Kelsey Grammer Lands Lead Human Villain Role in Transformers 4

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.

craggy wrote: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.

Apologies if I seemed hostile. I was coming off a shouting match with D-340. I can respect your opinion even if my own counter opinion seems harsh. At least you didn't drop the "it's not Transformers!!!" fallacy.

craggy wrote: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.

I'll admit to that being a problem. The impact of it, at least to me, is dulled by the fact that I know these characters since I was a child. DotM at least gave Optimus and Sentinel a character arch. I'm hoping if the rumors of filming 4-6 back to back are true we can get more character development across the board. One single storyline gives more time to develop characters than episodic films like the last trilogy.

Capt.Failure wrote:

craggy wrote: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.

Apologies if I seemed hostile. I was coming off a shouting match with D-340. I can respect your opinion even if my own counter opinion seems harsh. At least you didn't drop the "it's not Transformers!!!" fallacy.

It's hard for me to tell if it's Transformers or not, they're all so vaguely there in the background

Kidding. I'm really not a fan of the physical designs for them, but they'd have won me over if I felt the robotic characters were actual people rather than just plot devices to allow for explosions though. They're alien, transforming robotic people, but they're people. I should be able to tell that from watching the films. They feel very one dimensional to me.

There is always the excellent potential there, and it annoys me to see it (in my opinion) wasted.

Kelsey Grammer? A bit of an unorthodox choice, but I'll reserve my judgment for until after I see the movie.

Honestly, if Shia and those government agent goons with their stupid jokes couldn't make me abandon the TF movies, nothing will...as long as they keep up with the gorgeous transformation scenes and give us more fights that at least equal OP's legendary forest fight scene. And with "The Beef" finally gone, things can only get better for the movies--I hope. Hopefully, they'll tone down the idiot gags as well.

craggy wrote: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.

I totally agree, and I'd love to see a full-on TF movie with TF's only. But until the cost of rendering such realistic CG models goes way down, that's not likely to happen.

before I go, let me say again that I did like Duhamel's army guys in the films. I just thought they'd be much better as GI Joes. In a GI Joe film. They should have been drafted for the sequel.

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:Kelsey Grammer? A bit of an unorthodox choice, but I'll reserve my judgment for until after I see the movie.

Honestly, if Shia and those government agent goons with their stupid jokes couldn't make me abandon the TF movies, nothing will...as long as they keep up with the gorgeous transformation scenes and give us more fights that at least equal OP's legendary forest fight scene. And with "The Beef" finally gone, things can only get better for the movies--I hope. Hopefully, they'll tone down the idiot gags as well.

craggy wrote: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.

I totally agree, and I'd love to see a full-on TF movie with TF's only. But until the cost of rendering such realistic CG models goes way down, that's not likely to happen.

Try watching Boss(if you haven’t already) , I think you'll see where they got the idea for Grammer. Oh and not to mention that it's a good show!

craggy wrote:before I go, let me say again that I did like Duhamel's army guys in the films. I just thought they'd be much better as GI Joes. In a GI Joe film. They should have been drafted for the sequel.

They should have been the stars of the TF movies instead of Shia, except Spielberg wanted his own little ET homage and "suggested" the idea of a boy and his first car/alien robot to the writers.

njb902 wrote:Try watching Boss(if you haven’t already) , I think you'll see where they got the idea for Grammer. Oh and not to mention that it's a good show!

Thanks for the recommendations--I'll give the show a try! I think HBO is currently airing the first season.

Those scrambled eggs are causing him to be a villain, apparently.

Dr. Arkeville? ... Please?

Yet another actor I've never heard of.

The history buff in me screams "Richard Nixon" when I look at his image.

hmm.. Greg Burger?

Good choice? No. Excellent choice. I hope they give him some room to chew up the scenery.

Guys, guys, guys...and gals if you're out there,

COME ON...CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?!?

I am not going to quote or add anyone to my little speech here, but I have to throw an olive branch out there...

We are ALL Transformers fans here, and I KNOW we ALL LOVE our bots, no question about that... That being said, did we ALL forget that the Transformers are on EARTH?? There WILL be humans UNLESS they make a Cybertron only movie and that ISNT gonna happen. Let's face it, us TF fans would be the ONLY ones to go see that movie. Hell, I HATED Spike and Sparkplug during the G1 era...I hated Danny in the damn 1986 movie... But HUMANS are a fact of life on EARTH...add into that studios are in the business of MAKING $$$$ . It pains me to say it, but our beloved Welker and Cullen will not bring in $1Billion+... We are LUCKY to have QUALITY actors being signed on for this go round.


The fact we have fans out here that don't know who Kelsey Grammer is, others that keep calling Mark Wahlberg "Marky Mark," is kinda disturbing every time I get out here...I am a G1 fanboy through and through, but I embrace Transformers in whatever form they may take...I don't always LIKE it, but it's good to see the concept and history be passed on... I have ALOT of negative things to say about the Bay movies, but thanks to them MY TRANSFORMERS live on... Hell, I even have a toddler Optimus for my four year old austistic son. How AWESOME IS THAT?!?!


Bottom line is...1) Quit whining about something that isn't even done yet , 2) The humans we DO have to endure are looking to be top notch, 3) It's Transformer guys!!! This one is going to be IMAX, 3D, NEW bots... and as much as The Bay movies left me a little empty, he HAS gotten some movies RIGHT in the past... After all is said and done, NOTHING compared to the first time Optimus Prime rolled up in that alley, transformed and I heard that ever so familiar sound of transforming from my youth as he went from truck to bot. My GOD, what Transformer fan DIDNT SMILE AND GETS CHILLS?!?!

Have a little Faith guys...

I always hated Frasier so it will be cool if we get to see him get blown up.

BeastProwl wrote:hmm.. Greg Burger?

That was my first thought, but who knows.

How about Zarak?

Damn, I go for a little while and it's turned into fan vs. fan.

Craggy: My fault, reading what I said it came out a little different than I intended. Didn't mean to sound like you HAD to leave a positive comment. I meant more to suggest that we've all already made that complaint (Well, not ALL of us, but I know I did). Sorry aboot that!

What sucks is that there's not going to be any Josh Duhamel or John Turturro. They were the best human characters.

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

uh...Cheers, Frasier, Beast from X-Men 3... doesn't ring a bell? WOW!

Still can't believe folks haven't figured it out by now.
For the last f'ing time... It's too cost prohibitive to do an ENTIRELY CGI TF film at this point and that is the ONLY way that we'll get a film that has nothing to do with Earth or its inhabitants. Until then, since there are over 7.5 BILLION humans on the planet, there are going to be F'ing HUMANS in the film! Now... unless you can foot the bill for an entirely CGI TF film yourself...stop bitching about it!
Seriously, the majority of you fans out there piss me off and utterly disgust me with your insanely selfish, narrow-minded, egotistical POV! And it's not just about the human aspect, it's about the fact that many of you still can't seem to understand that, just because you seem to think a film sucked that doesn't give you the right to sh** all over everyone else and tell them they're wrong and treat them like crap. Those of you offended by my abruptness in this matter... guess what? If you're offended then that means you rightfully have a guilty conscience.

Capt.Failure wrote:

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.

You resort to calling names, yet I'm the child. Yes, yes I did say that to Burn, but of course, you took it out of context. It started with comparing the TF movies the the Dark Knight Trilogy. And as far as shouting match, that's hilarious. Thought it was a debate, 2 fans debating over opinion(which is what forums are for) yet, I'm a sad child. Oh, oh I'm sorry Capt. Failure, you figured me out. I'm a butt hurt little fan boy, a crying, screaming child.

Hmmmmmph.........once again, have the last word, and trash me. Whatever, I got my opinion, got yours. I'm done with this. Agree to disagree. But when you're gonna quote someone, at least quote em in context. But then again, I shouldn't expect any less, with the name calling and all. Later.

I'm only going to say this once, and rest assured, warnings will be issued otherwise.

Enough talk about how good or bad the previous movies were (that's not what this thread was about)
Enough talk about how movie likes hate on movie haters and vice versa (that's not what this thread was about)
Enough insults, insinuations and other petty jabs (that's not what this thread is about)

Stick to what this thread is about. The casting of Kelsey Grammar, be it good or bad. But FFS, spare us the pettiness and bitching about the previous movies. There's a thousand other threads for that.

Autobot032 wrote:Good choice? No. Excellent choice. I hope they give him some room to chew up the scenery.

Personal wish: He's a scientist who discovers the Quintessons and through them, Unicron, and becomes the human leader of an apocalypse cult that worship them as the harbingers of the end times.

if they said he was playing burger. i would be interested.

Capt.Failure wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:Good choice? No. Excellent choice. I hope they give him some room to chew up the scenery.

Personal wish: He's a scientist who discovers the Quintessons and through them, Unicron, and becomes the human leader of an apocalypse cult that worship them as the harbingers of the end times.

Sounds like an awesome idea. It'd be great if TF4 (and a possible 5 and 6) would reveal more details and the "true" origins of the Transformers instead of just the cube creating them.

If the TF4,5,6 trilogy decided to go that way, I'm curious to see what the live action movie's take is on the TF's origins, if it'll go with the original G1 story with the Quints creating them as slaves, or if they'll go with the Primus vs Unicron thing, or a mix of both.

Kelsey Grammer is a good actor. He's got a great villain voice, and demeanor to match. I do feel, however, that he is slightly on the... boring side. The plot has got to twist and unfold, showing how twisted he really is, and give him some really dark depth to being a villain, and then, I think, the boring aspect will be overcome.

Quick note about all the Bay news involving humans. I agree that I cannot help getting a nauseating feeling everytime I see the Bay news, because it is never about a Transformer character instead of a human. I don't mean voice actors, but instead, "Bay says new TF4 movie villain is Straxus". Now thats something that would help restore my faith. Do you movie fans, realism in budget and the movie industry aside, disagree with me? Not trying to derail the thread, just wanted to find some common ground.

MINDVVIPE wrote:Quick note about all the Bay news involving humans. I agree that I cannot help getting a nauseating feeling everytime I see the Bay news, because it is never about a Transformer character instead of a human. I don't mean voice actors, but instead, "Bay says new TF4 movie villain is Straxus". Now thats something that would help restore my faith. Do you movie fans, realism in budget and the movie industry aside, disagree with me? Not trying to derail the thread, just wanted to find some common ground.

Yeah, I agree. I keep hoping to see some news about the TF's themselves, instead of just the human cast.

That said, I think since the cast of bots in TF4 are undergoing a rather extensive overhaul, they're probably still working on the brand-new character designs. And as we all know, Bay loves to stash little surprises here and there, like Sentinel's betrayal and Soundwave turning out to be the Mercedes Carly drives.

I won't be surprised if the concept art only starts showing up in the final days before the movie releases, if not after.

MINDVVIPE wrote:Not trying to derail the thread, just wanted to find some common ground.

Start the discussion in a new thread then?

RiddlerJ wrote:

BeastProwl wrote:hmm.. Greg Burger?

That was my first thought, but who knows.

How about Zarak?

Yup, this. Before I read that he would play 'Harold Attinger, a counter intelligence guy', my first hope was that he would play some form of Lord Zarak. He'd be perfect for that role! Considering that TF3:DotM took quite a few plot-points from the original cartoon and comic, perhaps he can still be squeezed into a comparable role.

alldarker wrote:

RiddlerJ wrote:

BeastProwl wrote:hmm.. Greg Burger?

That was my first thought, but who knows.

How about Zarak?

Yup, this. Before I read that he would play 'Harold Attinger, a counter intelligence guy', my first hope was that he would play some form of Lord Zarak. He'd be perfect for that role! Considering that TF3:DotM took quite a few plot-points from the original cartoon and comic, perhaps he can still be squeezed into a comparable role.

Well he could be both.