Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Deadline is reporting that Kelsey Grammer has landed the role of the lead principle human villain Michael Bay's upcoming Transformers 4.

Forget the affable Frasier Crane; Kelsey Grammer is embracing his inner bad guy. After his Golden Globe turn as the ruthless politician in Boss, Grammer has just landed the key villain role in Michael Bay‘s next Transformers film, which also stars Mark Wahlberg and Stanley Tucci. I’m told that Grammer will play Harold Attinger, a counter intelligence guy.

A good choice? Sound off in the Energon Pub.

Okay...never heard of him, but okay......
Oh well, tf 4 is probably going to be focused on the humans again

I do like Kelsey Grammer so I'm all for this.

are there a lot of James Bond films where he's not the main character?
how about even the GI Joe films? were they mostly about some random dude who wasn't related to the named title characters?
I've not seen many of the Fast and Furious films, but are they generally focussed on guys who are slow and sedate?
Pirates Of the Caribbean films were mostly featuring characters who were Pirates, in the Caribbean, yes?
and Mission: Impossible was about a guy (or guys) who had impossible missions to carry out.
In Avengers, one of the highest grossing films of all time, did we spend an hour and a half seeing how one plucky young SHIELD agent dealt with the arrival of the titular characters, with maybe 5 minutes of actual characterisation of those characters whom the film is named after?


I think it'd be only right for Transformers films to maybe try focussing on...wait for it, it'll shock you all: Transformers!

It's not that I don't want Evil Frasier to tell Eddy to pee on Optimus Prime's leg, or try to get him and Megatron to sit down and think about how their actions negatively affect each other's feelings, all the while trying to get rid of them because he has tickets to the opera. It's really not. It's just...it's called TRANSFORMERS...how about you treat the Transformers as characters instead of as window dressing and fuzzily focussed background effects?

Well, that's one tick in the 'win' column.

And craggy, I couldn't agree more, but it's like pissing into the wind.

Seriously Superwheeljack? He played Frasier Crane in the shows Cheers, Frasier (all 200+ episodes of it) and an episode of Wings, did the voice of Sideshow Bob in The Simpsons, Stinky Pete in Toy Story 2, and was possibly the best thing about X-Men: The Last Stand where he played Hank McCoy / Beast.

I think it's a good choice. He's a really good actor, and given the right light, reminds me of Dick Cheney. You can't get much more evil than that in government. He did really well as Beast in X-Men: The Last Stand. Hopefully he will have a decent script to work with.

I like Kelsey Grammer. Excellent actor and a great addition to the cast.

craggy wrote:are there a lot of James Bond films where he's not the main character?
how about even the GI Joe films? were they mostly about some random dude who wasn't related to the named title characters?
I've not seen many of the Fast and Furious films, but are they generally focussed on guys who are slow and sedate?
Pirates Of the Caribbean films were mostly featuring characters who were Pirates, in the Caribbean, yes?
and Mission: Impossible was about a guy (or guys) who had impossible missions to carry out.
In Avengers, one of the highest grossing films of all time, did we spend an hour and a half seeing how one plucky young SHIELD agent dealt with the arrival of the titular characters, with maybe 5 minutes of actual characterisation of those characters whom the film is named after?


I think it'd be only right for Transformers films to maybe try focussing on...wait for it, it'll shock you all: Transformers!

It's not that I don't want Evil Frasier to tell Eddy to pee on Optimus Prime's leg, or try to get him and Megatron to sit down and think about how their actions negatively affect each other's feelings, all the while trying to get rid of them because he has tickets to the opera. It's really not. It's just...it's called TRANSFORMERS...how about you treat the Transformers as characters instead of as window dressing and fuzzily focussed background effects?

Chill out. If you wanted to do a rant like this you should have done it for the first movie.

Having a human antagonist to go with the Decepticons worked fine last time, so I'm glad they're doing it again. Grammer's also a great actor so I'm looking forward to his performance.

'Kelsey Grammer' looks like Former Senator and Actor 'Fred Thompson' more as he ages. Great choice for a Villain... I hope that some 'bot or 'con squishes him like a bug in the end though.

Sodan-1 wrote:Seriously Superwheeljack? He played Frasier Crane in the shows Cheers, Frasier (all 200+ episodes of it) and an episode of Wings, did the voice of Sideshow Bob in The Simpsons, Stinky Pete in Toy Story 2, and was possibly the best thing about X-Men: The Last Stand where he played Hank McCoy / Beast.

I never watched stuff like that, except for toy story 2. All those examples you gave, I never watched any of them but ts2

im seeing a lot of humans and no transformers.
HUMAN ADVENTURES WITH ROBOT ALIENS SOMETIMES

craggy wrote:are there a lot of James Bond films where he's not the main character?
how about even the GI Joe films? were they mostly about some random dude who wasn't related to the named title characters?
I've not seen many of the Fast and Furious films, but are they generally focussed on guys who are slow and sedate?
Pirates Of the Caribbean films were mostly featuring characters who were Pirates, in the Caribbean, yes?
and Mission: Impossible was about a guy (or guys) who had impossible missions to carry out.
In Avengers, one of the highest grossing films of all time, did we spend an hour and a half seeing how one plucky young SHIELD agent dealt with the arrival of the titular characters, with maybe 5 minutes of actual characterization of those characters whom the film is named after?


I think it'd be only right for Transformers films to maybe try focusing on...wait for it, it'll shock you all: Transformers!

It's not that I don't want Evil Frasier to tell Eddy to pee on Optimus Prime's leg, or try to get him and Megatron to sit down and think about how their actions negatively affect each other's feelings, all the while trying to get rid of them because he has tickets to the opera. It's really not. It's just...it's called TRANSFORMERS...how about you treat the Transformers as characters instead of as window dressing and fuzzily focussed background effects?

Doubledealer93 wrote:im seeing a lot of humans and no transformers.
HUMAN ADVENTURES WITH ROBOT ALIENS SOMETIMES

Can't have talk like that 'round here. What are you thinking? Only unconditional love for all things Micheal Bay when it comes to commenting on the movies.

In all seriousness, I like Kelsey Grammer, I like Mark Wahlberg, good choices of human actors. But it is "Transformers", when are we gonna find out who of the titular characters are gonna be involved(besides Optimus and Bumblebee)? I know it's a whole lot to ask of Michael Bay, seeing as it's crazy to expect "Transformers" be about Transformers.

I like Kelsey Grammar, just not sure how he'll fit in the new film. Craggy I hear you, but you can look at it like all these 'sort of' Transformers movies keep the franchise alive and helps the brand stretch to other places I enjoy much more... Like Generations and the largest(tallest) TF ever. Would this have happened without movie success...millions of dollars and lots of new fans added to encourage brand creativity and inventiveness. I can put up with a cruddy popcorn flick to continue this trend.

D-340 wrote:Can't have talk like that 'round here. What are you thinking? Only unconditional love for all things Micheal Bay when it comes to commenting on the movies.

Cry me a river?

In all seriousness, I like Kelsey Grammer, I like Mark Wahlberg, good choices of human actors. But it is "Transformers", when are we gonna find out who of the titular characters are gonna be involved(besides Optimus and Bumblebee)? I know it's a whole lot to ask of Michael Bay, seeing as it's crazy to expect "Transformers" be about Transformers.

And the reason for that is because while the Transformers are the main attraction the simple fact is that their voice actors are in the grand scheme of the acting world a bunch of nobodies. If you said "Frank Welker is returning to play X character" 99% of the people interested would say "Who the frak is Frank Welker?"

You make the ridiculous assumption that not mentioning the robots or their actors means there will be no Transformers in the film. There were plenty of Transformers in the films before though (barring the first film, where "too many humans" was a valid complaint). Being delusional about it doesn't make it true.

tigertracks 24 wrote:Craggy I hear you, but you can look at it like all these 'sort of' Transformers movies keep the franchise alive

Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they "aren't Transformers." No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy.

Capt.Failure wrote:

D-340 wrote:Can't have talk like that 'round here. What are you thinking? Only unconditional love for all things Micheal Bay when it comes to commenting on the movies.

Cry me a river?

Ugh, really? Can't even crack a joke around here without gettin' all the movie fanboys all riled up and their underwear in twist. Get a sense of humor.

Fires_Of_Inferno wrote:I like Kelsey Grammer. Excellent actor and a great addition to the cast.

craggy wrote:are there a lot of James Bond films where he's not the main character?
how about even the GI Joe films? were they mostly about some random dude who wasn't related to the named title characters?
I've not seen many of the Fast and Furious films, but are they generally focussed on guys who are slow and sedate?
Pirates Of the Caribbean films were mostly featuring characters who were Pirates, in the Caribbean, yes?
and Mission: Impossible was about a guy (or guys) who had impossible missions to carry out.
In Avengers, one of the highest grossing films of all time, did we spend an hour and a half seeing how one plucky young SHIELD agent dealt with the arrival of the titular characters, with maybe 5 minutes of actual characterisation of those characters whom the film is named after?


I think it'd be only right for Transformers films to maybe try focussing on...wait for it, it'll shock you all: Transformers!

It's not that I don't want Evil Frasier to tell Eddy to pee on Optimus Prime's leg, or try to get him and Megatron to sit down and think about how their actions negatively affect each other's feelings, all the while trying to get rid of them because he has tickets to the opera. It's really not. It's just...it's called TRANSFORMERS...how about you treat the Transformers as characters instead of as window dressing and fuzzily focussed background effects?

Chill out. If you wanted to do a rant like this you should have done it for the first movie.

maybe I did, I can't remember. Of course, I might have simply waited to see what the first movie was going to be like, rather than jumping to conclusions. Now, with 3 fairly terrible films to use as evidence, I think we've all got at least a basic idea of what to expect.

Oh, and last time I checked the link on the news page says "Click here to discuss this topic!" not "please only post entirely positive comments!" so I feel no shame in voicing my opinion.

D-340 wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

D-340 wrote:Can't have talk like that 'round here. What are you thinking? Only unconditional love for all things Micheal Bay when it comes to commenting on the movies.

Cry me a river?

Ugh, really? Can't even crack a joke around here without gettin' all the movie fanboys all riled up and their underwear in twist. Get a sense of humor.

No my sense of humor is perfectly fine. I just enjoy how you throw yourself on the ground kicking, screaming, and crying over how people like something you don't. It amuses me.

maybe I did, I can't remember. Of course, I might have simply waited to see what the first movie was going to be like, rather than jumping to conclusions. Now, with 3 fairly terrible films to use as evidence, I think we've all got at least a basic idea of what to expect.

Terrible for you maybe. However that is not an objective fact.

Capt.Failure wrote:

D-340 wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

D-340 wrote:Can't have talk like that 'round here. What are you thinking? Only unconditional love for all things Micheal Bay when it comes to commenting on the movies.

Cry me a river?

Ugh, really? Can't even crack a joke around here without gettin' all the movie fanboys all riled up and their underwear in twist. Get a sense of humor.

No my sense of humor is perfectly fine. I just enjoy how you throw yourself on the ground kicking, screaming, and crying over how people like something you don't. It amuses me.

Yeah, that's actually not what I'm doing at all, but whatever. I'm glad I'm entertaining you though.

D-340 wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

D-340 wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

D-340 wrote:Can't have talk like that 'round here. What are you thinking? Only unconditional love for all things Micheal Bay when it comes to commenting on the movies.

Cry me a river?

Ugh, really? Can't even crack a joke around here without gettin' all the movie fanboys all riled up and their underwear in twist. Get a sense of humor.

No my sense of humor is perfectly fine. I just enjoy how you throw yourself on the ground kicking, screaming, and crying over how people like something you don't. It amuses me.

Yeah, that's actually not what I'm doing at all

Didn't you say this to Burn about how he liked the films in another thread?

D-340 wrote:Quit deluding yourself, if you wanna settle for schlock, settle for it. But know, you don't have to, you choose to.

That sounds like saying that people only enjoy the films because they're delusional. The words of a child who can't accept that people think differently than him. So very very sad.

Capt.Failure wrote:

D-340 wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

D-340 wrote:Can't have talk like that 'round here. What are you thinking? Only unconditional love for all things Micheal Bay when it comes to commenting on the movies.

Cry me a river?

Ugh, really? Can't even crack a joke around here without gettin' all the movie fanboys all riled up and their underwear in twist. Get a sense of humor.

No my sense of humor is perfectly fine. I just enjoy how you throw yourself on the ground kicking, screaming, and crying over how people like something you don't. It amuses me.

maybe I did, I can't remember. Of course, I might have simply waited to see what the first movie was going to be like, rather than jumping to conclusions. Now, with 3 fairly terrible films to use as evidence, I think we've all got at least a basic idea of what to expect.

Terrible for you maybe. However that is not an objective fact.

It is in fact a fact that I found the first three films mostly devoid of heart, a coherent plot, any form of character development (or anything but the most basic character establishment) for the title characters, believable robot designs and decent action cinematography.

My original post in this thread asks the question, and provides examples to support the reasoning behind my question, of: "Why aren't the Transformers the stars of the Transformers films?" If you can't offer any answer to that, please don't bother replying to any more of my posts on the subject.

I can handle criticism and discussion of aspects of Transformers that I enjoy more than I have these films so far. Just because I like something doesn't mean I become offended that someone else doesn't share my views, nor would I automatically feel the need to dismiss someone's attempt at discussion and basically tell them to shut up, as has happened to me in this thread.

Capt.Failure wrote:That sounds like saying that people only enjoy the films because they're delusional.

Damn. I must be delusional then.

Craggy is also just stating his opinion, you don't have to agree with it, but you should let him have it.

craggy wrote:"Why aren't the Transformers the stars of the Transformers films?"

Except they are. It's not a valid question. You might have had a point with the first film since it takes them awhile to show up, but that was the mistake of the writers creating what is more akin to an origin story for a superhero film. Even I admit that doesn't translate well to Transformers. Of course the first film was also the overall weakest of the three.

Trying to ask that question about the latter two films though? HA! Don't make me laugh. The Transformers were in the film from beginning to end. The presence of a developed main human character that's more than a tag along kid doesn't detract from that. Human protagonists have been in Transformers since Generation One. It was a good thing they actually did something this time around.

There are other reasons why humans would get equal focus to the Transformers in a live action film, but considering this fandom's general ignorance and denial concerning the filmmaking process I won't bother to list them. I cannot teach people who don't want to be taught.

thanks njb, I've not intentionally dismissed anyone who is a fan of the films. I don't really like them, but they've brought a lot of money to the franchise, and have potential to be really good. I'm willing to admit that a lot of stuff I like would probably be considered rubbish by a lot of folks as well, and don't get hung up on it. It's pretty obvious a lot of people do like them, or we wouldn't be getting a 4th.

I've enjoyed most of TFPrime, as I've felt the bot/human mix is pretty good, as is the range of the stories. I'd like more of that slant to the films, or better yet, a full-on robot only film.

Capt.Failure wrote:

craggy wrote:"Why aren't the Transformers the stars of the Transformers films?"

Except they are. It's not a valid question. You might have had a point with the first film since it takes them awhile to show up, but that was the mistake of the writers creating what is more akin to an origin story for a superhero film. Even I admit that doesn't translate well to Transformers. Of course the first film was also the overall weakest of the three.

Trying to ask that question about the latter two films though? HA! Don't make me laugh. The Transformers were in the film from beginning to end. The presence of a developed main human character that's more than a tag along kid doesn't detract from that. Human protagonists have been in Transformers since Generation One. It was a good thing they actually did something this time around.

There are other reasons why humans would get equal focus to the Transformers in a live action film, but considering this fandom's general ignorance and denial concerning the filmmaking process I won't bother to list them. I cannot teach people who don't want to be taught.

I don't find that the Transformers characters get nearly any character development across the films. I can't think of a single character arc any of them goes through. Even Optimus Prime who dies and is resurrected by a holy artifact (!) barely mentions it and is in no way affected by it. Meanwhile we get Simmons evolution across the series and even Sam's parents grow more as people than any of the Autobots.