>
>
>

Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy

Posted by Bronzewolf Sep 24, 2016 at 2:00am CDT 36,962 views
Seibertronians, in response to the story we reported on earlier today about how the TF5 filming had chosen Winston Churchill's birthplace to use as a Nazi base, and the controversy it spawned, Michael Bay has released a statement in a short interview with the BBC.

People haven't been fortunate enough to read the script and they don't know that Churchill in this movie is a big hero
He said.


Another notable quote from the interview, available in full on the BBC Website, is that Bay believes "Churchill would be smiling" at his inclusion in the movie.

This begs the question: was Churchill made a hero just in response to the uproar? Or was he always intended to be in the movie? Tell us what you think in the comments below.

And, as always, stay tuned to Seibertron.com for all the latest and greatest transformers news on the net!
Re: Transformers: The Last Knight Discussion Thread
Re: Transformers: The Last Knight Discussion Thread

More Bots. More News. More Awesome.

Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by Samsonator Sep 24, 2016
This movie gets more ridiculous every time I hear something about it... sadly, that means I'm gonna have to watch it...
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by Insurgent Sep 24, 2016
It Is Him wrote:
JazZeke wrote:I just wanna add; between Bumblebee pissing, Devastator's balls and now this, Bay has a knack for making me feel embarrassed to be a Transformers fan.


Don't forget Mudflap's "I never learned to read"




To be fair, I think he was meaning they can't read ancient cybertronian, not read in general.


And anyway, if he can't read in general, what if he has dyslexia?



As for Bay's comment... why not just use another place then and call it Churchill's? We've seen geography in these movies aren't 100% accurate with that plane graveyard behind that air museum. And.... I'm really curious about Churchill's role in this film now.
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by Jeddostotle7 Sep 24, 2016
Triptykon wrote:England makes sense, as much of the architecture to the layman is similar to what he's looking for, and production costs were probably cheaper than say...Czech Republic or whatnot (as many formerly oppressed nations would laugh at the idea).also, just about any reference to Nazi's, has been erased from German history, not even taught in schools, and the swastika is illegal. New groups have formed entirely new graphics around their movements as a result.


Not to get involved in this conversation too much, but fun fact: Germany actually hasn't erased anything about Nazi Germany from their history books. In fact, they teach it all very explicitly, especially the Holocaust, to show how bad it was. Link to sources (aka German people), if allowed: https://www.quora.com/How-do-Germans-to ... -Nazi-past
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by Stuartmaximus Sep 24, 2016
Insurgent wrote:why not just use another place then and call it Churchill's?

rsz_8023snn1833b471637a-1.jpg
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by Kurona Sep 24, 2016
That doesn't really help. You don't get to just do something like this and then say "Oh no it's okay because I done this nice thing for him in exchange!!!"
There's absolutely no good reason to specifically use his home for this. None at all.
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by Apollo-XL5 Sep 24, 2016
Kurona wrote:That doesn't really help. You don't get to just do something like this and then say "Oh no it's okay because I done this nice thing for him in exchange!!!"
There's absolutely no good reason to specifically use his home for this. None at all.



People are talking like Michael Bay is just doing what he wants, regardless of what others think. But he 'obviously' had permission from the owners (having told them what he planned to do).

Plus this isn't the first time that someone was making a film and used a famous building for a Nazi scene, causing an uproar from others.

But this film, like others in the past is a a 'work of fiction' and should be treated as such.

Talk about over-reaction.
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by Autobot N Sep 24, 2016
I don't really know how I feel about this. On one hand, I'm not offended since I'm an American and I don't know anyone who was around during WWII. On the other hand, it seems rather distasteful to drape Nazi symbols all over the house of one of their greatest enemies. It's like going to Abraham Lincoln's birth home and putting Confederate symbols everywhere or hanging Straxus posters all over Scrounge's hab-suite.
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by Randomhero Sep 24, 2016
Apollo-XL5 wrote:
Kurona wrote:That doesn't really help. You don't get to just do something like this and then say "Oh no it's okay because I done this nice thing for him in exchange!!!"
There's absolutely no good reason to specifically use his home for this. None at all.



People are talking like Michael Bay is just doing what he wants, regardless of what others think. But he 'obviously' had permission from the owners (having told them what he planned to do).

Plus this isn't the first time that someone was making a film and used a famous building for a Nazi scene, causing an uproar from others.

But this film, like others in the past is a a 'work of fiction' and should be treated as such.

Talk about over-reaction.



THANK YOU!!!

exactly what I said yesterday. It's not all Michael bay,, its the producers, the studios, the country, and the owners of the house.

In order to shoot somewhere like that, the script is read multiple times over the span of weeks, has to be approved and there are consultants ON SET to make sure it's done right.


This the not the first move to shoot nazi locations in England. All the nazi scenes and locations like the nazi rally and the castles in indiana jones and the last crusade were all shot in England and at historical locations. That's were a lot of WWII stuff is shot not because it takes place in the U.K. but because it has that feeling(castles, historical looking buildings, etc.

People need to get off the offended train and if you say "I'm not offended, I'm just uncomfortable with this" or "I'm just not okay with this" news flash you just described being offended
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by Randomhero Sep 24, 2016
Autobot N wrote:I don't really know how I feel about this. On one hand, I'm not offended since I'm an American and I don't know anyone who was around during WWII. On the other hand, it seems rather distasteful to drape Nazi symbols all over the house of one of their greatest enemies. It's like going to Abraham Lincoln's birth home and putting Confederate symbols everywhere or hanging Straxus posters all over Scrounge's hab-suite.



Or it'd be like if the original transformers cartoon did something distasteful and had a scene of Megatron shooting the Lincoln memorial and sitting on the chair in a episode about Megatron taking over earth and enslaving the human ra-....oh...oh dear...
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by dragons Sep 24, 2016
People are dumb and sensitive who cares about character past and future it's called movie not true storie movie
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by Jeddostotle7 Sep 24, 2016
Randomhero wrote:
Apollo-XL5 wrote:
Kurona wrote:That doesn't really help. You don't get to just do something like this and then say "Oh no it's okay because I done this nice thing for him in exchange!!!"
There's absolutely no good reason to specifically use his home for this. None at all.



People are talking like Michael Bay is just doing what he wants, regardless of what others think. But he 'obviously' had permission from the owners (having told them what he planned to do).

Plus this isn't the first time that someone was making a film and used a famous building for a Nazi scene, causing an uproar from others.

But this film, like others in the past is a a 'work of fiction' and should be treated as such.

Talk about over-reaction.



THANK YOU!!!

exactly what I said yesterday. It's not all Michael bay,, its the producers, the studios, the country, and the owners of the house.

In order to shoot somewhere like that, the script is read multiple times over the span of weeks, has to be approved and there are consultants ON SET to make sure it's done right.


This the not the first move to shoot nazi locations in England. All the nazi scenes and locations like the nazi rally and the castles in indiana jones and the last crusade were all shot in England and at historical locations. That's were a lot of WWII stuff is shot not because it takes place in the U.K. but because it has that feeling(castles, historical looking buildings, etc.

People need to get off the offended train and if you say "I'm not offended, I'm just uncomfortable with this" or "I'm just not okay with this" news flash you just described being offended


You guys are missing the point of why people are getting mad. It's not that it's just any castle in England; it's that, for some unknown reason, they decided to specifically use Winston Churchill's home, A.K.A. one of the people who fought hardest against Hitler, as the place to turn into a Nazi castle. Not just any place, WINSTONE CHURCHILL's. You gotta be able to agree that that's at least in poor taste, right?
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by Randomhero Sep 24, 2016
Jeddostotle7 wrote:
Randomhero wrote:
Apollo-XL5 wrote:
Kurona wrote:That doesn't really help. You don't get to just do something like this and then say "Oh no it's okay because I done this nice thing for him in exchange!!!"
There's absolutely no good reason to specifically use his home for this. None at all.



People are talking like Michael Bay is just doing what he wants, regardless of what others think. But he 'obviously' had permission from the owners (having told them what he planned to do).

Plus this isn't the first time that someone was making a film and used a famous building for a Nazi scene, causing an uproar from others.

But this film, like others in the past is a a 'work of fiction' and should be treated as such.

Talk about over-reaction.



THANK YOU!!!

exactly what I said yesterday. It's not all Michael bay,, its the producers, the studios, the country, and the owners of the house.

In order to shoot somewhere like that, the script is read multiple times over the span of weeks, has to be approved and there are consultants ON SET to make sure it's done right.


This the not the first move to shoot nazi locations in England. All the nazi scenes and locations like the nazi rally and the castles in indiana jones and the last crusade were all shot in England and at historical locations. That's were a lot of WWII stuff is shot not because it takes place in the U.K. but because it has that feeling(castles, historical looking buildings, etc.

People need to get off the offended train and if you say "I'm not offended, I'm just uncomfortable with this" or "I'm just not okay with this" news flash you just described being offended


You guys are missing the point of why people are getting mad. It's not that it's just any castle in England; it's that, for some unknown reason, they decided to specifically use Winston Churchill's home, A.K.A. one of the people who fought hardest against Hitler, as the place to turn into a Nazi castle. Not just any place, WINSTONE CHURCHILL's. You gotta be able to agree that that's at least in poor taste, right?



Michael bay didn't sneak in 200 cast and crew and shoot what they needed before security chased them off the property. They have permission and if the owners and everyone affiliated with shooting there are okay with it than maybe people need to stop complaining.
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by Jeddostotle7 Sep 24, 2016
Randomhero wrote:Michael bay didn't sneak in 200 cast and crew and shoot what they needed before security chased them off the property. They have permission and if the owners and everyone affiliated with shooting there are okay with it than maybe people need to stop complaining.


Just because they had permission from the current owners of the castle doesn't mean the owners of the castle weren't making a mistake.
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by Randomhero Sep 24, 2016
Jeddostotle7 wrote:
Randomhero wrote:Michael bay didn't sneak in 200 cast and crew and shoot what they needed before security chased them off the property. They have permission and if the owners and everyone affiliated with shooting there are okay with it than maybe people need to stop complaining.


Just because they had permission from the current owners of the castle doesn't mean the owners of the castle weren't making a mistake.



Considering they're the owners and its their heritage and theyre allowing it, they have complete right to and as I've said so many times they had to approve it by reading the script. Something you and everyone else here acting all sensitive hasn't done.
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by Quantum Surge Sep 24, 2016
Not sure if he's up to something interesting or it's just a standard Bay excuse. This film gets weirder and weirder the more I think of it. :michaelbay:
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by SlyTF1 Sep 24, 2016
I hate how people get mad about everything. Has this decision threatened the end of the world? No? Then get over it.
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by UltraPrimal Sep 24, 2016
This reminds me of the Justin Beiber and Anne Frank thing.
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by It Is Him Sep 24, 2016
SlyTF1 wrote:I hate how people get mad about everything. Has this decision threatened the end of the world? No? Then get over it.


No. Failing to understand why people are offended and shocked by this doesn't give your the right to dismiss the problem.
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by budmaloney Sep 24, 2016
To go and put the Nazi flag on the home of Churchill...well in bird culture that's considered a dick move. It doesn't matter if it's a movie or if the owners approved of it or even if Churchill is a hero in the movie. The act itself desecrates the antithesis to the Nazis. It's arrogant and insulting to the British people.

It feels to me like a child who wants to challenge everything anyone ever liked.
"oh you like Devastator? I'll make him look completely different, so weak and give him wrecking balls"
"oh you like Optimus Prime? I'll make him go against every single hero trait that made you like him in the first place"
"Dinobots? Not even gonna say a single word"
"Decepticons? I'll kill them all."

It's the same style. Sure freedom of speech and all, and it can be considered an over reaction, but the dude just doesn't respect these things. And when he disrespects things , people are gonna get angry about it. People overreacted when Ironhide wasn't red, what do you think they'll do when he puts a freaking Nazi flag on Churchill's house?

I'm not hating, but Bay's actions speak for themselves.
Re: Transformers 5: The Last Knight: Michael Bay Responds to Churchill Controversy (view post)
Comment by Bronzewolf Sep 24, 2016
Randomhero wrote:
Jeddostotle7 wrote:
Randomhero wrote:
Apollo-XL5 wrote:
Kurona wrote:That doesn't really help. You don't get to just do something like this and then say "Oh no it's okay because I done this nice thing for him in exchange!!!"
There's absolutely no good reason to specifically use his home for this. None at all.



People are talking like Michael Bay is just doing what he wants, regardless of what others think. But he 'obviously' had permission from the owners (having told them what he planned to do).

Plus this isn't the first time that someone was making a film and used a famous building for a Nazi scene, causing an uproar from others.

But this film, like others in the past is a a 'work of fiction' and should be treated as such.

Talk about over-reaction.



THANK YOU!!!

exactly what I said yesterday. It's not all Michael bay,, its the producers, the studios, the country, and the owners of the house.

In order to shoot somewhere like that, the script is read multiple times over the span of weeks, has to be approved and there are consultants ON SET to make sure it's done right.


This the not the first move to shoot nazi locations in England. All the nazi scenes and locations like the nazi rally and the castles in indiana jones and the last crusade were all shot in England and at historical locations. That's were a lot of WWII stuff is shot not because it takes place in the U.K. but because it has that feeling(castles, historical looking buildings, etc.

People need to get off the offended train and if you say "I'm not offended, I'm just uncomfortable with this" or "I'm just not okay with this" news flash you just described being offended


You guys are missing the point of why people are getting mad. It's not that it's just any castle in England; it's that, for some unknown reason, they decided to specifically use Winston Churchill's home, A.K.A. one of the people who fought hardest against Hitler, as the place to turn into a Nazi castle. Not just any place, WINSTONE CHURCHILL's. You gotta be able to agree that that's at least in poor taste, right?



Michael bay didn't sneak in 200 cast and crew and shoot what they needed before security chased them off the property. They have permission and if the owners and everyone affiliated with shooting there are okay with it than maybe people need to stop complaining.



Alright, alright. It's gettin' a bit too heated here. Please be repectful of the fact that everyone has a right to an opinion. Thanks! ;)^
Patreon
Charge Our Energon Reserves. Join the Seibertron Elite.
Support SEIBERTRON™