The Energon Pub

News Credits: 2 · Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:24 pm

Sweet.

Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:27 pm

gogleman374 wrote:Bay Raped My Child Hood.

I want this on a bumper sticker. No, really. It could have a cute little Ziggy-like cartoon with it, written in big balloon letters or spelled-out with those little wooden building blocks, and printed using pastel inks. Throw a teddy bear and a G1 Optimus on there for full effect. That would make a wonderful bumper sticker.

At least then, a person would know to not feel guilty about hitting someone's car.

Bloody hell, rape? I'm still new here, but are people really so eager to draw one of the most depraved, inhuman acts as parallel to the release of a damned motion picture? Right, it's the Internet, nevermind.

It's going to be a long few years...

Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:33 pm

Hell yes. I can't wait. If the Dinobots are in this next movie, I'm going to be so amped. Bring this **** on.

Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:41 pm

I think the reason why I’m so bothered by this, is that people both involved with the film, and those defending it thus far, admit that the movie is really just about Robots fighting Robots- and plot and character and all that don’t matter.

They use the toys and the show and even the comics as a basis for this. That if the source material is simple, or downright dumb, then the movie doesn’t need to have any higher aspirations.

And I think that’s the thing that bothers me. It seems like no one was interested in trying very hard.

To quote an often discussed movie here on these threads:

“You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you want to sell it!”

Why not strive to make something really wonderful, rather than just big and loud?

It’s this missed chance that gets me all riled up, and the brazen display of laziness on the movie makers’ part that puts a big “oh no” on sequels for me.

And before anyone says, but you haven’t seen the movie yet, I’d like to say, that at this time, almost every review, on this site and off, has pointed out that this IS a dumb film, with really cool effects. Some of the reviews may have been okay with that, others were not, but they all seem to be in agreement on that. Characters, plot, and rational thought take back seat to the ‘splosions.

Now wouldn’t it have been cool if the movie had that, and just a little something more?

Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:23 am

I agree with you in part.

Yes, what I want from the movie very likely not what the movie is dishing out.

However, it is a given truth that "dumb" is something not to be rewarded. No one respects "dumb." "Dumb, is not a good thing. Especially when something is dumb on purpose. As a race, we strive to be better than dumb, because dumb gets you extinct.

Defend the movie for its effects, or, um, the rush, of the effects, or, I suppose it must have other things going for it...

I understand the score is pretty good... or loud. But it can be good and loud. Batman was good and loud. So was Lord of the Rings.

Um, well, the point is, defend the movie for its good points. Cullen was pretty good right? But don't try to defend something that is willfully dumb, because you can't win that argument.

Unless you're the President.

Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:28 am

SoooTrypticon wrote:I agree with you in part.

Yes, what I want from the movie very likely not what the movie is dishing out.

However, it is a given truth that "dumb" is something not to be rewarded. No one respects "dumb." "Dumb, is not a good thing. Especially when something is dumb on purpose. As a race, we strive to be better than dumb, because dumb gets you extinct.

Defend the movie for its effects, or, um, the rush, of the effects, or, I suppose it must have other things going for it...

I understand the score is pretty good... or loud. But it can be good and loud. Batman was good and loud. So was Lord of the Rings.

Um, well, the point is, defend the movie for its good points. Cullen was pretty good right? But don't try to defend something that is willfully dumb, because you can't win that argument.

Unless you're the President.

Well, once you see it for yourself, you'll be able to decide if you like the score and Cullen and all that. You can't win an argument based on your un-educated opinion. And no, I'm not calling you stupid, I'm simply saying that, in this matter, you have no frame of reference.
To paraphrase Walter Sobchak from the Big Lebowski, "SoooTrypticon, you're out of your element."

Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:36 am

You both missed the point again.

The "lazy" aspect is that they're not trying to make it better, and settling for dumb.

From dictionary.com

"dumb down, Informal. to make or become less intellectual, simpler, or less sophisticated: to dumb down a textbook; American movies have dumbed down."

Dumb is making explosions more important that story. Casting actresses and using them for only two assets. Ditching decent character development in favor of re-treading Men in Black and inventing ridiculous plot devices (magic glasses). Bumblepee.

Almost every review on this site and off has admitted that the movie is stupid at heart, but very pretty, and a wild ride. Even the positive reviews.

My point is, defend the movie for being a wild ride, but don't try to tell me "Dumb is okay."

It really isn't. I didn't want a dumb Transformers movie. And I don't want a sequel. I wanted the movie men to actually try hard, and make something worthwhile.

Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:38 am

SoooTrypticon wrote:I think the reason why I’m so bothered by this, is that people both involved with the film, and those defending it thus far, admit that the movie is really just about Robots fighting Robots- and plot and character and all that don’t matter.

They use the toys and the show and even the comics as a basis for this. That if the source material is simple, or downright dumb, then the movie doesn’t need to have any higher aspirations.

And I think that’s the thing that bothers me. It seems like no one was interested in trying very hard.

To quote an often discussed movie here on these threads:

“You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you want to sell it!”

Why not strive to make something really wonderful, rather than just big and loud?

It’s this missed chance that gets me all riled up, and the brazen display of laziness on the movie makers’ part that puts a big “oh no” on sequels for me.

And before anyone says, but you haven’t seen the movie yet, I’d like to say, that at this time, almost every review, on this site and off, has pointed out that this IS a dumb film, with really cool effects. Some of the reviews may have been okay with that, others were not, but they all seem to be in agreement on that. Characters, plot, and rational thought take back seat to the ‘splosions.

Now wouldn’t it have been cool if the movie had that, and just a little something more?

I kinda just wish you were this articulate more often. I mean, you're still kinda playing off of some assumptions here, but I'm not gonna lie: they're not unfounded.

I think part of why the movie doesn't bother me as much is because American mainstream cinema has already been a let-down longer than I've been alive; in recent years especially, the number of remotely original movies has diminished drastically, while the number of remakes and sequels has exponentially increased. And because of that, I've seen some truly amazing ideas get shat upon: Alan Moore's vision of anarchy's triumph over facism in post-apocolyptic England was ignored by the film version of V for Vendetta, while Douglas Adams' screenplay was lovingly ignored after ten minutes of Hitchhiker's Guide, to name just two. But damn if they didn't draw in some audiences.

So, in all honesty, there was no hope of a dramatic, character-based space opera that the history of Transformers comics could provide. The idea was being pitched exclusively at mainstream studios, a toy line was riding on it, and from the very start the project seemed baneful to many filmmakers--no such film about Transformers, as you and many of us had longed for, would survive a producers' meeting as a viable money-making venture. And cinema, outside of Sundance, is still almost purely commercial. Art--especially art based on merchandise--is bloody well hard to come by.

So we get an action-packed, fast-paced, fun exponsion-filled thrill ride, and the promise of hope that it would at least be the best at that. Now that there's chance of a sequel, maybe the tone won't be so set in stone that some deeper character-based storylines won't be able to happen--maybe an exploration into Optimus' own psyche, or focusing more on the Autobots as humanlike characters with the loss of one of their own (it's too well-known to be spoilers at this point). It's a dim hope, but it's better than nothin' at all.

Personally? I hope the $10 will be worth two hours of fun, and I'll wait for the next wave of IDW comics for serious TF stories. Best we can probably do right now...

EDIT: Wow, five posts managed to sneak in between when I started and finished typing this, though I still stand by most of what I said. Gotta love depressing optimism.

Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:45 am

Hello Kranix-76!

Thanks for the kind words and the cool attitude.

As far as articulate goes, I didn't pic my namesake out of the blue don't cha know

I did try to put a bit more thought into this last post though- so thanks for responding to it like you did.

As far as mainstream American cinema goes, well, one can always hope. I have to admit that I'm pretty green in the land of film though, but I'm learning hard and fast.

I do believe that films can, and will be amazing, regardless of their source material, if the people behind them truly care about what they're making.

Come July 4th, er, 3rd, or whatever it is now, the whole world will know just how much SpielBay cares.

Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:59 am

Hotrod wrote:There are several reports coming in that tonight on Entertainment Tonight, it was announced that there will be a second Transformers Movie. Entertainment Tonight has reported that the project has been given the green light already!

Who saw this coming? :-?

My suggestions for the next one:

Stunticons
Constructicons
Dinobots

Nuff said!

Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:11 am

Meh.

We're back on G1 again. That's the point you missed.

So what if the source material is dumb (parts of it, like some of the character play, was actually good) the movie makers should have strived to make it better- not inject breasts and macguffins (magic glasses, energon cube... Bumblepee).

They didn't try to expand anything, or investigate ideas further. As a matter of fact, they actually backpedaled from one of the more amazing elements in the cartoon- where the Alien Robots ARE the main characters. Here they chose the easy way and told it from the point of view of the humans.

At least G1 managed to center it's story around the robots, and didn't treat them like weird aliens/pets. (unless you count Wheelie)

And if Bay did really want to make a movie like that, then I'd grade him like I'd grade any student. An A for presentation, and a great big F for effort/research. Average that out and you get, well, Average, a plain old C.

This is an average movie dressed up nice.

I'll say it again:

Wouldn't it have been cool if it was something more?

Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:21 am

if I have to sit and read through another few years of whining, I may end up telling people where to get off.

Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:29 am

Well Duh, of course I knew there was no question on a part two. I just came from a screening in L.A. and it was awsome! The robots were looking awful a bit, but their spirit was there. I really like the movie! So, I'm happy we get to have a second, I just hope the bots look better, especially Starscream but won't hold my breath.

News Credits: 226 · Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:32 am

-editted because Powermaster Jazz is a wise man-

News Credits: 8 · Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:34 am

I've given up on these whiners. Let em boycott the movie. Fat lot of good it'll do. I'm going five times myself.

News Credits: 8 · Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:19 am

In this one we need a better looking Megatron (or Galvatron) Soundwave, Shockwave, Dinbots, Constructicons, Hound, And Prowl. Also get Welker to voice Megs and Soundwave(and use the right damn voice effects) and Mike Bell to voice Prowl.and dont kill off evrey other bot this time around. Granted we need some cannon fodder but what ive seen in the movie comic is retarded.How many bots lived? 4 maybe 5. And all were Autobots. Unless frenzy lived.

Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:31 am

i still want to see this movie turn a profit first....before i start to cream over sequals...poof :twisted:

News Credits: 1 · Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:51 am

I've seen the first movie, courtesy of an official FAD press screening last friday, and I am sure glad that theres is going to be second!

Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:29 am

Great! But please I want the Dinobots and the Constructicons to appear in the sequal!

News Credits: 97 · Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:11 am

Overall, I'm thrilled by the movie. One or two scenes that I felt could have been left out (like the pissing scene), but I have to say, the bots and cons looked great. I love Frenzy. Hearing Megatron use the word "fleshling" was marvelous. Action, explosions, and absolutely in-f'ing-credible cgi and special effects. I'm waiting for TF2 with baited breath now. Transformers is finally ready to take on the world for a spot in the mainstream spotlight. Now if we TF fans can just avoid earning ourselves the same greasy reputation as Trekkies, we'll be doing great.