Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

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.

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".

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 would also like to remind everybody that the precious "G1" that everybody sets up on such a high pedestal all the time 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.

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.

RhA wrote:I'm holding out for 'Breastmaster'.

To bad there are no "Breastmasters".

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.

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?

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".

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: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.

And you are one of the few people who will sincerely admit that.

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

I don't.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Same goes for the Japanese cartoons. Like the comics, those get largely ignored and missed out on and, as a result, the fans continue to miss out on some good stuff.

. . . No

I'm not going to hold my breath on Michael Bay returning, but either way I hope to see a Transformers 4.
That way, I can treat my defective brain to some more brain-melting nutritionally devoid entertainment. I hope I don't get caught enjoying it. You know, it's illegal and everything.

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.

So true, comics are amazing. I think it helps that they require some user investment in the reading/imagination of sounds and such. The G1 oriented comics, to me, are the highest point in TF lore, and the great part is, theres so much more I have to read

As for the whole deal about audiences becoming more... lazy? not quite the word I'm looking for, but for now it'll do. It is happening, and that is why there are so many similarly styled action movies or sci fi movies. They're making an Akira movie, and from what i've read, its been butchered so much, just to appeal to the average movie goer. So at this point, its no longer about the movie, or the story. People claim G1 cannot be compared to the movies because it was one long toy commercial, well, I say movies today are extended trailers, with no substance, but basically a longer version of a movie ticket sales pitch.

Comparing to games... well, whoever above me did comment on the similarity, well you are right in a different way. Games today are SO much easier. Compare prince of persia 1 with prince of persia now. You have hints/instructions/button guides/rewinding functions for racing games/GAME SAVES haha. Anyway, my point is that the bigger the industry gets, the less it becomes about substance, and this also makes sense when looking at the Cartoon episodes compared to the Bay movies. Multiply that by 10 for the comics compared to the movies.

Sabrblade wrote:

RhA wrote:I'm holding out for 'Breastmaster'.

To bad there are no "Breastmasters".

Really?

Sabrblade wrote:

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.

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?

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'.

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.

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 movies isnt 2 hours straight of that and you know it.

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.

And you are one of the few people who will sincerely admit that. [/quote]
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?

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.

Bayformers summed up in two words:

DEEP WANG

TulioDude wrote:The movies isnt 2 hours straight of that and you know it.

Correct. They're two and a half hours each, for a total of seven and a half hours.





DEEP WANG

I just don't get why people think removing Bay will change anything regarding the franchise.

If you want to blame anyone. Blame Spielberg. He is the guy who ultimately keeps this going. If you want real change, you have to hope Spielberg loses interest in the franchise.

In which case, you have to hope TF4 bombs and bombs badly.

Spielberg moves on, Bay goes for Bad Boys 3. Robert Zemeckis takes over.

RhA wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

RhA wrote:I'm holding out for 'Breastmaster'.

To bad there are no "Breastmasters".

Really?

Yes. Or, were you referring to the Breastforce? Cuz, that subgroup isn't in these ranks.

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'.

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?

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?

TulioDude wrote:

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 movies isnt 2 hours straight of that and you know it.

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: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?

The former.

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.

But why settle for less when it is known that something can be made better?

ReDPATH wrote:Spielberg moves on, Bay goes for Bad Boys 3. Robert Zemeckis takes over.

Please, no.

Sabrblade wrote:

RhA wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

RhA wrote:I'm holding out for 'Breastmaster'.

To bad there are no "Breastmasters".

Really?

Yes. Or, were you referring to the Breastforce? Cuz, that subgroup isn't in these ranks.

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'.

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?

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?

You shouldn't if you don't want to. What you like or don't like should never be based on what other people say you should like. I loved all three movies, that doesn't make them good movies. It just makes them movies I really like.

Sabrblade wrote:

amtm wrote:It's pretty sad when a half hour cartoon can tell a story better than a 2.5 hour film.

Quoted for truth.

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.

The way I see it; if your IQ is insulted by a freaking movie, then you have some personal issues with your own IQ.

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.

Transformers 4: Return of Deep Wang (a Michael Bay film)

No thanks.

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.

As you probabaly know, i liked the movies. Especialy DOTM. But i do understand your what your saying. I think we all would have loved to see more robot time, but the truth of the mater is, that costs more money. Alot more. The cost to put the TF on screen for the time they were on, cost more than the intire budget of Toy Story 3. This is why personally, i would have much preffered the more complicated animations such as the driller and decepicon war ships be left out and use that budget money the bots and cons. BUt to be fair i get why they were used. Each movie visually, needs to out due the other.

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.

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.

I so agree,I somewhat thought the movies needed more classic Transformers fighting and story line.I find it sort of sad to have to explain backgrounds and meanings of the movies because the explanation isn't there or its not clear

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.

I would so see something like that!

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 por el presidente

Live-action, CGI, stop motion, traditional animation, whatever the medium is will NOT change anything but how it looks.

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.

Because I hate fully CGI movies!

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.

I'd see it, but to most it would see as just another cartoon. Half the reason these stories are as successfull as they were were due to visulas. Meaning CGI against live action.
Now that its been done, a fully animated type movie would probbably do ok.

Noideaforaname wrote:Live-action, CGI, stop motion, traditional animation, whatever the medium is will NOT change anything but how it looks.

Very ture. Even if bay doesn't direct it, its all going to depend on whom ever gets the helm's "Vision".

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.

Sabrblade wrote:Less money for the visuals (and potty humor) = more money for the story and characters.

Protip: good stories and good characters don't cost a cent more than crappy ones do.

cotss2012 wrote:Protip: good stories and good characters don't cost a cent more than crappy ones do.

I don't believe that. You have to spend more time to come up with or refine your story and characters; that time is money. But I agree about the excesive need to make the CGI as complex as possible. Especially when the end result is just a blur of things happening to fast to really notice unless you paused it at every frame.

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.

Better looking my ass. They'd look like crap!!! A damn guy in a robot costume walking around and pretending to transform into a car does not look good.