do it. Puts my mind at easy for a while. Turns out Bay really appeals to that part of me.
No. A story is not always needed. You may prefer it, that's your opinion and I'm fine with that, just don't state it as either a fact or something we should all adhere to.
Yep. Instead, we get fart jokes, potty humor, dog humping, robot humping, masturbation jokes, sex jokes, wrecking testicles, stereotyping, meaningless deaths, mooning, pants jokes, and more of all of the above. Real civilized stuff there.Prankmeister wrote:was twice the mindless toy commercial the Bayverse films ever were. At least Micheal Bay never had Seaspray hook up with a mermaid or have everybody go back in time and fight dragons or have a fricking entire planet full of opera singers.
Remind me again how this is all for children?
And you are one of the few people who will sincerely admit that.Prankmeister wrote:That being said, I count Revenge of the Fallen as "Not the worst film ever made" and thought Spider-Man 3 was really good, so to say that I have weird taste is like saying the sky is blue.
What is so inhumanly taboo about enhancing the quality of these movies?
Silverwing wrote:Also, I feel compelled to give the obligatory:![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
One for each year of the Movieverse's decade strong tenure. Here's to a few more explosive years!
TulioDude wrote:The movies isnt 2 hours straight of that and you know it.
RiddlerJ wrote:Each one will come with an autographed picture of Michael Bay sitting on top of a huge pile of money.
Yes. Or, were you referring to the Breastforce? Cuz, that subgroup isn't in these ranks.RhA wrote:Sabrblade wrote:To bad there are no "Breastmasters".RhA wrote:I'm holding out for 'Breastmaster'.![]()
Really?
Well, look at the new Captain America movie. It wasn't trying to be anything as deep as, say, Inception, nor as humongously explosive as these movies. Yet, it was still almost unanimously well received (not just by critics, but moviegoers as well). It didn't try too hard to be anything special, yet it still turned out to be. Why is it that these movies, however, feel the need to try way too hard to be good when they don't? What's wrong with movies having a little sincerity?RhA wrote:Once again, you talk personal prefence and opinion. Why is this movie not to Sabreblades liking? Well, quite simply put, personal taste. You keep putting stuff like 'elegance' and 'intelligence' in arguments. What is it about that that makes you want it as a criteria for what you think is good? What do you want with 'intelligence' all the time? Sometimes it just isn't there, big deal.
There's nothing wrong with a different spin on it, but it just did not happen. You can want it untill the cow come home, though.
-edit-
I don't want to attack you personally, Sabreblade. It's just that I see these arguments all the time and am very much surprised that you make the same argument as everyone else who keeps repeating 'my tastes should have been honered, Bay'.
The point is that none of that stuff was necessary and really crippled these movies from being the best that they could be. None of it added in anything except facepalming.TulioDude wrote:The movies isnt 2 hours straight of that and you know it.Yep. Instead, we get fart jokes, potty humor, dog humping, robot humping, masturbation jokes, sex jokes, wrecking testicles, stereotyping, meaningless deaths, mooning, pants jokes, and more of all of the above. Real civilized stuff there.
Remind me again how this is all for children?
The former.TulioDude wrote:I dont understand,you're saying how hard it is to adimt when you are weird or one must have a weird taste to like the movies?
But why settle for less when it is known that something can be made better?TulioDude wrote:What is so inhumanly taboo about enhancing the quality of these movies?
Quality can change to person to person,if quality should be enhanced also is subjective to opinion.
Please, no.ReDPATH wrote:Spielberg moves on, Bay goes for Bad Boys 3. Robert Zemeckis takes over.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:Yes. Or, were you referring to the Breastforce? Cuz, that subgroup isn't in these ranks.RhA wrote:Sabrblade wrote:To bad there are no "Breastmasters".RhA wrote:I'm holding out for 'Breastmaster'.![]()
Really?
Well, look at the new Captain America movie. It wasn't trying to be anything as deep as, say, Inception, nor as humongously explosive as these movies. Yet, it was still almost unanimously well received (not just by critics, but moviegoers as well). It didn't try too hard to be anything special, yet it still turned out to be. Why is it that these movies, however, feel the need to try way too hard to be good when they don't? What's wrong with movies having a little sincerity?RhA wrote:Once again, you talk personal prefence and opinion. Why is this movie not to Sabreblades liking? Well, quite simply put, personal taste. You keep putting stuff like 'elegance' and 'intelligence' in arguments. What is it about that that makes you want it as a criteria for what you think is good? What do you want with 'intelligence' all the time? Sometimes it just isn't there, big deal.
There's nothing wrong with a different spin on it, but it just did not happen. You can want it untill the cow come home, though.
-edit-
I don't want to attack you personally, Sabreblade. It's just that I see these arguments all the time and am very much surprised that you make the same argument as everyone else who keeps repeating 'my tastes should have been honered, Bay'.
I really, REALLY wanted to like these movies, and at first I did. But I was merely caught up in the awe of it all and wasn't looking at them with a fair, non-fanboy view. Upon watching all three of them again and again, I realized that these movies gave me no reason to care its contents. If the movies don't want me to get enthralled, then why should I?
Sabrblade wrote:Quoted for truth.amtm wrote:It's pretty sad when a half hour cartoon can tell a story better than a 2.5 hour film.
These movies treat the audience like dimwits, which we are not. We are smarter than that and deserve more respectable movies that don't insult our IQs.
RiddlerJ wrote:Each one will come with an autographed picture of Michael Bay sitting on top of a huge pile of money.
MINDVVIPE wrote:The movies feel cheap. They feel like long trailers, as I said before. They feel like an extended version of a that new theme park ride, and even that looks better for how short it is (guess thats full-movie length without the human scenes)
As Saberblade said, I don't care for any of the characters. Visuals, sound effects, peter cullen; none of it matters when I don't care about the Transformers. Hell, I cared more for freakin Woody and the gang in toy story 3... I can see how some people like it, coz some people just like what they see, but as a TF Fan, I want a TF movie where I care about the Transformers that populate the screen. I'm still waiting for someone to add up the minutes of TFs on screen (speaking or in action) and compare it to the time the humans are on screen. I bet its less than 40/60. Sorry for beating a dead horse, haha.
Shadowman wrote:I will put forth the theory that it was the internet itself trying to punch him in the face.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Transformers to date has never had a movie that I can call "good." Not in 1986, not in 2011. I enjoyed what I could but it's a lot like getting Diet Coke when you were expecting regular. It gives you a hollow feeling and a bad taste in your mouth. It's pretty sad when a half hour cartoon can tell a story better than a 2.5 hour film.
Here's a thought. Why do the movies have to be in live action? Why not make a completely CGI movie (with motion capture CGI)? No, I don't mean at the same uber-expensive level of super realistic CGI quality as these movies have right now. That would be outrageous. What I do mean is a CGI movie done in a similar art style to those of Beowulf and The Polar Express. Yes, it wouldn't look as realistic as real life, but the diminished animation quality would enable the bots to have more screentime and more character interactions/development than "We must fight to save the world," "We will conquer and destroy," and "ROAR! ROAR! ROAR! BANG! BANG! BANG! KABOOM! FIGHT!" Less money for the visuals (and potty humor) = more money for the story and characters.
Sabrblade wrote:Here's a thought. Why do the movies have to be in live action? Why not make a completely CGI movie (with motion capture CGI)? No, I don't mean at the same uber-expensive level of super realistic CGI quality as these movies have right now. That would be outrageous. What I do mean is a CGI movie done in a similar art style to those of Beowulf and The Polar Express. Yes, it wouldn't look as realistic as real life, but the diminished animation quality would enable the bots to have more screentime and more character interactions/development than "We must fight to save the world," "We will conquer and destroy," and "ROAR! ROAR! ROAR! BANG! BANG! BANG! KABOOM! FIGHT!" Less money for the visuals (and potty humor) = more money for the story and characters.
Sabrblade wrote:Here's a thought. Why do the movies have to be in live action? Why not make a completely CGI movie (with motion capture CGI)? No, I don't mean at the same uber-expensive level of super realistic CGI quality as these movies have right now. That would be outrageous. What I do mean is a CGI movie done in a similar art style to those of Beowulf and The Polar Express. Yes, it wouldn't look as realistic as real life, but the diminished animation quality would enable the bots to have more screentime and more character interactions/development than "We must fight to save the world," "We will conquer and destroy," and "ROAR! ROAR! ROAR! BANG! BANG! BANG! KABOOM! FIGHT!" Less money for the visuals (and potty humor) = more money for the story and characters.
Sabrblade wrote:Here's a thought. Why do the movies have to be in live action? Why not make a completely CGI movie (with motion capture CGI)? No, I don't mean at the same uber-expensive level of super realistic CGI quality as these movies have right now. That would be outrageous. What I do mean is a CGI movie done in a similar art style to those of Beowulf and The Polar Express. Yes, it wouldn't look as realistic as real life, but the diminished animation quality would enable the bots to have more screentime and more character interactions/development than "We must fight to save the world," "We will conquer and destroy," and "ROAR! ROAR! ROAR! BANG! BANG! BANG! KABOOM! FIGHT!" Less money for the visuals (and potty humor) = more money for the story and characters.
Noideaforaname wrote:Live-action, CGI, stop motion, traditional animation, whatever the medium is will NOT change anything but how it looks.
Shadowman wrote:I will put forth the theory that it was the internet itself trying to punch him in the face.
Sabrblade wrote:Less money for the visuals (and potty humor) = more money for the story and characters.
RiddlerJ wrote:Each one will come with an autographed picture of Michael Bay sitting on top of a huge pile of money.
cotss2012 wrote:Protip: good stories and good characters don't cost a cent more than crappy ones do.
cotss2012 wrote:Instead of degrading the quality of CGI used, why not just... I don't know... rely less on CGI, and more on stuff that's actually there? Animatronics and "guy in a suit" effects" have served us pretty well in the past. Also, reducing the complexity of the transformations would take a chunk out of the CGI budget AND produce better-looking robots as a result.
Return to Transformers Live Action Film Forum
Registered users: Bing [Bot], chuckdawg1999, EvasionModeBumblebee, Fires_Of_Inferno, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], MSN [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]