Transformers and More @ The Seibertron Store
Details subject to change. See listing for latest price and availability.
But the biggest, baddest mecha-villain of all must be “Transformers’ ” Megatron, supreme leader of the Decepticons. Not only has he tried to enslave humanity in three Transformers movies, but he’s inspired eruptions of incoherent storytelling, furthered the career of Shia LaBeouf, and lined the pockets of heinous film director Michael Bay. And he’s due back on our screens June 27 in “Transformers 4: Age of Extinction.” Let’s hope he finishes the job this time, or we’ll be in for a slew of Sequel-bots.
Noideaforaname wrote:That Optimus drawing is really bad...
Doubleadam wrote:"Incoherent Storytelling?!"
spiderbob007 wrote:Article should have been titled "Why do we love movie robots, that aren't A Michael Bay Film: Transformers blah, blah, blah...?" A sentiment that I share. I know that there are probably plenty of Bay fans here, but honestly the films are BAD, and the toys tied to the films are also BAD!
The only saving grace is that it shows Hasbro that Transformers is still profitable and therefore worthy of making quality toys for those that appreciate quality.
Yes, I will see Transformers 4.
No, I will probably not like it, but I will support it because I enjoy having a choice of new toys that will be made possible because of it.
Banjo-Tron wrote:I can't disagree with that excerpt at all, it is spot on. Unfortunately that's how Transformers fans are perceived by the outside world - as fanboys of utterly dreadful films. It sucks because I love Asimov but my friends think I am automatically ****** because I like Transformers and they see that as the Bay movies. There is no distinction. Curse you Bay!
spiderbob007 wrote:(T)he toys tied to the films are also BAD.
SW's SilverHammer wrote:Eat my ass funpub.
Burn wrote:And this is for taking Nemesis Maximo seriously.
*high fives Silly in the face*
carytheone wrote:I can't be assed to do any better right now.
Nemesis Maximo wrote:Here's your explanation: robots are cool. Any more questions?spiderbob007 wrote:(T)he toys tied to the films are also BAD.
Clearly you've never played with ROTF Optimus Prime.
Also, I agree with Captain Magic. Not only was the article bad, the writer claims Megs will be back in the film. Wasn't it said that we'd be seeing Galvatron instead?
Nemesis Maximo wrote:Clearly you've never played with ROTF Optimus Prime.
persinal tastes perhaps, but while I agree writing lacked in the movies, we had two of the same writers on TF Prime, which did many of the same types of things a lot better, even just shorty minis of comperable movie length? What changed then, that the writers were actually able to express the story they wanted to tell?Autobot032 wrote:[
While it's certainly not the worst set of movies ever, it's not going to win any awards in the writing department.spiderbob007 wrote:Article should have been titled "Why do we love movie robots, that aren't A Michael Bay Film: Transformers blah, blah, blah...?" A sentiment that I share. I know that there are probably plenty of Bay fans here, but honestly the films are BAD, and the toys tied to the films are also BAD!
The only saving grace is that it shows Hasbro that Transformers is still profitable and therefore worthy of making quality toys for those that appreciate quality.
Yes, I will see Transformers 4.
No, I will probably not like it, but I will support it because I enjoy having a choice of new toys that will be made possible because of it.
At least you're honest and willing to support it, which helps all of us. It's the people who complain and still go see it and then complain, which breaks my brain and makes no sense.Banjo-Tron wrote:I can't disagree with that excerpt at all, it is spot on. Unfortunately that's how Transformers fans are perceived by the outside world - as fanboys of utterly dreadful films. It sucks because I love Asimov but my friends think I am automatically ****** because I like Transformers and they see that as the Bay movies. There is no distinction. Curse you Bay!
Well then, your friends aren't much better and could be perceived the same way. Just because the Bay movies aren't exactly brainfood, doesn't mean the fans or the material itself are terrible. And in all fairness to Bay, people still forget the writers are ultimately to blame.
I swear, I'm gonna snap and run through a convention with a nail studded baseball bat and go on a kneecapping rampage because of this. The writers are mainly the problem. Bay's issue is pacing and visuals, which I admit are a big part of a movie, but if the writing isn't solid, neither will the film be.
Dark Of The Moon was the most coherent and easiest to follow of the three, it's quality was much better and it had the biggest box office take. There's no reason to assume Age Of Extinction will be the Einstein of TF films, but there's no reason to assume it will dumb down the franchise, either. Ehren Kruger is the most solid of all the writers to have graced the film franchise.
Actually, you had a point there. The whole basic idea of a the robot as a cultural construct is humans creating beings in their own image, hoping to somehow improve on our perceived weaknesses/shortcomings, so you could explain robots as being an expression of misanthropy.d_sel1 wrote:The reason that we like robots....... people suck.
Just kidding.
Bumblevivisector wrote:Actually, you had a point there. The whole basic idea of a the robot as a cultural construct is humans creating beings in their own image, hoping to somehow improve on our perceived weaknesses/shortcomings, so you could explain robots as being an expression of misanthropy.d_sel1 wrote:The reason that we like robots....... people suck.
Just kidding.
(And had the author explored that idea, this could have indeed been worthwhile)
Seriously, even when I was 5, I was getting fed up with human nature to the point where the Sunbow cartoon's portrayal of humanity as dumb animals that more or less deserved to be squished by these superior beings from space, saved only by the Autobots' compassion for lesser species, seemed somehow...empowering. That might indeed still be what TF means to me, had it not been replaced by Furman's theme of a deity's gift of immortality dooming his creations to eternal war and violent deaths.
But yeah, lame article. Props to the companion piece's explanation of Maria from Metropolis, but it was otherwise only useful to people who'd somehow never heard of robots before.
Most perplexing was the inclusion of Pacific Rim in a list of movies otherwise about sentient or A.I. bots, indicating the author apparently fails to grasp the distinction between thinking-bots and piloted mecha. Is the distinction really that blurry outside of Japan? I remember watching Gundam Wing in a college lobby and having passersby ask if it was Transformers. Sure, it was around the time someone asked whether Ronin Warriors was Captain Planet or Power Rangers, but is knowing the word "mecha" really that essential to grasping that basic an idea?
Banjo-Tron wrote:Everyone thinks the country is a joke because of the bad PR the movies bring.
d_sel1 wrote:The reason that we like robots....... people suck.
Just kidding.
The reason we like robots is.... that we like robots!
Return to Transformers General Discussion
Registered users: 1984forever, Bing [Bot], Bumblevivisector, Glyph, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Lunatyk, MSN [Bot], Sabrblade, Silver Wind, Yahoo [Bot], Zordon