Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

News Credits: 7 · by **Dragonslayer** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:12 pm

Yahoo! Movies has put up a video of an interview with Transformers Movis director Michael Bay where he addresses some of the purists' complaints such as why Optimus has flames as well as explain some of the engineering behind designing the robots directly from his editing room. Check it out here.

by **AbsumZer0** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:30 pm

"Why flames? 'Cuz I wanted flames."

This just in: Michael Bay thinks painted flames make things look faster.

Why couldn't Starscream or Megatron come close to resembling their previous counterparts like Optimus does his namesake? In summation, "because the cartoons look dated and blocky robots wouldn't look realistic. Starscream needed bird legs because humanoid legs wouldn't be ergonomic... ignore the fact that none of the others have bird legs". WTF.

News Credits: 665 · by **Skowl** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:58 pm

front paged and credited!

by **clk430r1** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:06 pm

front paged and credited!

News Credits: 665 · by **Skowl** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:10 pm

clk430r1 wrote:front paged and credited!

Yup, I credited both of you since I originally found out through clk430r1's email, but noticed Dragonslayer also had a thread up.

What about the "Fans Speak" video that runs right after the interview, is that new? I don't remember seeing that before...

News Credits: 5 · by **decepticonjon** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:11 pm

AbsumZer0 wrote:"Why flames? 'Cuz I wanted flames."

This just in: Michael Bay thinks painted flames make things look faster.

Why couldn't Starscream or Megatron come close to resembling their previous counterparts like Optimus does his namesake? In summation, "because the cartoons look dated and blocky robots wouldn't look realistic. Starscream needed bird legs because humanoid legs wouldn't be ergonomic... ignore the fact that none of the others have bird legs". WTF.

nice!

by **AbsumZer0** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:15 pm

Skowl wrote:
clk430r1 wrote:front paged and credited!

Yup, I credited both of you since I originally found out through clk430r1's email, but noticed Dragonslayer also had a thread up.

What about the "Fans Speak" video that runs right after the interview, is that new? I don't remember seeing that before...

I think that's the video that was shown at the last BotCon (or some other event), wasn't it?

News Credits: 2 · by **Skalor** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:22 pm

I'm pretty much over the fact that people still criticize with dismay Bay's work on the movie. The fact is, this is going to rock, the designs are working really well and just about everyone I know is excited to see this. Bravo Michael Bay. :APPLAUSE:

News Credits: 2 · by **Ultra Magnus** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:23 pm

Well, at least he was honest. Ah, well. Based on what I've seen, it looks like Transformers, they're calling it Transformers, it is Transformers. Let's just enjoy the ride.

by **ScorpoMax** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:27 pm

AbsumZer0 wrote:"Why flames? 'Cuz I wanted flames."

This just in: Michael Bay thinks painted flames make things look faster.

Why couldn't Starscream or Megatron come close to resembling their previous counterparts like Optimus does his namesake? In summation, "because the cartoons look dated and blocky robots wouldn't look realistic. Starscream needed bird legs because humanoid legs wouldn't be ergonomic... ignore the fact that none of the others have bird legs". WTF.

Something about that whole attitude of his that turned me off totally. I'm sure that this will be a good movie, I'm sure it will have plenty of action and quality special effects that will amuse the kiddies. But it's still not quite the movie I was waiting for.

News Credits: 7 · by **Dragonslayer** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:29 pm

Skowl wrote:front paged and credited!

Sweet action! :grin:

As for the Fans speak vid, I think It's a few months old. I started to watch, but I didn't finish it because I got bored

by **clk430r1** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:38 pm

Skowl wrote:
clk430r1 wrote:front paged and credited!

Yup, I credited both of you since I originally found out through clk430r1's email, but noticed Dragonslayer also had a thread up.

News Credits: 6 · by **Darth Decepticonus** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:56 pm

Yeah his answer "Why the flames? Because I wanted them" did souns both dumb and childish but hey at least he was honest. I have grown to accept the flams. I mean Prime's main color scheme is blue and red right? And the idea that his I dunno what you call them in truck mode but in robot legs are blue. I mean that wouldn't fly well.

He is right that it is dated. Though I do not look down at the G1 cartoon really. I do look down at Voltron cause the characters piss me off so much and it's the same story everytime or the G.I. Joe movie...must I explain myself.

by **tile_mcgillus** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:12 pm

That whole interview made me sad face. The reasoning behind certain choices: The flames...oh gosh, The bird legs...shiver. The diss on the cartoon again. He just rubs me the wrong way. I always hoped he have a concept for the flames. Like a explanation that validated the whole thing that played into Prime's character and his perception of the character. He didn't. Could care less too. Man oh man.

by **AbsumZer0** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:14 pm

Darth Decepticonus wrote:Yeah his answer "Why the flames? Because I wanted them" did souns both dumb and childish but hey at least he was honest. I have grown to accept the flams. I mean Prime's main color scheme is blue and red right? And the idea that his I dunno what you call them in truck mode but in robot legs are blue. I mean that wouldn't fly well.

He is right that it is dated. Though I do not look down at the G1 cartoon really. I do look down at Voltron cause the characters piss me off so much and it's the same story everytime or the G.I. Joe movie...must I explain myself.

I don't mind the flames so much myself, but they do seem silly to me. Every time I see Optimus I'm reminded of the episode of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends (I think that's what it's called?) where the retarded friend named cheese shows up and the blue thing wants to paint flames on their soapbox car. Or the episode of House where he buys a cane with flames on it and deadpans that it makes him look like he's going really fast.

I know the cartoon looks dated. It is dated. But saying that the cartoon looks dated still doesn't explain why they decided to make Starscream look nothing like his previous namesakes or why Megatron has to look the way he does, as if he's made of soldering iron glued to an artist's mannequin. There are other routes they could have taken and pointing out that the cartoon is dated and that robots made of rectangles wouldn't have worked feels a lot like someone saying 'terrorism' to justify the decisions made in the middle-east. We know things wouldn't have worked as they were, but what exactly is the reasoning for this particular route? Otherwise it really isn't an answer to anything.

News Credits: 6 · by **Darth Decepticonus** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:17 pm

I wont deny that I want Megatron's old design. I mean he's so basic looking yet when you still look at him you can tell he is evil and may be terrified in some way. You get that with the new Megatron but too much. While I have grown accustom to Screamer's design but would prefer the other one still. Hell I bet if he did keep that, Megs or both designs he may of saved some time and money I dunno.

by **Roboto750** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:24 am

Bay really didn't upset me with his comments, though I will say that I found the majority of his comments to be in response to fan's criticisms. The video should have been titled, "Bay Defends Himself." I will say that the fact that he didn't know many of the names while filming makes me a bit uneasy. I assume this means that many of the characters will not be addressed by their name in the movie. Lame.

Though, I still very much look forward to this movie! Can't wait to see it at Botcon!

by **dabattousai** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:40 am

I hope not calling the robots by name during shooting isn't gonna effect their characteristics...

I guess we will all soon see if Bay destroyed the TransFormers, or did revitelized them to Pop Culture.

News Credits: 409 · by **Stormrider** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:50 am

After reading so many interviews about Michael Bay I am starting to get the impression that he doesn't get it when it comes to what drives this series.

by **bobpiecheese** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:46 am

...I'm not gonna say anything. Anything I say will can and will be used against me. Thus I shall say nothing.

Oh bugger, I just did

.

by **Spoon** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:05 am

Stormrider wrote:After reading so many interviews about Michael Bay I am starting to get the impression that he doesn't get it when it comes to what drives this series.

Pretty much. He keeps referring them as "Robots" (which I believed means a mechanical humanoid like thing that has no will on its own) while he should be saying "Transformers" (which are you sentient mechs)
As for his arguments... how poopy can they get really?
"Because I wanted flames?" and "I didn't wrecked your childhood because if you look at the cartoons now they look really dated" ? Now I could try to write a whole essay (especially on the dated part) on this but since 1. I just woke up 2. Nobody is really going to care anyway. I will refrain from doing so.

News Credits: 8 · by **Liege Evilmus** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:27 am

I think I'm gonna not hate this guy so much anymore and just focus the remander of my movie rage towards the designers, blaming them for the look of the film.

News Credits: 1 · by **D-340** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:40 am

Spoon wrote: He keeps referring them as "Robots" (which I believed means a mechanical humanoid like thing that has no will on its own) while he should be saying "Transformers" (which are you sentient mechs)

That's kinda nitpicky, eh? I mean TFs have been refered to as robots since G1. I mean it said on the boxes "Converts from (insert to Alt. mode here) to robot and back". Not to flame or anything, just kinda comes off that way.

As for the interview, seems more like he's defending the choices made with the movie than anything else. The whole "Cuz I wanted flames" bit kinda urks me. The flames never bugged, being that I see at least 2 semis a day with flames on them going to and from work, but his way of responding to it does. Basically it comes off as "I'll do what I want cuz I can" kind of attitude.

As far as Screamer, while he's growing on me, ole gorilla-chicken legs isn't Starscream. Now I agree, the old G1 designs are very dated, but Starscream coulda been a bit more recognizable.

And that's all I gotta say about that.

by **Roboto750** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:28 am

dabattousai wrote:I hope not calling the robots by name during shooting isn't gonna effect their characteristics...

I guess we will all soon see if Bay destroyed the TransFormers, or did revitelized them to Pop Culture.

True, it may not really effect their characteristics and story, but I still find it pretty lame. It's kinda like how they never called Venom "Venom" in Spider-Man 3. It won't ruin the movie for me, but it's just one of those things I like to see/hear in a movie.

by **Spoon** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:00 am

D-340 wrote:
Spoon wrote: He keeps referring them as "Robots" (which I believed means a mechanical humanoid like thing that has no will on its own) while he should be saying "Transformers" (which are you sentient mechs)

That's kinda nitpicky, eh? I mean TFs have been refered to as robots since G1. I mean it said on the boxes "Converts from (insert to Alt. mode here) to robot and back". Not to flame or anything, just kinda comes off that way.

I know what you mean. What I meant to say is: Transformers is about sentient robots that are the center of the show. That's whats interesting about them. Hearing Bay call them "robots" just reminds me on how much I disagree about having the movie point of view being that of humans instead of the tranformers. It gives me the bad vibes of having an other "Alien something invades earth! What are we to do?!" kind of movies. Instead of focusing on what made transformers so interesting to begin with, the tranformers themselves.