Possible Confirmation of 'Knight Megatron'

Sabrblade wrote:

And, honestly, man, why are you trying to defend the legitimate shortcomings of the movie? Refuting the ridiculous Geewhiner complaints is one thing, but the valid criticisms too? Come on, you're better than that.

I'm not?

Maybe I am I don't got any pills to check my temper any more since my family just lost our benefits recently but anyways in this case I'm just pointing out that his name while not said was acknowledge by the movie.


For all purposes the blue Autobot is Drift.

Very intriguing. Maybe there's other letters on other characters or objects that could be decoded.

Regarding Megatron being a knight I wonder if they are setting him up to become an Autobot or something in this or a future film.



I kinda want Megatron to save the Earth while having a giant ego about it "Hahaha who is your savior now meat-bags!"

JazZeke wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Emerje wrote:Kinda exaggerating how small that text is aren't we? It's perfectly readable even on that small image.

Emerje

It's also a stilled image, permanently keeping the text visible onscreen long enough for it to be read. Rewatching the scene it appears in, unless one knows that its coming, when, and for how long, it is very easy to miss if one isn't prepared to read the text.

And, really, aside from those who watch subtitled media and Star Wars-esque text scrolls, who actually watches movie entertainment wanting to read text on the screen?

Brings the intro of this episode to mind...

That is hilarious.

Emerje wrote:I watch a sickening amount of subtitled anime so maybe my eyes just train on screen text quicker than most?

Emerje

Maybe. And the movie really isn't made for the kind of niche audience who watches subbed anime, as it's meant for mass audience consumption, so guys like us nerds who watch subs are more likely to catch stuff like that, but not every average moviegoer will.

Deadput wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

And, honestly, man, why are you trying to defend the legitimate shortcomings of the movie? Refuting the ridiculous Geewhiner complaints is one thing, but the valid criticisms too? Come on, you're better than that.

I'm not?

Maybe I am I don't got any pills to check my temper any more since my family just lost our benefits recently but anyways in this case I'm just pointing out that his name while not said was acknowledge by the movie.

In a rather half-baked method that barely even gets its point across considering how brief said name text appears onscreen.


It all just goes to show how the filmmakers prioritized less important things (spectacle elements) over more important things (storytelling elements). Even writer Ehren Kruger once admitted that these are less like movies and more like theme park rides and openly stated that things like "logical sense" and "narrative structure" are casually and willing tossed out the window. While that might work for theme park rides, these aren't rides, they're movies. Apples and bagels. These movies are trying to be something else entirely that they aren't, rather than trying to be what they are: movies.


Now, onto this new "Megatron Knight" news:

Hellscream9999 wrote:Which might confirm that the head revealed is indeed Megatron, and that he might be the titular 'Last Knight'. So what do you make of this? Let us know in the comments below.

Megatron being one of the knights would be an... unexpected turn of events. Though, I'd have thought the titular "Last Knight" would be Optimus, given what happened in the previous movie.

Deadput wrote:Regarding Megatron being a knight I wonder if they are setting him up to become an Autobot or something in this or a future film.

I kinda want Megatron to save the Earth while having a giant ego about it "Hahaha who is your savior now meat-bags!"

Hmmm, I doubt they'd go that route, I'd rather the dinobots rally behind him as their leader, make for some epic fights

(and they might actually be named and get to speak )

Sabrblade wrote:Now, onto this new "Megatron Knight" news:

Hellscream9999 wrote:Which might confirm that the head revealed is indeed Megatron, and that he might be the titular 'Last Knight'. So what do you make of this? Let us know in the comments below.

Megatron being one of the knights would be an... unexpected turn of events. Though, I'd have thought the titular "Last Knight" would be Optimus, given what happened in the previous movie.

It'd be a nice way to circle back to their rivlary that they glossed over, I'm all for it

Where is the translation tool from?

I saw this the other day. Maybe Galvatron follows Optimus to the Creators, and they revert him back to Megatron, granting him the title of "Knight."

SeventhSage wrote:Where is the translation tool from?

Exactly same thing I saw it in article translation tool seems fan made it like see proof before I believe those are cybertronian letters there is no possible way all four transformers movies could have shown all letters in alphabete A to Z,

Maybe as on bluray extra content which I still have not time to check it out on all movie DVDs I wouldn't know for sure

It's not like the titles have ever been anything more than clever word plays anyway. In Dark of the Moon the moon was just a way to set up the movie, not far into it the moon didn't matter much. In Age of Extinction it was just a clever dinosaur reference, but nothing actually went extinct.

However, let's not forget that there's two ways to read "last". The first is as "final" which could refer to Optimus, but what if it actually meant "previous" and was referring to the knight before Optimus, maybe Megatron?

Emerje

Emerje wrote:It's not like the titles have ever been anything more than clever word plays anyway. In Dark of the Moon the moon was just a way to set up the movie, not far into it the moon didn't matter much. In Age of Extinction it was just a clever dinosaur reference, but nothing actually went extinct.

However, let's not forget that there's two ways to read "last". The first is as "final" which could refer to Optimus, but what if it actually meant "previous" and was referring to the knight before Optimus, maybe Megatron?

Emerje

Could be. I personally think it's Megatron taking over and trying to eradicate the Autobots to ensure that he is the Last Knight, or that Optimus will be the last/final Knight.

Sidenote. Why the hell does every key word that's typed in a news story or post now A. Show up as a link and B. Link to an eBay auction for that word? It's very jarring.

now megatron is a knight. lol oh boy are thee movies broken.

Bounti76 wrote:Sidenote. Why the hell does every key word that's typed in a news story or post now A. Show up as a link and B. Link to an eBay auction for that word? It's very jarring.

It's an eBay rover bot at work.

JazZeke wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Emerje wrote:Kinda exaggerating how small that text is aren't we? It's perfectly readable even on that small image.

Emerje

It's also a stilled image, permanently keeping the text visible onscreen long enough for it to be read. Rewatching the scene it appears in, unless one knows that its coming, when, and for how long, it is very easy to miss if one isn't prepared to read the text.

And, really, aside from those who watch subtitled media and Star Wars-esque text scrolls, who actually watches movie entertainment wanting to read text on the screen?

Brings the intro of this episode to mind...

I saw this comment while looking at the news post so the video didn't show up but I already knew which one you were talking about

I salute you sir! Now excuse me I need to get some smoked kipper for breakfast

Anyway, looks like my already shaky Rom theory isn't working out so far but what if, bare with me for a moment, what if part of the movie deals with the creation of cybertron and this is how Megs originally looked when he first awoke? So we would have a story thread set in the past with Knight Prime and Knight Megatron and then the present day stuff with Prime and Galvatron and the rest.

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

Then why do so many people like the Force Awakens? Drift's past wasn't even essential to the story, so how is leaving it out detrimental to anything?

SlyTF1 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

Then why do so many people like the Force Awakens? Drift's past wasn't even essential to the story, so how is leaving it out detrimental to anything?

Probably because they have a rough story drafted out for the trilogy

And yes, it builds character, explains his ethos and actions, and can bridge the need to have exhaustive exposition, it could've been summed up in a sentence or two, but it wasn't, and that's terrible screenwriting

Hellscream9999 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

Then why do so many people like the Force Awakens? Drift's past wasn't even essential to the story, so how is leaving it out detrimental to anything?

Probably because they have a rough story drafted out for the trilogy

And yes, it builds character, explains his ethos and actions, and can bridge the need to have exhaustive exposition, it could've been summed up in a sentence or two, but it wasn't, and that's terrible screenwriting

There was literally no need for it. The movie would have in no way been enhanced with that piece of information. He never even did anything indicative of a Decepticon. Who was the focus of the movie? Cade, Tessa, Optimus, and Joshua. Those characters had plenty of characterization. Why does a supporting character absolutely HAVE to have his past brought up when there's literally nothing he did in the movie that would call for that explanation to be needed?

SlyTF1 wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

Then why do so many people like the Force Awakens? Drift's past wasn't even essential to the story, so how is leaving it out detrimental to anything?

Probably because they have a rough story drafted out for the trilogy

And yes, it builds character, explains his ethos and actions, and can bridge the need to have exhaustive exposition, it could've been summed up in a sentence or two, but it wasn't, and that's terrible screenwriting

There was literally no need for it. The movie would have in no way been enhanced with that piece of information. He never even did anything indicative of a Decepticon. Who was the focus of the movie? Cade, Tessa, Optimus, and Joshua. Those characters had plenty of characterization. Why does a supporting character absolutely HAVE to have his past brought up when there's literally nothing he did in the movie that would call for that explanation to be needed?

Because its a GODD@MN TRANSFORMERS MOVIE, that they aren't the main characters is the first in a very long list of obvious and basic flaws these movies have always had - and don't give me that crap about how it's to have the audience relate to them. If it's done correctly you can care about anything, I relate more to a robot from the future that turns into a giant rat than any of the imbecilic humans portrayed in these movies (with the excepion of epps and lennox, they somehow managed to avoid getting screwed over by the consistently sh|t writing)

And you're right, adding drifts backstory would have done nothing because the writing was so atrocious in the first place he wasn't even a character, just a set piece, a non-entity; but it would have helped drag the movie up a little

Hellscream9999 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

Then why do so many people like the Force Awakens? Drift's past wasn't even essential to the story, so how is leaving it out detrimental to anything?

Probably because they have a rough story drafted out for the trilogy >:oP

And yes, it builds character, explains his ethos and actions, and can bridge the need to have exhaustive exposition, it could've been summed up in a sentence or two, but it wasn't, and that's terrible screenwriting >:oP

Yup - we could have had a line or three about him having once fought for the other side, then he counters w/ 'nyah nyah I'm still more honorable than you' or something, and we get a more fleshed out look into the character. But hey, age of consent jokes are waaaaay more engaging than that. :P

RevTibe wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

Then why do so many people like the Force Awakens? Drift's past wasn't even essential to the story, so how is leaving it out detrimental to anything?

Probably because they have a rough story drafted out for the trilogy

And yes, it builds character, explains his ethos and actions, and can bridge the need to have exhaustive exposition, it could've been summed up in a sentence or two, but it wasn't, and that's terrible screenwriting

Yup - we could have had a line or three about him having once fought for the other side, then he counters w/ 'nyah nyah I'm still more honorable than you' or something, and we get a more fleshed out look into the character. But hey, age of consent jokes are waaaaay more engaging than that.

He could have even said it to crosshairs, thus building character for both characters, but that's smart/clever screenwriting

SlyTF1 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

Then why do so many people like the Force Awakens? Drift's past wasn't even essential to the story, so how is leaving it out detrimental to anything?

Star Wars is quite a different beast. We all knew going in that this would be just part of a trilogy. A franchise that has as much momentum as Star Wars has enough audience goodwill to get away with intentional mysteries to leave people interested in the next one.

And I'm not talking about Drift's backstory. I'm talking about his smegging name. And no, a blink-and-you'll-miss-it appearance on a screen does not count.

Hellscream9999 wrote:Because its a GODD@MN TRANSFORMERS MOVIE, that they aren't the main characters is the first in a very long list of obvious and basic flaws these movies have always had - and don't give me that crap about how it's to have the audience relate to them. If it's done correctly you can care about anything, I relate more to a robot from the future that turns into a giant rat than any of the imbecilic humans portrayed in these movies (with the excepion of epps and lennox, they somehow managed to avoid getting screwed over by the consistently sh|t writing)

And you're right, adding drifts backstory would have done nothing because the writing was so atrocious in the first place he wasn't even a character, just a set piece, a non-entity; but it would have helped drag the movie up a little

In this day and age where a movie's talking racoon and tree were its most popular and relatable characters, there is literally no excuse for the Transformers not being treated as main characters in their own movies any more.

JazZeke wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:Because its a GODD@MN TRANSFORMERS MOVIE, that they aren't the main characters is the first in a very long list of obvious and basic flaws these movies have always had - and don't give me that crap about how it's to have the audience relate to them. If it's done correctly you can care about anything, I relate more to a robot from the future that turns into a giant rat than any of the imbecilic humans portrayed in these movies (with the excepion of epps and lennox, they somehow managed to avoid getting screwed over by the consistently sh|t writing)

And you're right, adding drifts backstory would have done nothing because the writing was so atrocious in the first place he wasn't even a character, just a set piece, a non-entity; but it would have helped drag the movie up a little

In this day and age where a movie's talking racoon and tree were its most popular and relatable characters, there is literally no excuse for the Transformers not being treated as main characters in their own movies any more.

lol, twig-groot-in-a-pot just wants to have fun, I kind relate to even that

Hellscream9999 wrote:Because its a GODD@MN TRANSFORMERS MOVIE, that they aren't the main characters is the first in a very long list of obvious and basic flaws these movies have always had - and don't give me that crap about how it's to have the audience relate to them. If it's done correctly you can care about anything, I relate more to a robot from the future that turns into a giant rat than any of the imbecilic humans portrayed in these movies (with the excepion of epps and lennox, they somehow managed to avoid getting screwed over by the consistently sh|t writing)

And you're right, adding drifts backstory would have done nothing because the writing was so atrocious in the first place he wasn't even a character, just a set piece, a non-entity; but it would have helped drag the movie up a little

Sums up my opinion (minus salty language).

Autobot N wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:Because its a GODD@MN TRANSFORMERS MOVIE, that they aren't the main characters is the first in a very long list of obvious and basic flaws these movies have always had - and don't give me that crap about how it's to have the audience relate to them. If it's done correctly you can care about anything, I relate more to a robot from the future that turns into a giant rat than any of the imbecilic humans portrayed in these movies (with the excepion of epps and lennox, they somehow managed to avoid getting screwed over by the consistently sh|t writing)

And you're right, adding drifts backstory would have done nothing because the writing was so atrocious in the first place he wasn't even a character, just a set piece, a non-entity; but it would have helped drag the movie up a little

Sums up my opinion (minus salty language).

Yeah, well, I wanted them to be as great as possible - like Marvel cinematic universe great, but it was just one let down after another, it hurt, and now, I have nothing but cynicism towards it until proven otherwise (which I'm hoping will be the case with this movie, but I'm not expecting anything other than another let down )

Hellscream9999 wrote:Yeah, well, I wanted them to be as great as possible - like Marvel cinematic universe great, but it was just one let down after another, it hurt, and now, I have nothing but cynicism towards it until proven otherwise (which I'm hoping will be the case with this movie, but I'm not expecting anything other than another let down )

If only. Even with all the optimism I have for the brand (like accepting pretty much anything thrown at me), the movies are where I fall short. The only one I can even bring myself to watch is Age of Extinction, and even that one's pretty bad.

Autobot N wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:Yeah, well, I wanted them to be as great as possible - like Marvel cinematic universe great, but it was just one let down after another, it hurt, and now, I have nothing but cynicism towards it until proven otherwise (which I'm hoping will be the case with this movie, but I'm not expecting anything other than another let down )

If only. Even with all the optimism I have for the brand (like accepting pretty much anything thrown at me), the movies are where I fall short. The only one I can even bring myself to watch is Age of Extinction, and even that one's pretty bad.

I thought the first one would have been a pretty great movie, if they excised Sam's parents (or most of their lines)

Hellscream9999 wrote:I thought the first one would have been a pretty great movie, if they excised Sam's parents (or most of their lines)

And Sam. And Mikaela. And every other human character except Epps and Lennox.


Bumblebee too, for that matter.

Autobot N wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:I thought the first one would have been a pretty great movie, if they excised Sam's parents (or most of their lines)

And Sam. And Mikaela. And every other human character except Epps and Lennox.
Bumblebee too, for that matter.

I thought he was pretty well written for the most part, if not entirely gracefully (a bit heavy-handed to be honest) to be an awkward teenager in high school, almost everyone can relate to that; similar for Mikaela, but I digress

Hellscream9999 wrote:

Autobot N wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:I thought the first one would have been a pretty great movie, if they excised Sam's parents (or most of their lines)

And Sam. And Mikaela. And every other human character except Epps and Lennox.
Bumblebee too, for that matter.

I thought he was pretty well written for the most part, if not entirely gracefully (a bit heavy-handed to be honest) to be an awkward teenager in high school, almost everyone can relate to that; similar for Mikaela, but I digress

I just hate romance in my giant-robots-punching-each-other movies. It's also why I hate Tessa and whatever the boyfriend from AOE was named. And teenagers having a bigger role in the movie than the titular heroes.

I feel like Sam's arc in the first trilogy had some potential - an unlikely hero thrust into circumstances beyond his control, then in RotF he's leaving the comforts of family and home, and finally he becomes a more active agent of his own destiny, truly proving himself in DotM. Admittedly, these points were not presented as effectively as I would have liked, with a good deal of his scenes being dominated by non-developmental humor, or, particularly in the case of the writer's strike era RotF, simply lost beneath the plot's flailings. Stills, a half-credit where half-credit is due.

Hellscream9999 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

Then why do so many people like the Force Awakens? Drift's past wasn't even essential to the story, so how is leaving it out detrimental to anything?

Probably because they have a rough story drafted out for the trilogy

And yes, it builds character, explains his ethos and actions, and can bridge the need to have exhaustive exposition, it could've been summed up in a sentence or two, but it wasn't, and that's terrible screenwriting

There was literally no need for it. The movie would have in no way been enhanced with that piece of information. He never even did anything indicative of a Decepticon. Who was the focus of the movie? Cade, Tessa, Optimus, and Joshua. Those characters had plenty of characterization. Why does a supporting character absolutely HAVE to have his past brought up when there's literally nothing he did in the movie that would call for that explanation to be needed?

Because its a GODD@MN TRANSFORMERS MOVIE, that they aren't the main characters is the first in a very long list of obvious and basic flaws these movies have always had - and don't give me that crap about how it's to have the audience relate to them. If it's done correctly you can care about anything, I relate more to a robot from the future that turns into a giant rat than any of the imbecilic humans portrayed in these movies (with the excepion of epps and lennox, they somehow managed to avoid getting screwed over by the consistently sh|t writing)

And you're right, adding drifts backstory would have done nothing because the writing was so atrocious in the first place he wasn't even a character, just a set piece, a non-entity; but it would have helped drag the movie up a little

I relate to the Transformers in these movies more than any character in any movie, TV show, comic book, whatever, regardless of their screen time or lack of backstories. They have enough characterization. That's like saying all the Godzilla movies are problematic because he only ever shows up in the last half of the movie. It's like saying the Dark Knight is a shit movie, when Harvey Dent and the Joker are the real focus of it. Batman's problems are secondary. He's barely even in the movie, and nobody ever trashed that movie for that.

SlyTF1 wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:Then why do so many people like the Force Awakens? Drift's past wasn't even essential to the story, so how is leaving it out detrimental to anything?

Probably because they have a rough story drafted out for the trilogy

And yes, it builds character, explains his ethos and actions, and can bridge the need to have exhaustive exposition, it could've been summed up in a sentence or two, but it wasn't, and that's terrible screenwriting

There was literally no need for it. The movie would have in no way been enhanced with that piece of information. He never even did anything indicative of a Decepticon. Who was the focus of the movie? Cade, Tessa, Optimus, and Joshua. Those characters had plenty of characterization. Why does a supporting character absolutely HAVE to have his past brought up when there's literally nothing he did in the movie that would call for that explanation to be needed?

Because its a GODD@MN TRANSFORMERS MOVIE, that they aren't the main characters is the first in a very long list of obvious and basic flaws these movies have always had - and don't give me that crap about how it's to have the audience relate to them. If it's done correctly you can care about anything, I relate more to a robot from the future that turns into a giant rat than any of the imbecilic humans portrayed in these movies (with the excepion of epps and lennox, they somehow managed to avoid getting screwed over by the consistently sh|t writing)

And you're right, adding drifts backstory would have done nothing because the writing was so atrocious in the first place he wasn't even a character, just a set piece, a non-entity; but it would have helped drag the movie up a little

I relate to the Transformers in these movies more than any character in any movie, TV show, comic book, whatever, regardless of their screen time or lack of backstories. They have enough characterization. That's like saying all the Godzilla movies are problematic because he only ever shows up in the last half of the movie. It's like saying the Dark Knight is a SHIZZLESNIT movie, when Harvey Dent and the Joker are the real focus of it. Batman's problems are secondary. He's barely even in the movie, and nobody ever trashed that movie for that.

Pretty sure (like 89% sure) that those aren't even coherent examples, let alone counter arguments (they aren't even parallel arguments ), but thanks for giving me a good laugh; sad to see you have such low standards, you could be doing so much better


(and p.s., I'm not the only one trashing the movie, so maybe try responding to any one of the other multitude of well-founded critiques)

Bay isn't the problem, the problem is that no other director has yet stepped up to take on the mantle(directorial duties) instead, which gives reason for Bay to keep on returning to the directors chair, remember....Bay does some great non TF films....13 Hours was a very good, as was his other past films....like...The Rock & Bad Boys(still waiting on the 3rd one)

& btw as bad as these TF films are...they are still raking in a sh1tload of money(as will no doubt the 5th one) & the trailers still look better than the films.

but i'm keeping my hopes up...for this new animated TF film.

& it's not just the TF films that are bad...that last Turtles film didn't fare as well as the first one.

SlyTF1 wrote:I relate to the Transformers in these movies more than any character in any movie, TV show, comic book, whatever, regardless of their screen time or lack of backstories.

And I believe I know the reason why that is, but I won't say the reason since it would be impolite to do so in this case.

Sabrblade wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:I relate to the Transformers in these movies more than any character in any movie, TV show, comic book, whatever, regardless of their screen time or lack of backstories.

And I believe I know the reason why that is, but I won't say the reason since it would be impolite to do so in this case.

Why? What's the reason? I know exactly what I am and where I'm coming from. There's nothing anyone could possibly say to offend me.

W3'll see when TLK comes out if this is true. Some of the best sequels reveal certain things about characters that the first usually doesn't touch on. AOE was supposed to be a fresh start for the series. It is my hope and my expectation that TLK will be the kind of sequel that expands on the characterization of the characters that were merely established in AOE.

It does please me that the writers are being recognised as the ones really at fault. To me it doesn't seem like they respected the material that has been built up by successive writers who embraced the franchise and the idea of a toy line that was more than meets the eye.

I wonder what the movies would of turned out like if they had gotten someone like Simon Furman to oversee the story development in a role like creative consultant. Not getting him to write the story of course as Furman isn't at his best I feel but he could of helped steer things better.

Still, TLK is the first film out of the writer's room so we can only hope that the quality improves, though again maybe for the tf side of things they should of asked for guidance from IDW in some capacity.

But what do I know about Hollywood?

Oh and sly, while its admirable that you will defend the movies, it's still your opinions at the end of the day and they aren't shared with everyone else. Especially when it comes down to story composition.

As much as I enjoy the movies, they make no attempts to draw me in more, I'm always aware that they are just movies, their world's flat and non engaging. They really need to look to the MCU for world building.

I'm... really not into the movies myself beyond the first one just being a bit of a fun ride; just for the gimmick and concept of live action transformers. And that was really it for me, just a gimmick - it didn't work out too well, but it was a nice idea and it was sorta cool to see it happen. Plus it had a few albeit superficial ideas; like Ironhide having a pickup truck mode, a Decepticon police car, and built-in weaponry.

With all that said I baffle myself as to why I'm actually here - if I don't like these movies, I probably shouldn't be commenting on a board where there are people that enjoy them and want to discuss them on a positive level; and if they do find fault, those faults would be discussed on a level that they still enjoy the movies despite them.
Which... of course isn't the case for me. I guess I just left a post on a news post, and because of the board system it means every time there's a new post here, I see it. And I guess I just stayed around because there was some genuinely interesting discussion, and civil discussion at that which is pretty difficult to find concerning movies like these anywhere on the internet.

I guess what I'm saying is I'm very behind every argument given against them so far, but everyone's heard them and the discussion for the next movie probably isn't the best place to have them. People are getting hyped, best let them have it

SlyTF1 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:I relate to the Transformers in these movies more than any character in any movie, TV show, comic book, whatever, regardless of their screen time or lack of backstories.

And I believe I know the reason why that is, but I won't say the reason since it would be impolite to do so in this case.

Why? What's the reason? I know exactly what I am and where I'm coming from. There's nothing anyone could possibly say to offend me.

Ironic you should say that, considering how pissy you get whenever someone posts legitimate criticism of these movies. That is when you don't just outright gloss over peoples' points by proverbially sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "these movies are great!" as loudly as you can.

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:I relate to the Transformers in these movies more than any character in any movie, TV show, comic book, whatever, regardless of their screen time or lack of backstories.

And I believe I know the reason why that is, but I won't say the reason since it would be impolite to do so in this case.

Why? What's the reason? I know exactly what I am and where I'm coming from. There's nothing anyone could possibly say to offend me.

Ironic you should say that, considering how pissy you get whenever someone posts legitimate criticism of these movies. That is when you don't just outright gloss over peoples' points by proverbially sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "these movies are great!" as loudly as you can.

That's not me being offended. That's me defending the only accomplishment by mankind that I care about.

SlyTF1 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:I relate to the Transformers in these movies more than any character in any movie, TV show, comic book, whatever, regardless of their screen time or lack of backstories.

And I believe I know the reason why that is, but I won't say the reason since it would be impolite to do so in this case.

Why? What's the reason? I know exactly what I am and where I'm coming from. There's nothing anyone could possibly say to offend me.

Ironic you should say that, considering how pissy you get whenever someone posts legitimate criticism of these movies. That is when you don't just outright gloss over peoples' points by proverbially sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "these movies are great!" as loudly as you can.

That's not me being offended. That's me defending the only accomplishment by mankind that I care about.

... well, see, I'm not saying you can't enjoy them... but maybe there's some things in life you might want to prioritize over a few action movies? I'm just saying - albeit, as an introverted 19-year-old on a Transformers forum - that there is a lot more to life than that.

SlyTF1 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:I relate to the Transformers in these movies more than any character in any movie, TV show, comic book, whatever, regardless of their screen time or lack of backstories.

And I believe I know the reason why that is, but I won't say the reason since it would be impolite to do so in this case.

Why? What's the reason? I know exactly what I am and where I'm coming from. There's nothing anyone could possibly say to offend me.

Ironic you should say that, considering how pissy you get whenever someone posts legitimate criticism of these movies. That is when you don't just outright gloss over peoples' points by proverbially sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "these movies are great!" as loudly as you can.

That's not me being offended. That's me defending the only accomplishment by mankind that I care about.

Good god... that is just pathetic. Absolutely, unbelievably pathetic.

Get. A. Life.

Guys, best not to take sly too seriously, otherwise you'll give yourself an anuerism when you hear about the other things he's said

Kurona wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:I relate to the Transformers in these movies more than any character in any movie, TV show, comic book, whatever, regardless of their screen time or lack of backstories.

And I believe I know the reason why that is, but I won't say the reason since it would be impolite to do so in this case.

Why? What's the reason? I know exactly what I am and where I'm coming from. There's nothing anyone could possibly say to offend me.

Ironic you should say that, considering how pissy you get whenever someone posts legitimate criticism of these movies. That is when you don't just outright gloss over peoples' points by proverbially sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "these movies are great!" as loudly as you can.

That's not me being offended. That's me defending the only accomplishment by mankind that I care about.

... well, see, I'm not saying you can't enjoy them... but maybe there's some things in life you might want to prioritize over a few action movies? I'm just saying - albeit, as an introverted 19-year-old on a Transformers forum - that there is a lot more to life than that.

Nah, mankind's already done for. These movies are just to hold me over until I can find a way off this planet.

Might I advise we attempt to halt reasoning with Sly? Trust me, nothing will ever change his mind. The movies are akin to a religion with him.

Guess who's back, back again guess who's back?


https://www.instagram.com/p/BHLBipSDqcO/

https://www.instagram.com/p/BHLEOm0DZ7l/


from Tyrese's Instagram account It's Epps and he is back to bring the rain once again!

Stuartmaximus wrote:Bay isn't the problem, the problem is that no other director has yet stepped up to take on the mantle(directorial duties)

Why would most directors actually want to?


Not even J.J Abrams wants to do a Transformers movie (he said it in an interview some time ago) and he directed god damn Star Wars.


It's not just what we want from a movie the director themselves has to be invested in making the film something which Bay almost doesn't have anymore due to Paramount of whoever keeps dragging him in to do another one so Bay can make movies he actually wants to.

Seibertronian Deadput has pointed us in the direction of the news so many of us have been waiting for. Tyrese Gibson, via Instagram has confirmed that Epps will be returning for Transformers: The Last Knight! He posts a Picture of himself with Micheal Bay and then another post with a Video of the 2. The captions are labelled as follows:

Tyrese Gibson wrote:Rumor has it............ Nah.... Robert Epps is back!!!!!! #T5 summer 2017 just got even more interesting...... @MichaelBay aka #MrImAlwaysAwesome

How about that? Let us know what you think of this latest news in the comments section below!

Looks like Tyrese's dream just came true. And the movie is going back to its military/war roots.

Cool! Epps was one the best human characters in the movies, glad to have him back.