Just because its a movie about robots, does not mean you leave your mind at the door. Thats an excuse allowing for bad directors and producers to keep giving us crap.
This is true.
Though, I'm not always looking for Citizen Kane in my entertainment.
I can find just as much entertainment in watching something juvenile and simple as i can watching a serious, moving picture.
And Terminator 2 was about two robots -one that transforms- going back in time and fighting each other in the immutable past. I think it was handled better than this IP. Our industry revolves around stupid ideas being treated seriously - or at least passionately - by those working on them. Simply abstracting the premise out of context is not reason enough to be okay with crap.
QFT. Taking the stuff I loved as a kid and adapting it into something more that I will appreciate as an adult is what gets me excited. Taking the stuff I loved as a kid and repackaging it as nothing but 'eye candy' and base silliness... well, I'm not 13 any longer and I want more than that.
The options are not just Bay's Transformers or Citizen Kane - there's a whole range of work in between. The original Star Wars trilogy and Lord of the Rings have child-like moments, but they aren't childish. They're good stories with great effects that treat themselves seriously. Transformers is a thin veneer of story with great effects that winks at the camera the whole way through. Honestly, I'm not asking for Optimus Prime to whisper "rosebud" at the end of the flick, I just don't want bathroom humor substituting for actual storytelling.
I guess what keeps me sane through all this is we all know how the Hollywood machine works. This will not be the one and only version of Transformers on the big screen.
Heck, look at Batman. It took less than 10 years for them to reboot the whole franchise.
The franchise could have done much much worse. I'm just happy with what we got and an happy that I find it funny and entertaining.
It's a well known fact among the community that the tank in part 1 is named Brawl and the name was a typo.
And if that's the Devastator render I'm thinking about, his transformation wouldn't work in real life. Different sized construction vehicles and the fact that his forearms come from... nowhere keep this from working within the rules set up by the movie.
I guess what keeps me sane through all this is we all know how the Hollywood machine works. This will not be the one and only version of Transformers on the big screen.
Heck, look at Batman. It took less than 10 years for them to reboot the whole franchise.
The franchise could have done much much worse. I'm just happy with what we got and an happy that I find it funny and entertaining.
Go me!
Haha, that's a good point. I love the Chris Nolan Batman movies just as much as I hate the Joel Schumacher ones Here's hoping that the Transformers reboot in 2025 is more my style!
Dinos in Jurassic Park
Exoskeleton in Terminator
Gremlins in Gremlins
Actual Ghostbusting in Ghostbusters
I'd also like to believe that you, being part of this board and general industry, know how much money is spent for every second those guys are on the screen.
Those aren't really good examples. Dinosaurs can't talk. And yet despite this, the CG creations of Jurassic Park were far more menacing than any of the villains in Transformers. The Terminator didn't have a great deal of character development, but then he wasn't really supposed to. Moreover, the rest of the characters in those movies were well developed and engaging. The Gremlins actually got quite a bit of screen time, and were definitely the focus of the movies they were featured in. And come on. The Ghostbusters movies were DEFINITELY focused on the four characters who actually served as Ghostbusters.
In Transformers, the robots serve as little else than an impetus. The robots in the film are all static characters. And don't give me the expense excuse. Solid scriptwriters and directors have been circumventing those problems since the medium's inception. Just because your robots are a bit expensive to render doesn't mean you can ignore their significance to the story. I want to see actual character development in the giant robots, is that really so much to ask?
Those aren't really good examples. Dinosaurs can't talk. And yet despite this, the CG creations of Jurassic Park were far more menacing than any of the villains in Transformers. The Terminator didn't have a great deal of character development, but then he wasn't really supposed to. Moreover, the rest of the characters in those movies were well developed and engaging. The Gremlins actually got quite a bit of screen time, and were definitely the focus of the movies they were featured in. And come on. The Ghostbusters movies were DEFINITELY focused on the four characters who actually served as Ghostbusters.
In Transformers, the robots serve as little else than an impetus. The robots in the film are all static characters. And don't give me the expense excuse. Solid scriptwriters and directors have been circumventing those problems since the medium's inception. Just because your robots are a bit expensive to render doesn't mean you can ignore their significance to the story. I want to see actual character development in the giant robots, is that really so much to ask?
well, that's the thing. how can you develop a character without putting them on screen?
I mean, I could argue that Bumble Bee was in almost the entire movie.
Yeah, cost is a lame excuse, but when you take into consideration that these were the single most complex models ILM has ever built, it's got to mean something. We're also not talking a single character, there were 14, give or take one.
I mean, I guess they could have gone the way of Evangelion and just shown still frames with people talking or have the robots always talking off camera.
When they were on camera, I think they did a good job in conveying their personalities. The archetypes were pretty easy to figure out. They really weren't static as you suggest, at least not the Autobots. I'll give you that outside Frenzy, Barricade, and Megs, the Decepticons were pretty much filler. With an increased budget in this film, I'm sure that won't be too much of a problem anymore as they will get much more screen time.
And I mean there was little actual ghostbusting in the movies. The proton stream was fired for 30 seconds total in the first movie.
on the robots being made of a billion parts. i agree, too much shit. shoulda cut down those pieces.
i absolutely hate it when something is put together so complicated that it looks like it falls apart and then puts itself back together, incredible machine style.
over-engineering thats called.
keep it simple stupid.
as for the batman movies, they just took themselves way too seriously, to the point it became painfully cheesy. especially that grumble thing. if i was any of those thugs, i'd have fucking
laughed my ass off. admittedly before being pummeled.
Yup. What is with that shard bullshit. Why does he start speeding around and writing symbols everywhere. Why is that vapid moronic oompa loompa still in it, and why is she slung over a bike. Why aren't these movies about a simple war over energon cubes, with well designed robots that are even a little faithful to the originals.
This movie is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I'm not into arty-farty or lofty concept films either, but I don't want my intelligence and taste insulted for 90 minutes either.
I'd expect comments like this from most of the TF community, but a majority of them are accepting of the movies.
Maybe it's because we've kept up with the franchise these past 25 years. We've seen them go from G1 -> Japanese Mess -> G2 / Machine Wars -> Beast Wars -> Beast Machines -> RiD -> Unicron Trilogy -> Movie -> Animated
Each one with it's own flaws. Each one designed to sell toys. Most of them pretty much rebooting everything that happened before.
Personally, I just get bothered because I took my kids to the movie and it should have been something I could take my daughters to. These days, sci-fi violence isn't usually a big deal to kids, so when I see a PG-13 rating on something that has obvious violence in it, I don't think much of it. But I just kept getting angry at the stupidity of the sex jokes. Not to be a prude, but the absolutely were not necessary and IMO really kept the movie from being good.... I don't know, maybe it's my fault for expecting that shit not to exist in the film.
Otherwise, I probably could have looked past the cheesy shit, and the bumbling Autobots. I do wish the robots were more distiquishable though.
Its more Michael Bay's existence that angers me personally. Everything he touches turns to shit. (with lens flares and exploding tanks/fighter jets/helicopters of course)
Personally, I just get bothered because I took my kids to the movie and it should have been something I could take my daughters to. These days, sci-fi violence isn't usually a big deal to kids, so when I see a PG-13 rating on something that has obvious violence in it, I don't think much of it. But I just kept getting angry at the stupidity of the sex jokes. Not to be a prude, but the absolutely were not necessary and IMO really kept the movie from being good.... I don't know, maybe it's my fault for expecting that shit not to exist in the film.
Otherwise, I probably could have looked past the cheesy shit, and the bumbling Autobots. I do wish the robots were more distiquishable though.
Ah yeah, that's never fun.
My main complaint about the first film is the NSA arc. They really had no reason to be there and I'm sure there could have been a better, simpler way to convey the information.
Its more Michael Bay's existence that angers me personally. Everything he touches turns to shit. (with lens flares and exploding tanks/fighter jets/helicopters of course)
That's interesting.
I'm not really a fan of his other movies, but I do enjoy explosions and stuff. It helps justify the money I pay at the theatre and putting up with the loud people.
I think of it as a show similar to a magic show. You go for the thrills and lights.
I'm not looking for Citizen Kane but I would like Big Trouble in Little China instead of Street Fighter.
I think that's the heart of it.
A film can be campy without being cheesey.
The movie tries to be dramatic but they put so much cheese in it that it jerks people out of the movie. Here's a fine wine from 1823, now here's a Budweiser, back and forth until you just don't want to drink anymore.
The sex jokes were really unnecessary as was the whole sneaking around in the backyard for 30 minutes, it was funny until it just wouldn't stop. I liken that part to the strut sequence in Spiderman3. Giant robot pissing on someone, hilarious. Mother making a masturbation joke, not so much.
Justin nailed it on the head. I love action movies; cant wait for Terminator; but Transformers is so stupid (because of the Michael Bay influence). I see many 'popcorn' films in the year, they are fine, as long as they are somewhat intellegently written.
it's not the writing, or the treatment of the material - it's all about the pacing. It's amazing how many simple-minded popcorn films can't pace an action scene for shit, or link a series of them satisfyingly over 90 minutes without arse numbing longeurs.
Why Raiders of the Lost Ark isn't a standard template i'll never know. It's largely perfect. Iconic opening scene that *everyone remembers, set up your main story in 5 minutes, kick right into a bit of exotic brutality, then this bit, that bit, oh shit yeah i haven't seen this for years and completely forgot about this bit, and then pull your huge action climax a good 20 minutes from the end of the film and let it wind up satisfyingly, allowing everything to sink in and sit there like a big fat happy action marshmallow in your brain and playing out on the smile on your lips.
True story : i left X-Men 3 following a father who asked his 9 year old son, a matter of minutes after the film ended, "so what was your favourite bit?". The kid's reply : "er ... i can't remember"
Pacing??? No...I'm pretty sure its all the other stuff we mentioned. Pacing is the least of Michael Bay's problems.
I personally enjoyed X3 the most out of all 3. It did have unusual pacing, and action sequences that never really took off (except the last bit and Xaviers death, they were awesome), but it was the best written film.
Yea, Michael Bay has decent enough pacing. It's the characters, the writing, the dialouge, the retarded minority robots and plots that make no sense that bother me. Give Michael Bay a solid script and direction to take an action film and he'll nail it.
xavier died? Er ... nope. Don't remember that at all. Genuinely. In fact the only bit i remember in the entire thing was Vinnie Jones running through walls like a big spack.
Yea, Michael Bay has decent enough pacing. It's the characters, the writing, the dialouge, the retarded minority robots and plots that make no sense that bother me. Give Michael Bay a solid script and direction to take an action film and he'll nail it.
She is orange (y'know, from fake tan??). At least, in the first one she was.
And its not really cool to hate Michael Bay. Like, I wouldn't wear a T-Shirt that says 'I hate Michael Bay'. Everybody hates him because he is a shit filmmaker, not because they are sheep. Thats like saying everyone hates Bush for a reason other than he start a meaningless war with cost tens of thousands of lives and turned a 50 billion surplus into a 500 billion debt.
I think it's more of a Oh it's so cool to hate Michael Bay and every thing he does then it is that Transformers wasn't entertaining.
For me, Bay is not the issue. He's made creative choices I don't like, but I still wouldn't have enjoyed TF1 if Ridley Scott was the director. The slapstick script sucks, and that's on the writers, and the muddy design of the robots suck, which is probably a mishmash of fault between the film's concept team and edicts from Hasbro. Unless Bay is the one defining the look and insisting on masturbation jokes, my problem isn't exclusively with him.
As an aside about the robot forms, what is it with so many of them having the chicken-leg design? I don't much care for it (TFs being so anthropomorphic is what made them cool), and there have to be a half-dozen bots with that look between the two flicks.
For me, Bay is not the issue. He's made creative choices I don't like, but I still wouldn't have enjoyed TF1 if Ridley Scott was the director. The slapstick script sucks, and that's on the writers, and the muddy design of the robots suck, which is probably a mishmash of fault between the film's concept team and edicts from Hasbro. Unless Bay is the one defining the look and insisting on masturbation jokes, my problem isn't exclusively with him.
As an aside about the robot forms, what is it with so many of them having the chicken-leg design? I don't much care for it (TFs being so anthropomorphic is what made them cool), and there have to be a half-dozen bots with that look between the two flicks.
I agree with all those points, but I still found it entertaining. I don't get where all the piss and vitriol come from. It's not like the G1 stuff was packed with film making genius.
I think one of the major draws for me is just seeing such technically awesome models and badass composting.
Seeing Bee go from robot to car floors me every time.
I think what bugs me is just how over complicated it all is. I would like it more if I could really see the transformation, and which parts fit where, and such. As it is, because there are millions of tiny parts, instead of thousands of slightly larger parts, it all just looks like a jumble of BS, which makes me think that it DOESN'T all fit together nicely, and they're just throwing smoke and mirrors in there to distract me while they simply shove it all in a small box and then replace it with the car form.
Hehe Tumer and Skenker, not to beat a dead horse with a citroen car here but yeah when it comes to car>robot>car transition, I still have to see that one topped :
That back shot during the run ... really, it's fantastic!!! And I love how sunny it is all the way through. No high crazy contrast/blue screen nightshot to hide stuff!
I understand they wanted zero morphing liquid metal and zero scale changes on parts and it all needed to click together as real as possible, but slicing it up so finely so that it make a visual noisy mess just feels like they created an loop hole to get out of their own rules.
And as Pior has shown a few times, its been done well, it needs to be done that way.
But its still entertaining even in spite of the visual distractions, horrible casting, freshmen humor and overly used matrix turn around.
Bay might be a big part of the problem for Transformers. But I don't hate the guy. In fact, I have enjoyed most of his movies. If there is one thing that can be said for the man, he certainly does love his explosions. And as a red-blooded dude myself, I also am very fond of things blowing up. This is one aspect of cinema that Mr. Bay and I are in complete agreement on. The more shit that blows up, the better the movie is going to be. From the previews for TF2, it looks like he's going to be bringing the pyrotechnic love in a big way.
I just think Micheal Bay can't handle the idea of characters that aren't human. He's never been presented with this sort of situation before in any of his past films. And so he's passing the non-human characters off as comedy relief and blatant archetypes. (and occasionally stereotypes) This is the "Jar-Jar" effect.
I was shocked to find out Michael Bay wasn't responsible for Con-Air, it was some dude named Simon West. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a Sith Lord and Apprentice kind of relationship.
Man this is seriously like the threads that used to pop up on the old Transformers movie board and over at TFW2005 before the last movie came out..
The thing with the designs that works for me is that TF are supposed to be highly advanced robots, but at the same time thy wanted them to look like actual life forms, not just humanish bodies with headlights on the chest and wheels for shoulders. Having them being complicated works for me and makes sense as being "robotic organisms." Besides, seeing super detailed realistic robots with a shit ton of moving parts looked amazing to me.
Roberto Orci and to a lesser degree Alex Kurtzman, the guys responsible for the screenplay of the last one, took a lot of time to answer questions on the forums of the TF movie website last go around and from discussing things with them it was obvious that they were working with limitations. It was never supposed to be a Generation 1 movie. It was inspired by it, but had to be it's own thing relevant to today. They had to make a movie that would appeal to a mainstream audience as well as TF fans. I thought they walked that line pretty well. You HAD to have a main human draw in the movie to reel the common folk in. This time they were able to really branch out and do things they weren't able to before. The fact that the main villain is The Fallen says a lot about how far they could go. The Fallen was a villain from the Dreamwave line of TF comics created by Simon Furman, and even for big G1 fans, that's pretty obscure.
As for the characters in the first movie, yea the Decepticons didn't have as much dialogue, and the Autobots didn't have as much as some people hoped, but the movie had so much to establish and introduce, while at the same time trying not to come off as a "toy movie" and the movie was STILL 2 and a half hours long. They don't have to worry about that this time and can have more character development amongst the bots.
Oh yeah, and the original animated movie still rocks today. Far and away my all time favorite movie, from way back when I saw it in theaters with my family when it came out. And it has the best Transformer death ever:
Look on the bright side: At least the director isn't Uwe Boll.
I found "In the Name of the King" more enjoyable than Transformers.
It's funny, I'm not a fanboy but this movie upsets me for some reason. I guess it's the feeling of beeing duped as a movie-goer, the trailer advertised a totally different movie experience.
Am I Michael Bay hater, maybe? I've never actively hated him, I've seen 4 and half Michael Bay movies: I rented Pearl Harbor and it turned out Disc 2 was missing but I didn't find the movie compelling enough to really seek out the second disc.
I found "In the Name of the King" more enjoyable than Transformers.
It's funny, I'm not a fanboy but this movie upsets me for some reason. I guess it's the feeling of beeing duped as a movie-goer, the trailer advertised a totally different movie experience.
Okay, I just saw the new trailer. And it was indeed pretty kick-ass. I have no real idea where the plot is going. But that is pretty par for the course on this series so far. Explosions abound, the robots are plentiful, and I have high hopes for the angles. From what I've seen so far it looks like they've realized that they need to pull back a little for some of the fight scenes.
They've at least sold me enough on this movie to convince me to see it in the theatres. So I suppose mission accomplished on their part.
I was gonna say that! He is so grunged up in robot form, and then product placement happens and all of a sudden he's been through a car-wash and wax. I wonder about the technical side of that; when he transforms, do the materials literally change on the fly? lol.
Replies
This is true.
Though, I'm not always looking for Citizen Kane in my entertainment.
I can find just as much entertainment in watching something juvenile and simple as i can watching a serious, moving picture.
QFT. Taking the stuff I loved as a kid and adapting it into something more that I will appreciate as an adult is what gets me excited. Taking the stuff I loved as a kid and repackaging it as nothing but 'eye candy' and base silliness... well, I'm not 13 any longer and I want more than that.
The options are not just Bay's Transformers or Citizen Kane - there's a whole range of work in between. The original Star Wars trilogy and Lord of the Rings have child-like moments, but they aren't childish. They're good stories with great effects that treat themselves seriously. Transformers is a thin veneer of story with great effects that winks at the camera the whole way through. Honestly, I'm not asking for Optimus Prime to whisper "rosebud" at the end of the flick, I just don't want bathroom humor substituting for actual storytelling.
Heck, look at Batman. It took less than 10 years for them to reboot the whole franchise.
The franchise could have done much much worse. I'm just happy with what we got and an happy that I find it funny and entertaining.
Go me!
I'm just wondering because people keep saying devastator is going to be in this new film?
why couldnt they just make him like this...ha
http://www.scificool.com/images/2008/04/constructicons-devastator-robot.jpg
It's a well known fact among the community that the tank in part 1 is named Brawl and the name was a typo.
And if that's the Devastator render I'm thinking about, his transformation wouldn't work in real life. Different sized construction vehicles and the fact that his forearms come from... nowhere keep this from working within the rules set up by the movie.
Haha, that's a good point. I love the Chris Nolan Batman movies just as much as I hate the Joel Schumacher ones
have u guys seen this trailer with Devastator in it?
http://www.trailerspy.com/trailer/3768/Bootleg-Transformers-2-Revenge-of-the-Fallen-Trailer
Those aren't really good examples. Dinosaurs can't talk. And yet despite this, the CG creations of Jurassic Park were far more menacing than any of the villains in Transformers. The Terminator didn't have a great deal of character development, but then he wasn't really supposed to. Moreover, the rest of the characters in those movies were well developed and engaging. The Gremlins actually got quite a bit of screen time, and were definitely the focus of the movies they were featured in. And come on. The Ghostbusters movies were DEFINITELY focused on the four characters who actually served as Ghostbusters.
In Transformers, the robots serve as little else than an impetus. The robots in the film are all static characters. And don't give me the expense excuse. Solid scriptwriters and directors have been circumventing those problems since the medium's inception. Just because your robots are a bit expensive to render doesn't mean you can ignore their significance to the story. I want to see actual character development in the giant robots, is that really so much to ask?
well, that's the thing. how can you develop a character without putting them on screen?
I mean, I could argue that Bumble Bee was in almost the entire movie.
Yeah, cost is a lame excuse, but when you take into consideration that these were the single most complex models ILM has ever built, it's got to mean something. We're also not talking a single character, there were 14, give or take one.
I mean, I guess they could have gone the way of Evangelion and just shown still frames with people talking or have the robots always talking off camera.
When they were on camera, I think they did a good job in conveying their personalities. The archetypes were pretty easy to figure out. They really weren't static as you suggest, at least not the Autobots. I'll give you that outside Frenzy, Barricade, and Megs, the Decepticons were pretty much filler. With an increased budget in this film, I'm sure that won't be too much of a problem anymore as they will get much more screen time.
And I mean there was little actual ghostbusting in the movies. The proton stream was fired for 30 seconds total in the first movie.
on the robots being made of a billion parts. i agree, too much shit. shoulda cut down those pieces.
i absolutely hate it when something is put together so complicated that it looks like it falls apart and then puts itself back together, incredible machine style.
over-engineering thats called.
keep it simple stupid.
as for the batman movies, they just took themselves way too seriously, to the point it became painfully cheesy. especially that grumble thing. if i was any of those thugs, i'd have fucking
laughed my ass off. admittedly before being pummeled.
Yup. What is with that shard bullshit. Why does he start speeding around and writing symbols everywhere. Why is that vapid moronic oompa loompa still in it, and why is she slung over a bike. Why aren't these movies about a simple war over energon cubes, with well designed robots that are even a little faithful to the originals.
This movie is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I'm not into arty-farty or lofty concept films either, but I don't want my intelligence and taste insulted for 90 minutes either.
I'd expect comments like this from most of the TF community, but a majority of them are accepting of the movies.
Maybe it's because we've kept up with the franchise these past 25 years. We've seen them go from G1 -> Japanese Mess -> G2 / Machine Wars -> Beast Wars -> Beast Machines -> RiD -> Unicron Trilogy -> Movie -> Animated
Each one with it's own flaws. Each one designed to sell toys. Most of them pretty much rebooting everything that happened before.
I don't understand why it angers people so much.
Otherwise, I probably could have looked past the cheesy shit, and the bumbling Autobots. I do wish the robots were more distiquishable though.
Its more Michael Bay's existence that angers me personally. Everything he touches turns to shit. (with lens flares and exploding tanks/fighter jets/helicopters of course)
Ah yeah, that's never fun.
My main complaint about the first film is the NSA arc. They really had no reason to be there and I'm sure there could have been a better, simpler way to convey the information.
That's interesting.
I'm not really a fan of his other movies, but I do enjoy explosions and stuff. It helps justify the money I pay at the theatre and putting up with the loud people.
I think of it as a show similar to a magic show. You go for the thrills and lights.
I'm not looking for Citizen Kane but I would like Big Trouble in Little China instead of Street Fighter.
I think that's the heart of it.
A film can be campy without being cheesey.
The movie tries to be dramatic but they put so much cheese in it that it jerks people out of the movie. Here's a fine wine from 1823, now here's a Budweiser, back and forth until you just don't want to drink anymore.
The sex jokes were really unnecessary as was the whole sneaking around in the backyard for 30 minutes, it was funny until it just wouldn't stop. I liken that part to the strut sequence in Spiderman3. Giant robot pissing on someone, hilarious. Mother making a masturbation joke, not so much.
Why Raiders of the Lost Ark isn't a standard template i'll never know. It's largely perfect. Iconic opening scene that *everyone remembers, set up your main story in 5 minutes, kick right into a bit of exotic brutality, then this bit, that bit, oh shit yeah i haven't seen this for years and completely forgot about this bit, and then pull your huge action climax a good 20 minutes from the end of the film and let it wind up satisfyingly, allowing everything to sink in and sit there like a big fat happy action marshmallow in your brain and playing out on the smile on your lips.
True story : i left X-Men 3 following a father who asked his 9 year old son, a matter of minutes after the film ended, "so what was your favourite bit?". The kid's reply : "er ... i can't remember"
I personally enjoyed X3 the most out of all 3. It did have unusual pacing, and action sequences that never really took off (except the last bit and Xaviers death, they were awesome), but it was the best written film.
Thats a joke, right?
danr...you don't remember this? [ame]
Do you suffer from blackouts by any chance?
and calling Meghan Fox an oompa loompa? Did I read that right? Seriously? What planet are you from?
She is orange (y'know, from fake tan??). At least, in the first one she was.
And its not really cool to hate Michael Bay. Like, I wouldn't wear a T-Shirt that says 'I hate Michael Bay'. Everybody hates him because he is a shit filmmaker, not because they are sheep. Thats like saying everyone hates Bush for a reason other than he start a meaningless war with cost tens of thousands of lives and turned a 50 billion surplus into a 500 billion debt.
http://www.trailerspy.com/trailer/3806/Transformers-2-Revenge-of-the-Fallen-Trailer
For me, Bay is not the issue. He's made creative choices I don't like, but I still wouldn't have enjoyed TF1 if Ridley Scott was the director. The slapstick script sucks, and that's on the writers, and the muddy design of the robots suck, which is probably a mishmash of fault between the film's concept team and edicts from Hasbro. Unless Bay is the one defining the look and insisting on masturbation jokes, my problem isn't exclusively with him.
As an aside about the robot forms, what is it with so many of them having the chicken-leg design? I don't much care for it (TFs being so anthropomorphic is what made them cool), and there have to be a half-dozen bots with that look between the two flicks.
guh... X3? really? I couldn't stand almost anything in that movie.
it's kind of interesting how we're opposite on these two movies.
Here's the 1080p version of the new trailer for those interested.
http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?embedded=yes&sid=84660123&t=mov&br=10300&s=950773710&start=0&nid=13222069&mdt=unknown&mid=13222024&pg=OTE0OTY2NDQ5NDlmYTQ0Nj&q=&authid=&sl=151&so=%252FYahoo%252FMovies%252FTrailers%252FTransformers%2B2%252Ftransformer2trailer2rev%2528HD%2529&tcode=&audio=0&sdm=web&pt=rd
"save page as"
Seeing Bee go from robot to car floors me every time.
I think what bugs me is just how over complicated it all is. I would like it more if I could really see the transformation, and which parts fit where, and such. As it is, because there are millions of tiny parts, instead of thousands of slightly larger parts, it all just looks like a jumble of BS, which makes me think that it DOESN'T all fit together nicely, and they're just throwing smoke and mirrors in there to distract me while they simply shove it all in a small box and then replace it with the car form.
[ame]
That back shot during the run ... really, it's fantastic!!! And I love how sunny it is all the way through. No high crazy contrast/blue screen nightshot to hide stuff!
Citroen got it down!
And as Pior has shown a few times, its been done well, it needs to be done that way.
But its still entertaining even in spite of the visual distractions, horrible casting, freshmen humor and overly used matrix turn around.
Who is the old robot with the cane?
he's an old decepticon that changed to an autobot.
I just think Micheal Bay can't handle the idea of characters that aren't human. He's never been presented with this sort of situation before in any of his past films. And so he's passing the non-human characters off as comedy relief and blatant archetypes. (and occasionally stereotypes) This is the "Jar-Jar" effect.
The Rock
The thing with the designs that works for me is that TF are supposed to be highly advanced robots, but at the same time thy wanted them to look like actual life forms, not just humanish bodies with headlights on the chest and wheels for shoulders. Having them being complicated works for me and makes sense as being "robotic organisms." Besides, seeing super detailed realistic robots with a shit ton of moving parts looked amazing to me.
Roberto Orci and to a lesser degree Alex Kurtzman, the guys responsible for the screenplay of the last one, took a lot of time to answer questions on the forums of the TF movie website last go around and from discussing things with them it was obvious that they were working with limitations. It was never supposed to be a Generation 1 movie. It was inspired by it, but had to be it's own thing relevant to today. They had to make a movie that would appeal to a mainstream audience as well as TF fans. I thought they walked that line pretty well. You HAD to have a main human draw in the movie to reel the common folk in. This time they were able to really branch out and do things they weren't able to before. The fact that the main villain is The Fallen says a lot about how far they could go. The Fallen was a villain from the Dreamwave line of TF comics created by Simon Furman, and even for big G1 fans, that's pretty obscure.
As for the characters in the first movie, yea the Decepticons didn't have as much dialogue, and the Autobots didn't have as much as some people hoped, but the movie had so much to establish and introduce, while at the same time trying not to come off as a "toy movie" and the movie was STILL 2 and a half hours long. They don't have to worry about that this time and can have more character development amongst the bots.
Oh yeah, and the original animated movie still rocks today. Far and away my all time favorite movie, from way back when I saw it in theaters with my family when it came out.
[ame]
I found "In the Name of the King" more enjoyable than Transformers.
It's funny, I'm not a fanboy but this movie upsets me for some reason. I guess it's the feeling of beeing duped as a movie-goer, the trailer advertised a totally different movie experience.
Am I Michael Bay hater, maybe? I've never actively hated him, I've seen 4 and half Michael Bay movies: I rented Pearl Harbor and it turned out Disc 2 was missing but I didn't find the movie compelling enough to really seek out the second disc.
How so?
They've at least sold me enough on this movie to convince me to see it in the theatres. So I suppose mission accomplished on their part.