Transformers: Age of Extinction RealD 3D Featurette

cruizerdave wrote:
No, it just drives me nuts when people say things like, "you only hate those movies because it's cool."

Hey, if you like these things, fine. That’s your deal. But when someone says my opinion is based on trying to be cool, that’s ridiculous.

I think it usually results when people just cannot handle the idea that you don't like something that they like. It's kind of the last childish resort to argument. I agree with the 'if you like things, fine' argument all day though.

I guess it would be better if we were all to preface everything we said with an "in my opinion ..." but I figured that since this is the Internet, that's a given. So when I say, "these movies are terrible" I'm not saying they are objectively terrible, just in my opinion they are terrible. But don't say that it's not my opinion or imply that it's impossible to honestly not like these movies, because it is. Especially in a summer with X-Men DOFP, Captain America The Winter Soldier and the new Apes flick.

cruizerdave wrote:I guess it would be better if we were all to preface everything we said with an "in my opinion ..." but I figured that since this is the Internet, that's a given. So when I say, "these movies are terrible" I'm not saying they are objectively terrible, just in my opinion they are terrible. But don't say that it's not my opinion or imply that it's impossible to honestly not like these movies, because it is. Especially in a summer with X-Men DOFP, Captain America The Winter Soldier and the new Apes flick.

DOFP was stupid. All it did was reset the entire universe, and as soon as I heard that the movie had to do with time travel, I knew it would do exactly what it did. So, there was no surprise there. The entire movie was a cheap ass "reset" button.

Captain America was awesome, but it didn't have giant alien robots with personalities, whereas AOE did, which makes AOE better.

Haven't seen the Planet of the Apes movie, but I doubt that has giant alien robots, too.

You haven't even seen AOE, so why are you comparing it to all these other movies?

cruizerdave wrote:

VirusCarnage wrote:I personally think that people hate the TF movies because it's 'cool' to hate them and because critics like to crap on Michael Bay.

Then you personally have no idea what you're talking about.

I prefer my movies without plot points that include robot piss, dogs humping, weird racists robots, racist depictions of most black characters on screen, gay sex in bathroom stall jokes, humans that all act like they are cocaine all the time, and endless amounts of irrelevant plot threads and characters who have no bearing on the story.

These movies go beyond dumb. They are assaultively stupid. It's terrible news for people who like good movies that these continue to be successful. Of course in a world where people can't get enough of Kim and Kanye, I guess it shouldn't be surprising that people pay for this garbage.

Possibly a lot of people who like these don't over analyze them like everyone else does with plots, acting and all other crap those people let critics judge on plot who get paid to judge movies but for people who like these movies are fan of series or don't judge everyyyy little detail in movie and go see movie what they are meant to made for entertainment pourpuse use watch movie for action, adventure, excitement, scared, laughter. When was last time have most of you memebers saw movie for entertainment use and did not over anayalize every little aspect of a film watched it out of pure enjoyment to be scared, laughed, see great fights that is why people like them with bonus what other city's country's look like outside of the U.S.?

What I like with movies about my family sister, cousin, father they don't talk about acting sucks characters are bland they need be outgoing, plot holes all that other nonsense crap like to I movies with family for this they stuff as that was good movie action was good funny think they be sequel I liked ending they don't over anayalize act like paid critics If I knew someone who acts like paid critic after seeing movie give there opinion I won't go see it with them any more they fun out of movies which is entertainment, same with comics, music, anything

dragons wrote:

cruizerdave wrote:

VirusCarnage wrote:I personally think that people hate the TF movies because it's 'cool' to hate them and because critics like to crap on Michael Bay.

Then you personally have no idea what you're talking about.

I prefer my movies without plot points that include robot piss, dogs humping, weird racists robots, racist depictions of most black characters on screen, gay sex in bathroom stall jokes, humans that all act like they are cocaine all the time, and endless amounts of irrelevant plot threads and characters who have no bearing on the story.

These movies go beyond dumb. They are assaultively stupid. It's terrible news for people who like good movies that these continue to be successful. Of course in a world where people can't get enough of Kim and Kanye, I guess it shouldn't be surprising that people pay for this garbage.

Possibly a lot of people who like these don't over analyze them like everyone else does with plots, acting and all other crap those people let critics judge on plot who get paid to judge movies but for people who like these movies are fan of series or don't judge everyyyy little detail in movie and go see movie what they are meant to made for entertainment pourpuse use watch movie for action, adventure, excitement, scared, laughter. When was last time have most of you memebers saw movie for entertainment use and did not over anayalize every little aspect of a film watched it out of pure enjoyment to be scared, laughed, see great fights that is why people like them with bonus what other city's country's look like outside of the U.S.?

What I like with movies about my family sister, cousin, father they don't talk about acting sucks characters are bland they need be outgoing, plot holes all that other nonsense crap like to I movies with family for this they stuff as that was good movie action was good funny think they be sequel I liked ending they don't over anayalize act like paid critics If I knew someone who acts like paid critic after seeing movie give there opinion I won't go see it with them any more they fun out of movies which is entertainment, same with comics, music, anything

I over analyze the hell out of these movies. And I enjoy them best when I do.

Ya know people complain about the length but for what a movie ticket costs nowadays I expect a long film, two news reels, and a couple cartoons.

chuckdawg1999 wrote:Ya know people complain about the length but for what a movie ticket costs nowadays I expect a long film, two news reels, and a couple cartoons.

Exactly. I get pissed when I go see a movie and it's anything less than 2 hours and 30 minutes. It feels to me, like the movie was of no significance if its any shorter. Like it was just something to waste time and money.

dragons wrote:
1. plots, acting and all other crap
2. action, adventure, excitement, scared, laughter. When was last time have most of you memebers saw movie for entertainment use and did not over anayalize every little aspect of a film watched it out of pure enjoyment to be scared, laughed, see great fights that is why people like them with bonus what other city's country's look like outside of the U.S.?

3. What I like with movies about my family sister, cousin, father they don't talk about acting sucks characters are bland they need be outgoing, plot holes all that other nonsense crap

4. l that was good movie action was good funny think they be sequel I liked ending they don't over anayalize act like paid critics If I knew someone who acts like paid critic after seeing movie give there opinion I won't go see it with them any more they fun out of movies which is entertainment, same with comics, music, anything

1. So story, acting and all that other crap are unimportant. Good to know. Therefore the Star Wars prequels are incredible films by your judgement. Good to know.

2. Inception would fall apart if you "over-analysed" it. However, it was so much more intelligent than any Bayformers, it doesn't invite that level of criticism. Also, China's tourism division is suing the makers of this latest Transformers movie because it does an extremely terrible job in portraying what China looks like to the outside world.

3. These movies are not family movies. They are full of crude humor and dialogue. I don't let my kids watch them because they are so crude they skirt the PG-13 rating.

4. Punctuation is your friend. Perhaps if you learned how to competently use the English language, you'd understand why people feel the dialog in Bayformers is bad.

cruizerdave wrote:It's a sad day for movies.

I'm sorry, but Bay's films are terrible and appeal to the lowest common denominator.

This ^ is absolutely unnecessary and what started this whole mess.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... enominator

Read 1, especially 2 and then 3. Which you admit to in the following post here:

cruizerdave wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

cruizerdave wrote:It's a sad day for movies.

I'm sorry, but Bay's films are terrible and appeal to the lowest common denominator.

1. What does that even mean?
2. Who are the highest common denominators? People who don't like the movies?
3. What have you contributed to the world?

1. It means these movies are designed for idiots. It doesn't matter that the plots are nonsense, the robots aren't characters and the most of the humans are, for the most part, terrible characters. It doesn't matter because, look pretty ’plosions, special effects, over-saturated colors and hot girls!

2. People who forgo seeing Bayformers and go see the latest X-men again. I'm no movie snob, but I've had a distain for Bay since Armageddon.

3. Really? I post an opinion about a series of movies that opinions range from "cinematic excrement" on the low end to "it's just a dumb action movie, what do you expect?" on the high end, and you're calling me out to justify my existence? What am I supposed to do, give you a list of my charitable donations and hours spent volunteering in my community? Because I could do that if that's what you want.

You have no right to call the audience a bunch of idiots with no class. A lot of people who happen to like the movies are members of this board and you just stated something that was not only offensive, but a blanket statement. It's not only rude, it IS against the rules. You don't like the movies? That's fine. Critique them directly, do not drag people into it. You know better than to do something like this.

cruizerdave wrote:

VirusCarnage wrote:I personally think that people hate the TF movies because it's 'cool' to hate them and because critics like to crap on Michael Bay.

Then you personally have no idea what you're talking about.

I prefer my movies without plot points that include robot piss, dogs humping, weird racists robots, racist depictions of most black characters on screen, gay sex in bathroom stall jokes, humans that all act like they are cocaine all the time, and endless amounts of irrelevant plot threads and characters who have no bearing on the story.

These movies go beyond dumb. They are assaultively stupid. It's terrible news for people who like good movies that these continue to be successful. Of course in a world where people can't get enough of Kim and Kanye, I guess it shouldn't be surprising that people pay for this garbage.

And then there's this. You have no right to tell a person how or what to think. You are not to speak for them, either. If you want to ingratiate yourself with the people around here, you're not off to a good start. There's no need to be so new here and be so rude. You can get your point across without being offensive, so knock it off right now.

SlyTF1 wrote:

cruizerdave wrote:It's a sad day for movies.

I'm sorry, but Bay's films are terrible and appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Yes, that's why it's the highest grossing movie of the year. People always say the movies "appeal to the lowest common denominator." What does that even mean? It sounds like some tagline everyone who doesn't like these movies, who have no imagination whatsoever, spout to put down those who do like them. Who are the highest common denominators? People who don't like the movies? What have you contributed to the world?

Sly, stop feeding into things like this. It's not worth it and you could end up in trouble for stoking the fire. Sometimes it's better to just take a breather, ignore the person and move onto other aspects of the thread. Pretend he doesn't exist, or something. You have that capability.

SlyTF1 wrote:

cruizerdave wrote:

VirusCarnage wrote:I personally think that people hate the TF movies because it's 'cool' to hate them and because critics like to crap on Michael Bay.

Then you personally have no idea what you're talking about.

I prefer my movies without plot points that include robot piss, dogs humping, weird racists robots, racist depictions of most black characters on screen, gay sex in bathroom stall jokes, humans that all act like they are cocaine all the time, and endless amounts of irrelevant plot threads and characters who have no bearing on the story.

These movies go beyond dumb. They are assaultively stupid. It's terrible news for people who like good movies that these continue to be successful. Of course in a world where people can't get enough of Kim and Kanye, I guess it shouldn't be surprising that people pay for this garbage.

Good news; AOE has absolutely none of that. But I guess you'll still find a way to complain about it.

cruizerdave wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

cruizerdave wrote:It's a sad day for movies.

I'm sorry, but Bay's films are terrible and appeal to the lowest common denominator.

1. What does that even mean?
2. Who are the highest common denominators? People who don't like the movies?
3. What have you contributed to the world?

1. It means these movies are designed for idiots. It doesn't matter that the plots are nonsense, the robots aren't characters and the most of the humans are, for the most part, terrible characters. It doesn't matter because, look pretty ’plosions, special effects, over-saturated colors and hot girls!

2. People who forgo seeing Bayformers and go see the latest X-men again. I'm no movie snob, but I've had a distain for Bay since Armageddon.

3. Really? I post an opinion about a series of movies that opinions range from "cinematic excrement" on the low end to "it's just a dumb action movie, what do you expect?" on the high end, and you're calling me out to justify my existence? What am I supposed to do, give you a list of my charitable donations and hours spent volunteering in my community? Because I could do that if that's what you want.

In my experience, it's the idiots who don't like the movies. They just hop onto the bandwagon mentality and don't know how to think for themselves. And they aren't "dumb action movies." The people who say that are the idiots I mentioned before.

Sly! I don't want to see a post like this again. I realize cruizerdave started this, but there's no need for you to try and finish it. You should just leave well enough alone! You're no better when you say things like "it's the idiots who don't like the movies." you cannot say stuff like that! It's offensive and it's not true. Plenty of people do not like this and other movies and doesn't diminish their mental capacity in any way. Again, please don't feed into this.

cruizerdave wrote:

RhA wrote:

cruizerdave wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

cruizerdave wrote:It's a sad day for movies.

I'm sorry, but Bay's films are terrible and appeal to the lowest common denominator.

1. What does that even mean?
2. Who are the highest common denominators? People who don't like the movies?
3. What have you contributed to the world?

1. It means these movies are designed for idiots. It doesn't matter that the plots are nonsense, the robots aren't characters and the most of the humans are, for the most part, terrible characters. It doesn't matter because, look pretty ’plosions, special effects, over-saturated colors and hot girls!

2. People who forgo seeing Bayformers and go see the latest X-men again. I'm no movie snob, but I've had a distain for Bay since Armageddon.

3. Really? I post an opinion about a series of movies that opinions range from "cinematic excrement" on the low end to "it's just a dumb action movie, what do you expect?" on the high end, and you're calling me out to justify my existence? What am I supposed to do, give you a list of my charitable donations and hours spent volunteering in my community? Because I could do that if that's what you want.

Well, you certainly did not get any more nice from watching all those high-end movies.

Would you care for a hug?

Ha, ha! Yes, thank you for the hug.

No, it just drives me nuts when people say things like, "you only hate those movies because it's cool."

Hey, if you like these things, fine. That’s your deal. But when someone says my opinion is based on trying to be cool, that’s ridiculous.

No, it apparently isn't, at least to you. You started this by attacking people for liking these films (and yes you did). Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should. Ever hear the saying "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all"? You could've given your opinion of the film without saying a word about the people. You chose to do it, you chose to be problematic. That drives ME nuts. Don't do it again.

cruizerdave wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:1. Good news; AOE has absolutely none of that. But I guess you'll still find a way to complain about it.

2. In my experience, it's the idiots who don't like the movies. They just hop onto the bandwagon mentality and don't know how to think for themselves. And they aren't "dumb action movies." The people who say that are the idiots I mentioned before.

1. I was fooled into watching the third one based on the same claims. So I got gay sex in the bathroom stall gag instead.
Sorry, fool me once, shame on you, fool me three times, shame on me. I'm not falling for it this time.
2. Oh, I hated these movies long before it was cool. I was posting criticisms of them when I got my hands on a leaked copy of the first one's script months before it was released. People assured me that they "fixed all that" during shooting. Yet Bumblepee was still there.

You are more than welcome to hate the films and post criticisms of them. You are not allowed to call people idiots because their opinion differs from your's. You cannot personally attack people because they like something you don't. You're better than this, so don't do it any more. I won't try and sell you on the 4th film, your mind is already set, and that's fine, but I have to ask: If you haven't seen the film, why are you posting in this thread? You're welcome to, but I don't understand it.

If you had just wanted to post a negative review of the films as whole, that would've been fine. Why, oh why, did you have to cross the line and go after the people as well? (I'm not really looking for an answer, I already know, it's more of a rhetorical question than anything.)

SlyTF1 wrote:

cruizerdave wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:1. Good news; AOE has absolutely none of that. But I guess you'll still find a way to complain about it.

2. In my experience, it's the idiots who don't like the movies. They just hop onto the bandwagon mentality and don't know how to think for themselves. And they aren't "dumb action movies." The people who say that are the idiots I mentioned before.

1. I was fooled into watching the third one based on the same claims. So I got gay sex in the bathroom stall gag instead.
Sorry, fool me once, shame on you, fool me three times, shame on me. I'm not falling for it this time.
2. Oh, I hated these movies long before it was cool. I was posting criticisms of them when I got my hands on a leaked copy of the first one's script months before it was released. People assured me that they "fixed all that" during shooting. Yet Bumblepee was still there.

I'm not trying to fool you. Just stating facts. I don't care if you believe me or not.

But you do care, Sly, otherwise you wouldn't have kept this going. STOP. IT.

Dagon wrote:

cruizerdave wrote:
No, it just drives me nuts when people say things like, "you only hate those movies because it's cool."

Hey, if you like these things, fine. That’s your deal. But when someone says my opinion is based on trying to be cool, that’s ridiculous.

I think it usually results when people just cannot handle the idea that you don't like something that they like. It's kind of the last childish resort to argument. I agree with the 'if you like things, fine' argument all day though.

Plenty of people can handle someone not liking what they like. They can't handle being called the lowest common denominator (aka classless idiots), especially when it's not true. There was no need for it, there was no rhyme or reason for it. That kind of behavior is not welcome here.

cruizerdave wrote:I guess it would be better if we were all to preface everything we said with an "in my opinion ..." but I figured that since this is the Internet, that's a given. So when I say, "these movies are terrible" I'm not saying they are objectively terrible, just in my opinion they are terrible. But don't say that it's not my opinion or imply that it's impossible to honestly not like these movies, because it is. Especially in a summer with X-Men DOFP, Captain America The Winter Soldier and the new Apes flick.

No, prefacing it with "in my opinion" would not have made it better. You still would've been offensive to people with your comments. You can say "these movies are terrible" and LEAVE IT AT THAT. You do not have to add things that offend people.

So, let me make it clear now that I've addressed all of the offending posts (and some that weren't offending, but pertained to the discussion at hand), cruizerdave: Do not willfully offend people "just because" again. You're more than welcome to voice your opinion, negative, positive or in between, but do it about a movie, a toy, whatever inanimate object you wish, just not people. It's not necessary, it's not polite, it's not welcome.

Sly: You know better than this, you've been told before in the past. You get too riled up over these movies and it brings out the worst in you. It's just some movies, it's not worth it. I understand why you were upset, I really do, but your responses were no better.

With that all said, any questions, bring them to PM. This part of the discussion is over and dead, now. No more derailing the thread with stuff like this, I mean it! From this point on, the conversation is going in another direction.

cruizerdave wrote:1. It means these movies are designed for idiots.

For the record, just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to come onto these forums and insult people who think differently from you.

A lot of people go to the movies for an escape from reality, to relax, to be entertained, that doesn't make them idiots.

cruizerdave wrote:

VirusCarnage wrote:I personally think that people hate the TF movies because it's 'cool' to hate them and because critics like to crap on Michael Bay.

Then you personally have no idea what you're talking about.

I prefer my movies without plot points that include robot piss, dogs humping, weird racists robots, racist depictions of most black characters on screen, gay sex in bathroom stall jokes, humans that all act like they are cocaine all the time, and endless amounts of irrelevant plot threads and characters who have no bearing on the story.

These movies go beyond dumb. They are assaultively stupid. It's terrible news for people who like good movies that these continue to be successful. Of course in a world where people can't get enough of Kim and Kanye, I guess it shouldn't be surprising that people pay for this garbage.

Well said!

I love the movies Its the reason im a fan. Critics will never change my mind and honestly shouldnt change a movie goers mind either. I love the robot action and these are my favorite movies of all time. The human stuff i think just develops the plot, and im not a fan for most of the human stuff, i am for the actual transformers. Ive cried for days because i am unable to see AOE for 1 more day, but it looks and sounds great

I made a huge post earlier which I now think was tldr material lol overall I was just saying they complicated the movie by having to many aspects to cover but still spent to much on the human aspect.

I get what Clunker said. The humans should be considered in the plot but there is a a lot more "importance" or "emphasis" on the humans. They should be considered as the least important or the less focused race or facion during the films. But remember whos involved and, not that its bad, but michael bay and hollywood friends. Any mover goer is gonna catch in the trailer most likely first Mark and second optimus.Sooooo.......ya

I was just thinking, and I came up with a theory for the sequel. What if KSI, or whoever's behind the man made TFs now puts Attanger's body inside of Lockdown's body to sustain his life? Just like they did with Silas and Breakdown in TFP.

SlyTF1 wrote:I was just thinking, and I came up with a theory for the sequel. What if KSI, or whoever's behind the man made TFs now puts Attanger's body inside of Lockdown's body to sustain his life? Just like they did with Silas and Breakdown in TFP.

I think that would make a LOT of fans angry. It's made them mad enough that the film series has borrowed from past storylines as it already has, but something like that? A straight up ripoff? Oh, I think that'd get people upset.

Critics especially.

Plus with the damage sustained to both, I doubt you could make it work, really. In the scenario you're presenting, the source material had one of those two still alive, barely, but still alive.

Taking two dead and making one whole new life just doesn't seem feasible in this universe. Plus with all the talk of souls, etc, it just won't work. I get where you're coming from, though.

SlyTF1 wrote:I was just thinking, and I came up with a theory for the sequel. What if KSI, or whoever's behind the man made TFs now puts Attanger's body inside of Lockdown's body to sustain his life? Just like they did with Silas and Breakdown in TFP.

That would be very unoriginal and uninspiring.

And like Autobot 032 said, it wouldn't make sense since both were already dead while Silas was still somewhat alive. KSI doesn't have the power to breathe life into lifelessness. They're not God.

Autobot032 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:I was just thinking, and I came up with a theory for the sequel. What if KSI, or whoever's behind the man made TFs now puts Attanger's body inside of Lockdown's body to sustain his life? Just like they did with Silas and Breakdown in TFP.

I think that would make a LOT of fans angry. It's made them mad enough that the film series has borrowed from past storylines as it already has, but something like that? A straight up ripoff? Oh, I think that'd get people upset.

Critics especially.

Plus with the damage sustained to both, I doubt you could make it work, really. In the scenario you're presenting, the source material had one of those two still alive, barely, but still alive.

Taking two dead and making one whole new life just doesn't seem feasible in this universe. Plus with all the talk of souls, etc, it just won't work. I get where you're coming from, though.

But, they could work a way where Attinger isn't dead. I mean, the movie didn't show a big gaping hole in his chest, but a bloody wound. What if he survived and is just comatose or something?

SlyTF1 wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:I was just thinking, and I came up with a theory for the sequel. What if KSI, or whoever's behind the man made TFs now puts Attanger's body inside of Lockdown's body to sustain his life? Just like they did with Silas and Breakdown in TFP.

I think that would make a LOT of fans angry. It's made them mad enough that the film series has borrowed from past storylines as it already has, but something like that? A straight up ripoff? Oh, I think that'd get people upset.

Critics especially.

Plus with the damage sustained to both, I doubt you could make it work, really. In the scenario you're presenting, the source material had one of those two still alive, barely, but still alive.

Taking two dead and making one whole new life just doesn't seem feasible in this universe. Plus with all the talk of souls, etc, it just won't work. I get where you're coming from, though.

But, they could work a way where Attinger isn't dead. I mean, the movie didn't show a big gaping hole in his chest, but a bloody wound. What if he survived and is just comatose or something?

How likely is it that an ordinary human would have survived a close range (not a pointblank range, but still very near) plasma blast fired from a TF-sized cannon wielded by a gunner shooting to kill?

You'd have to work in something like magic or divine powers to explain his not being dead.

Sabrblade wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:I was just thinking, and I came up with a theory for the sequel. What if KSI, or whoever's behind the man made TFs now puts Attanger's body inside of Lockdown's body to sustain his life? Just like they did with Silas and Breakdown in TFP.

I think that would make a LOT of fans angry. It's made them mad enough that the film series has borrowed from past storylines as it already has, but something like that? A straight up ripoff? Oh, I think that'd get people upset.

Critics especially.

Plus with the damage sustained to both, I doubt you could make it work, really. In the scenario you're presenting, the source material had one of those two still alive, barely, but still alive.

Taking two dead and making one whole new life just doesn't seem feasible in this universe. Plus with all the talk of souls, etc, it just won't work. I get where you're coming from, though.

But, they could work a way where Attinger isn't dead. I mean, the movie didn't show a big gaping hole in his chest, but a bloody wound. What if he survived and is just comatose or something?

How likely is it that an ordinary human would have survived a close range (not a pointblank range, but still very near) plasma blast fired from a TF-sized cannon wielded by a gunner shooting to kill?

You'd have to work in something like magic or divine powers to explain his not being dead.

The same guys who survived getting shot by Optimus earlier in the movie. It looked like the blast just hit in front of him, and like from a grenade, the shrapnel is what knocked him back and caused all those bloody spots on his chest. If they wanted to, I bet they could go with that. I'm not saying that's what happened, but the writers could spin it that way in the sequel.

SlyTF1 wrote:The same guys who survived getting shot by Optimus earlier in the movie.

Prime didn't fire on the bodies of the Cemetary Wind soldiers. He fired at the ground in front of their feet, knocking them back and away without killing them.

Speaking of which, the first time I saw the movie, I too thought he was shooting them directly. But upon viewing the movie a second time, I realized that there are actually a lot of places in this movie in which Optimus holds back and restrains himself from harming humans to his fullest extent. His shooting Attinger was really the first and only time in this movie in which he cuts loose and goes for the kill on a human being.

Another case of this is when he first reactivates in Cade's barn. Though he was screaming "I'll kill you!" upon his awakening, two things I didn't catch the first time about his initial brief rampage stood out to me on the second viewing. The first was that he didn't seem to be in his right mind. He acted as though he thought he was still in the midst of the ambush Cemetery Wind and Lockdown launched on him in New Mexico. So he wasn't really saying it to Cade/Tessa/Lucas.

The second was that, after he screamed his initial death threats, he seemed to take stock in his new surroundings and gave a warning to Cade/Tessa/Lucas with "Stay back!" And then he knocks Lucas aside with his cannon with a, while painful, nonlethal force. Had he really been as committed to his cries for murder towards Cade/Tessa/Lucas, I doubt he wouldn't have just murdered them right there on the spot instead of merely threatening them with is cannon without shooting them first.

So in a way, viewing the movie a second time showed me that Prime wasn't quite as murder-crazy (towards humans, at least) as I initially thought.

SlyTF1 wrote:It looked like the blast just hit in front of him, and like from a grenade, the shrapnel is what knocked him back and caused all those bloody spots on his chest. If they wanted to, I bet they could go with that. I'm not saying that's what happened, but the writers could spin it that way in the sequel.

It looked like that because it was a CGI blast. They couldn't really kill Kelsey Grammer and so it looks like that because the actor reacting to something that wasn't really there.

cruizerdave wrote:

VirusCarnage wrote:I personally think that people hate the TF movies because it's 'cool' to hate them and because critics like to crap on Michael Bay.

Then you personally have no idea what you're talking about.

I prefer my movies without plot points that include robot piss, dogs humping, weird racists robots, racist depictions of most black characters on screen, gay sex in bathroom stall jokes, humans that all act like they are cocaine all the time, and endless amounts of irrelevant plot threads and characters who have no bearing on the story.

These movies go beyond dumb. They are assaultively stupid. It's terrible news for people who like good movies that these continue to be successful. Of course in a world where people can't get enough of Kim and Kanye, I guess it shouldn't be surprising that people pay for this garbage.

Lol? So let me get this straight because you don't agree with my opinion it means I have no idea what I'm talking about?

Fine. I'm sorry I offended so many by saying these movies are designed for idiots.

What I meant to express is that these films are low brow.

I think that's a fair statement. Any series of films that gains humor from piss, masturbation, dogs humping, porno-robot girl, "bros before hoes," bathroom stall sex misunderstanding, black guy working at da butcher shop to get money to fix his teeth is low brow.

So yeah, you are not an idiot for liking these films. However, they are low brow, which is what I meant when I said they appeal to the lowest common denominator.

VirusCarnage wrote:

cruizerdave wrote:

VirusCarnage wrote:I personally think that people hate the TF movies because it's 'cool' to hate them and because critics like to crap on Michael Bay.

Then you personally have no idea what you're talking about.

I prefer my movies without plot points that include robot piss, dogs humping, weird racists robots, racist depictions of most black characters on screen, gay sex in bathroom stall jokes, humans that all act like they are cocaine all the time, and endless amounts of irrelevant plot threads and characters who have no bearing on the story.

These movies go beyond dumb. They are assaultively stupid. It's terrible news for people who like good movies that these continue to be successful. Of course in a world where people can't get enough of Kim and Kanye, I guess it shouldn't be surprising that people pay for this garbage.

Lol? So let me get this straight because you don't agree with my opinion it means I have no idea what I'm talking about?

No, my point was that you were discounting everyone who doesn't like these films by saying it's some kind of desire to be cool rather than honestly just not liking them. Let me assure you the feelings of not liking Bayformers are very much genuine. That's what I meant when I said you don't know what you're talking about. Not liking these movies has nothing to do with wanting to be cool.

When something is really good, as is AoE, lot of haters try to push it down.

Does anybody remember the Oscar 2012, there was a movie that won in front of transformers, I don't even remember the name of that movie.... oh ya I just google it, "Hugo" a wtf movie with "mediocre" Visual Effects, small cast of actors and minimal scenography, I watch it to have my own opinion, a bad boring movie even the sound/music was flat boring, besides it won some oscars and them dissapear from the world... cuz bad movie. There are a lot of haters even on those Hollywood circles, and the fact Mr. Bay has become one important figure, has opened lot of frustrated people'eyes whom don't like it/him.

I saw AoE twice already, can't wait for the blueray, Amazing work there.

Burn wrote:

cruizerdave wrote:1. It means these movies are designed for idiots.

For the record, just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to come onto these forums and insult people who think differently from you.

A lot of people go to the movies for an escape from reality, to relax, to be entertained, that doesn't make them idiots.

Let me apologize for inferring that people that like these movies are idiots. That was not a nice thing for me to do.

For the record, I like plenty of movies that were designed for idiots — the latest Star Trek, the last GI Joe, the Star Wars prequels.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/hsEU6DR_Hh0[/youtube]

Sabrblade wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:The same guys who survived getting shot by Optimus earlier in the movie.

Prime didn't fire on the bodies of the Cemetary Wind soldiers. He fired at the ground in front of their feet, knocking them back and away without killing them.

Speaking of which, the first time I saw the movie, I too thought he was shooting them directly. But upon viewing the movie a second time, I realized that there are actually a lot of places in this movie in which Optimus holds back and restrains himself from harming humans to his fullest extent. His shooting Attinger was really the first and only time in this movie in which he cuts loose and goes for the kill on a human being.

Another case of this is when he first reactivates in Cade's barn. Though he was screaming "I'll kill you!" upon his awakening, two things I didn't catch the first time about his initial brief rampage stood out to me on the second viewing. The first was that he didn't seem to be in his right mind. He acted as though he thought he was still in the midst of the ambush Cemetery Wind and Lockdown launched on him in New Mexico. So he wasn't really saying it to Cade/Tessa/Lucas.

The second was that, after he screamed his initial death threats, he seemed to take stock in his new surroundings and gave a warning to Cade/Tessa/Lucas with "Stay back!" And then he knocks Lucas aside with his cannon with a, while painful, nonlethal force. Had he really been as committed to his cries for murder towards Cade/Tessa/Lucas, I doubt he wouldn't have just murdered them right there on the spot instead of merely threatening them with is cannon without shooting them first.

So in a way, viewing the movie a second time showed me that Prime wasn't quite as murder-crazy (towards humans, at least) as I initially thought.

SlyTF1 wrote:It looked like the blast just hit in front of him, and like from a grenade, the shrapnel is what knocked him back and caused all those bloody spots on his chest. If they wanted to, I bet they could go with that. I'm not saying that's what happened, but the writers could spin it that way in the sequel.

It looked like that because it was a CGI blast. They couldn't really kill Kelsey Grammer and so it looks like that because the actor reacting to something that wasn't really there.

I noticed that he didn't shoot those people when I first watched the trailer. So, I was thinking he could have done the same thing to Attanger. And I know they couldn't kill him, but you can make anything look like it actually happened in a movie.

Sabrblade wrote:You'd have to work in something like magic or divine powers to explain his not being dead.

So you're saying that they'd really need to stretch to make people believe that something alien could resurrect a dead human?

'cause that's never been done in the Transformer live action movies before.

Sabrblade wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:I was just thinking, and I came up with a theory for the sequel. What if KSI, or whoever's behind the man made TFs now puts Attanger's body inside of Lockdown's body to sustain his life? Just like they did with Silas and Breakdown in TFP.

That would be very unoriginal and uninspiring.

And like Autobot 032 said, it wouldn't make sense since both were already dead while Silas was still somewhat alive. KSI doesn't have the power to breathe life into lifelessness. They're not God.

There's also the question of willingness. Wasn't Tucci's character the head of KSI? Last time I checked, he's had a change of heart by the end of the movie. I don't think he'll consent to reviving two of the previous movie's villains.

But...a script is made to be rewritten and KSI can always be bought over by some other company with less scruples.

cruizerdave wrote:I think that's a fair statement. Any series of films that gains humor from piss, masturbation, dogs humping, porno-robot girl, "bros before hoes," bathroom stall sex misunderstanding, black guy working at da butcher shop to get money to fix his teeth is low brow.

I want to say that I am in full agreement in that these kinds of things are completely unnecessary and are sincerely disgusting and don't belong in media designed to market children's toys.

But, I also want to respond to your previous post about how people told you that DOTM didn't have this kind of stuff in it when it still did, so you don't want to fall for the same "trap" when people say that this movie doesn't have that stuff either.

Well, first off, let's look at the DOTM thing from a different angle. While that movie still did have the same vulgarity as ROTF had, it at least didn't have the same amount of it. Objectively speaking, there was a considerably smaller amount of such crudeness in DOTM when compared to the massive quantity that ROTF was overloaded with. So while it is false to say that DOTM didn't have the type of crass content that ROTF, it is at least true to say that DOTM had a lot less of it than ROTF had. So we could at least consider that an improvement (not a huge improvement, but an improvement nonetheless).

And secondly, having said all that, I want to tell you honestly that AOE... might have some of the same kind of crudeness in it. I use the more vague word "might" instead of a more absolute term like "does" or "doesn't" because, despite my having seen the film twice, and despite my distaste for vulgarity keeping me from forgetting the crudness in ROTF and DOTM, I honestly cannot recall any scene in AOE that contained this kind of content.

The closest I can think of is one point where the camera zooms in on actress Nicola Peltz's rear end, but it wasn't done for the sake of giving us a butt shot. Rather, it was a quick shot done to have Mark Wahlberg make a disapproving comment about her short shorts. Yes, the main protagonist in this Michael Bay movie written by the same guy who wrote ROTF and DOTM, is an advocate for decency and against sexual fanservice. And this isn't done as a means to appease the viewers who disliked the indecency of the previous films, but as a tie in to his character being an overprotective father who wants his daughter to stay pure all through high school. And every time a character makes a comment about his daughter's looks, he reacts accordingly, further expressing his distaste for people thinking dirty thoughts about his daughter.

The point I'm trying to get to is that when people say that this movie is light on the crudeness, they wholeheartedly are not pulling your leg like what happened to you with DOTM. This movie, this Michael Bay movie of all things, is surprisingly subdued on the grossness that plagued ROTF. There is virtually no toilet humor, no indecently exposed body parts, no pornographic content, none of that. There is one black woman who some might find a bit stereotypical, but it was a bit that was practically tame compared to the previous ones, and managed to put not her but Wahlberg in a negative light (other scenes redeem him, though). There's also another guy who people might call a "white surfer stereotype", but he's not nearly as loathsome as, say, Leo and he's... well, I'll just say that he's a minor role.

The only things that this movie has against it in a moralistic view are those that emphasize not grossness, but darkness. This is the most violent TF movie yet, with some shocking deaths in it that were a bit more intense than they needed to be. And Optimus is darker, more openly willing to commit murders to his foes. In the previous films, he would speak of freedom and peace one moment while brutally murdering his opponents the next. Here, though, his words match his actions with him regularly using the words "kill" and "die" in an aggressive manner. And the other Autobots are ALL jerks and maniacs (but many still find some of them likable).

So, in a way, it's like this movie traded out the grossness of the previous films for an extra dose of hostility and bloodlust. I don't want to completely say that it's a "cleaner" movie, but maybe "neater" would be a better term. It's certainly more "mature" in regards to diminishing the crass grossness, but swapped out that crudeness for being more "dark and serious".

Sabrblade wrote:So, in a way, it's like this movie traded out the grossness of the previous films for an extra dose of hostility and bloodlust. I don't want to completely say that it's a "cleaner" movie, but maybe "neater" would be a better term. It's certainly more "mature" in regards to diminishing the crass grossness, but swapped out that crudeness for being more "dark and serious".

I'll gladly take dark over gross any day.

I like the changed tone of the discussion. Thank you Autobot032. You have "saved the day."

SlyTF1 wrote:I was just thinking, and I came up with a theory for the sequel. What if KSI, or whoever's behind the man made TFs now puts Attanger's body inside of Lockdown's body to sustain his life? Just like they did with Silas and Breakdown in TFP.

That really wouldn't work at all. I was thinking about having Hot Rod/Rodimus, Ultra Magnus, Kup, and Blurr arrive to Earth to help the Autobots with their problem with the Decepticons as Optimus Prime arrives on Quintessa to reason with his creators. Plus, the Dinobots can have a reappearance and they have personality and can talk. The idea you have proposed seems great, but it's a total rip-off of something recent. Mine is a bit of one, but I don't think it'll make fans and critics angry...

This is a double post. Can someone explain why I had double posts?

OptimalOptimus2 wrote:I was thinking about having Hot Rod/Rodimus, Ultra Magnus, Kup, and Blurr arrive to Earth to help the Autobots with their problem with the Decepticons as Optimus Prime arrives on Quintessa to reason with his creators.

So not Springer and Arcee?

OptimalOptimus2 wrote:This is a double post. Can someone explain why I had double posts?

It could either be a glitch, a goof, or an accidental double-pressing of the Submit button.

Skywarp64 wrote:So not Springer and Arcee?

Well Arcee died in ROTF and I didn't include Springer because the Autobots would have too many characters. Nine Autobots, Dinobots, and a triple changer would be too overpowering in the eyes of Hollywood directors.

OptimalOptimus2 wrote:

Skywarp64 wrote:So not Springer and Arcee?

Well Arcee died in ROTF and I didn't include Springer because the Autobots would have too many characters. Nine Autobots, Dinobots, and a triple changer would be too overpowering in the eyes of Hollywood directors.

Technically speaking, only 2 Arcee's are confirmed dead in ROTF, although the last one might have been killed off in the comics or novels.

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:

OptimalOptimus2 wrote:

Skywarp64 wrote:So not Springer and Arcee?

Well Arcee died in ROTF and I didn't include Springer because the Autobots would have too many characters. Nine Autobots, Dinobots, and a triple changer would be too overpowering in the eyes of Hollywood directors.

Technically speaking, only 2 Arcee's are confirmed dead in ROTF, although the last one might have been killed off in the comics or novels.

According the greater Movie continuity of the IDW comics, all three of Arcee's components survived ROTF.

So did Ravage, even (though, in his case, he was resurrected).

Sabrblade wrote:

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:

OptimalOptimus2 wrote:

Skywarp64 wrote:So not Springer and Arcee?

Well Arcee died in ROTF and I didn't include Springer because the Autobots would have too many characters. Nine Autobots, Dinobots, and a triple changer would be too overpowering in the eyes of Hollywood directors.

Technically speaking, only 2 Arcee's are confirmed dead in ROTF, although the last one might have been killed off in the comics or novels.

According the greater Movie continuity of the IDW comics, all three of Arcee's components survived ROTF.

So did Ravage, even (though, in his case, he was resurrected).

I have a question, though. Do the comics count as "canon" as far as the live-action movies are concerned? I mean, even the movies themselves tend to contradict one another in certain areas, and many time fans have to come up with their own theories for some of the plot points to make sense.

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:

OptimalOptimus2 wrote:

Skywarp64 wrote:So not Springer and Arcee? :-x

Well Arcee died in ROTF and I didn't include Springer because the Autobots would have too many characters. Nine Autobots, Dinobots, and a triple changer would be too overpowering in the eyes of Hollywood directors.

Technically speaking, only 2 Arcee's are confirmed dead in ROTF, although the last one might have been killed off in the comics or novels.

According the greater Movie continuity of the IDW comics, all three of Arcee's components survived ROTF.

So did Ravage, even (though, in his case, he was resurrected).

I have a question, though. Do the comics count as "canon" as far as the live-action movies are concerned? I mean, even the movies themselves tend to contradict one another in certain areas, and many time fans have to come up with their own theories for some of the plot points to make sense.

John Barber took great pains to make the comics, movies, and novels all fit with each other together as coherently as possible, in turn also working to patch up as many contradictions between the films and between the films and the comics/novels as possible.

Then came Age of Extinction. >:oP

Sabrblade wrote:

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:

OptimalOptimus2 wrote:

Skywarp64 wrote:So not Springer and Arcee? :-x

Well Arcee died in ROTF and I didn't include Springer because the Autobots would have too many characters. Nine Autobots, Dinobots, and a triple changer would be too overpowering in the eyes of Hollywood directors.

Technically speaking, only 2 Arcee's are confirmed dead in ROTF, although the last one might have been killed off in the comics or novels.

According the greater Movie continuity of the IDW comics, all three of Arcee's components survived ROTF.

So did Ravage, even (though, in his case, he was resurrected).

I have a question, though. Do the comics count as "canon" as far as the live-action movies are concerned? I mean, even the movies themselves tend to contradict one another in certain areas, and many time fans have to come up with their own theories for some of the plot points to make sense.

John Barber took great pains to make the comics, movies, and novels all fit with each other together as coherently as possible, in turn also working to patch up as many contradictions between the films and between the films and the comics/novels as possible.

Then came Age of Extinction. >:oP

LOL, I get what you mean!

Going into "fanon" territory here, but AOE doesn't necessarily have to contradict the first trilogy. The Creators could have simply designed the Allspark as a device to mass-manufacture TF's on Cybertron...basically an automated bot factory in a cube.

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:

OptimalOptimus2 wrote:

Skywarp64 wrote:So not Springer and Arcee? :-x

Well Arcee died in ROTF and I didn't include Springer because the Autobots would have too many characters. Nine Autobots, Dinobots, and a triple changer would be too overpowering in the eyes of Hollywood directors.

Technically speaking, only 2 Arcee's are confirmed dead in ROTF, although the last one might have been killed off in the comics or novels.

According the greater Movie continuity of the IDW comics, all three of Arcee's components survived ROTF.

So did Ravage, even (though, in his case, he was resurrected).

I have a question, though. Do the comics count as "canon" as far as the live-action movies are concerned? I mean, even the movies themselves tend to contradict one another in certain areas, and many time fans have to come up with their own theories for some of the plot points to make sense.

John Barber took great pains to make the comics, movies, and novels all fit with each other together as coherently as possible, in turn also working to patch up as many contradictions between the films and between the films and the comics/novels as possible.

Then came Age of Extinction. >:oP

LOL, I get what you mean!

Going into "fanon" territory here, but AOE doesn't necessarily have to contradict the first trilogy. The Creators could have simply designed the Allspark as a device to mass-manufacture TF's on Cybertron...basically an automated bot factory in a cube.

That's what I was thinking. Their role hasn't even been fully explained, yet.

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:Going into "fanon" territory here, but AOE doesn't necessarily have to contradict the first trilogy. The Creators could have simply designed the Allspark as a device to mass-manufacture TF's on Cybertron...basically an automated bot factory in a cube.

And folks who have read "Foundation" (I'm still working my way through the earlier Movieverse comics) have said that AOE doesn't quite contradict how that comic series had Sentinel discover an amnesiac Optimus hidden away by himself in the badlands of Cybertron.

Guess we'll have to wait for the next movie to fill in the blanks on the Creators, the Knights, and Optimus's relation to them, since IDW had confirmed at BotCon that there aren't any more movie comics coming from them at the moment.

OptimalOptimus2 wrote:

Skywarp64 wrote:So not Springer and Arcee?

Well Arcee died in ROTF and I didn't include Springer because the Autobots would have too many characters. Nine Autobots, Dinobots, and a triple changer would be too overpowering in the eyes of Hollywood directors.

Holy crap I completely forgot Arcee already exists in the Bayverse.

SlyTF1 wrote:That's what I was thinking. Their role hasn't even been fully explained, yet.

Chances are good that Kruger might actually go this route for TF5, as it seems to be the most convenient and easily explained.

Sabrblade wrote:

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:Going into "fanon" territory here, but AOE doesn't necessarily have to contradict the first trilogy. The Creators could have simply designed the Allspark as a device to mass-manufacture TF's on Cybertron...basically an automated bot factory in a cube.

And folks who have read "Foundation" (I'm still working my way through the earlier Movieverse comics) have said that AOE doesn't quite contradict how that comic series had Sentinel discover an amnesiac Optimus hidden away by himself in the badlands of Cybertron.

Guess we'll have to wait for the next movie to fill in the blanks on the Creators, the Knights, and Optimus's relation to them, since IDW had confirmed at BotCon that there aren't any more movie comics coming from them at the moment.

My mind is still wondering what knights mean in the context of AOE. Whether by coincidence or not, the thing with an amnesiac OP actually works well with what Lockdown said about him forgetting when he really is.

I just wish either OP or someone would just recount a legend or myth of Cybertronian knights, so as to let us viewers have an idea of WTF "knights" are in AOE.

If I had to guess, though, I'd say these knights are more or less enforcers of the Creators' colonies, as Lockdown seems to hint at. Something about OP forgetting his original purpose.

I've been reading thru pages and pages of posts about this movie and there are some points that I don't think anybody has hit on so only for that reason will I share. I for one was not a huge fan of this movie thinking it was just okay. What kills me is that when someone says that people come up with all sorts of defenses like "You just hate Michael Bay". I will say his success probably has a lot to do with why some people really dislike this movie. Armageddon is one of my favorite movies of all time. I thought the movie was beautifully done from story, to directed sequences, to special effects. There is no one out here that can say they didn't feel like letting loose a tear the first time they saw Harry tell his daughter goodbye before he pressed the button. Even the ending credits had feeling. Now the person responsible for that movie and Bad Boys 2 plus the first couple of Transformers Movies left us with AOE?

You can feel when someone is not passionate about a project and I felt he wasn't for this film as I remember hearing he did not technically want a TF4. It was never so blatant in any of the other films that the sole purpose of the movie was selling the toys. Again, I understand that was what the movies were meant for, but who else felt like Hasbro just had some Dinobot toys ready to go and told the movie makers "hey...we really need to get the Dinobots in there somewhere anywhere you can fit them in."? I want to see the franchise keep going but not if the movies are going to go down this road. I also am glad that some critics came out and called the movie out for not being the best of the bunch. With that hopefully the creators will raise their own level and put out the best TF movie ever to shut those same critics up next go round. Sequels should be raising the bar each time out. We all know it doesn't always end up that way. But why can't we say that on a TF board without getting flamed beyond belief?

Darkman20xx wrote:I've been reading thru pages and pages of posts about this movie and there are some points that I don't think anybody has hit on so only for that reason will I share. I for one was not a huge fan of this movie thinking it was just okay. What kills me is that when someone says that people come up with all sorts of defenses like "You just hate Michael Bay". I will say his success probably has a lot to do with why some people really dislike this movie. Armageddon is one of my favorite movies of all time. I thought the movie was beautifully done from story, to directed sequences, to special effects. There is no one out here that can say they didn't feel like letting loose a tear the first time they saw Harry tell his daughter goodbye before he pressed the button. Even the ending credits had feeling. Now the person responsible for that movie and Bad Boys 2 plus the first couple of Transformers Movies left us with AOE?

You can feel when someone is not passionate about a project and I felt he wasn't for this film as I remember hearing he did not technically want a TF4. It was never so blatant in any of the other films that the sole purpose of the movie was selling the toys. Again, I understand that was what the movies were meant for, but who else felt like Hasbro just had some Dinobot toys ready to go and told the movie makers "hey...we really need to get the Dinobots in there somewhere anywhere you can fit them in."? I want to see the franchise keep going but not if the movies are going to go down this road. I also am glad that some critics came out and called the movie out for not being the best of the bunch. With that hopefully the creators will raise their own level and put out the best TF movie ever to shut those same critics up next go round. Sequels should be raising the bar each time out. We all know it doesn't always end up that way. But why can't we say that on a TF board without getting flamed beyond belief?

AOE felt more "passionate," than an of the first 3.

Darkman20xx wrote:I've been reading thru pages and pages of posts about this movie and there are some points that I don't think anybody has hit on so only for that reason will I share. I for one was not a huge fan of this movie thinking it was just okay. What kills me is that when someone says that people come up with all sorts of defenses like "You just hate Michael Bay". I will say his success probably has a lot to do with why some people really dislike this movie. Armageddon is one of my favorite movies of all time. I thought the movie was beautifully done from story, to directed sequences, to special effects. There is no one out here that can say they didn't feel like letting loose a tear the first time they saw Harry tell his daughter goodbye before he pressed the button. Even the ending credits had feeling. Now the person responsible for that movie and Bad Boys 2 plus the first couple of Transformers Movies left us with AOE?

You can feel when someone is not passionate about a project and I felt he wasn't for this film as I remember hearing he did not technically want a TF4. It was never so blatant in any of the other films that the sole purpose of the movie was selling the toys. Again, I understand that was what the movies were meant for, but who else felt like Hasbro just had some Dinobot toys ready to go and told the movie makers "hey...we really need to get the Dinobots in there somewhere anywhere you can fit them in."? I want to see the franchise keep going but not if the movies are going to go down this road. I also am glad that some critics came out and called the movie out for not being the best of the bunch. With that hopefully the creators will raise their own level and put out the best TF movie ever to shut those same critics up next go round. Sequels should be raising the bar each time out. We all know it doesn't always end up that way. But why can't we say that on a TF board without getting flamed beyond belief?

There's a few people here who will actually attack you for not liking the movie. Ignore them and presto! Trouble-free interwebs for you.

RhA wrote:

Darkman20xx wrote:I've been reading thru pages and pages of posts about this movie and there are some points that I don't think anybody has hit on so only for that reason will I share. I for one was not a huge fan of this movie thinking it was just okay. What kills me is that when someone says that people come up with all sorts of defenses like "You just hate Michael Bay". I will say his success probably has a lot to do with why some people really dislike this movie. Armageddon is one of my favorite movies of all time. I thought the movie was beautifully done from story, to directed sequences, to special effects. There is no one out here that can say they didn't feel like letting loose a tear the first time they saw Harry tell his daughter goodbye before he pressed the button. Even the ending credits had feeling. Now the person responsible for that movie and Bad Boys 2 plus the first couple of Transformers Movies left us with AOE?

You can feel when someone is not passionate about a project and I felt he wasn't for this film as I remember hearing he did not technically want a TF4. It was never so blatant in any of the other films that the sole purpose of the movie was selling the toys. Again, I understand that was what the movies were meant for, but who else felt like Hasbro just had some Dinobot toys ready to go and told the movie makers "hey...we really need to get the Dinobots in there somewhere anywhere you can fit them in."? I want to see the franchise keep going but not if the movies are going to go down this road. I also am glad that some critics came out and called the movie out for not being the best of the bunch. With that hopefully the creators will raise their own level and put out the best TF movie ever to shut those same critics up next go round. Sequels should be raising the bar each time out. We all know it doesn't always end up that way. But why can't we say that on a TF board without getting flamed beyond belief?

There's a few people here who will actually attack you for not liking the movie. Ignore them and presto! Trouble-free interwebs for you.

Don't get me wrong. The attacks don't get to me at all. I just find it irritating that so many people think that the only opinion that's right is their own.

SlyTF1 wrote:

Darkman20xx wrote:I've been reading thru pages and pages of posts about this movie and there are some points that I don't think anybody has hit on so only for that reason will I share. I for one was not a huge fan of this movie thinking it was just okay. What kills me is that when someone says that people come up with all sorts of defenses like "You just hate Michael Bay". I will say his success probably has a lot to do with why some people really dislike this movie. Armageddon is one of my favorite movies of all time. I thought the movie was beautifully done from story, to directed sequences, to special effects. There is no one out here that can say they didn't feel like letting loose a tear the first time they saw Harry tell his daughter goodbye before he pressed the button. Even the ending credits had feeling. Now the person responsible for that movie and Bad Boys 2 plus the first couple of Transformers Movies left us with AOE?

You can feel when someone is not passionate about a project and I felt he wasn't for this film as I remember hearing he did not technically want a TF4. It was never so blatant in any of the other films that the sole purpose of the movie was selling the toys. Again, I understand that was what the movies were meant for, but who else felt like Hasbro just had some Dinobot toys ready to go and told the movie makers "hey...we really need to get the Dinobots in there somewhere anywhere you can fit them in."? I want to see the franchise keep going but not if the movies are going to go down this road. I also am glad that some critics came out and called the movie out for not being the best of the bunch. With that hopefully the creators will raise their own level and put out the best TF movie ever to shut those same critics up next go round. Sequels should be raising the bar each time out. We all know it doesn't always end up that way. But why can't we say that on a TF board without getting flamed beyond belief?

AOE felt more "passionate," than an of the first 3.

Granted your opinion. To me it felt like something that was rushed out to make sure we get a toyline out by Memorial Day and make sure the car makers got their vehicles some light in the film.