Still wish they didn't cut Megan Fox out. Not that she's a great actor or anything..but it kinda pisses me off when movies switch love interests...kinda makes the previous buildup useless.
And they could've at least picked a hotter replacement :P
ugh, why the hell doesnt the transformer look like his face has wrinkles...... the old blackbird one in the 2nd one was retarded. I enjoyed the 1st movie kinda but the 2nd was horrible. I'll still see this for the FX and exceptional audio design but I'm expecting a pile o shite. atleast when he is done he can do Bad Boys 3 haha.
Loved the 1st one. The opening sequence with Blackout still gives me goosebumps
Hated the 2nd, if fact REALLY hated the second. Just WTF!!!
Lets hope this is back to basics. Action start to finish, no love interest crap and NO stupid transformers created for toy sales. Oh and no terminator chicks either.
Pretty subdued for a Bay trailer. Looks great, highly doubt the movie will give any of that same feeling though. Cool concept.
From what I've been reading, everyone involved is highly aware of what went wrong with the second movie. Too over the top, too ambitious, and all without having a solid script due to the writers strike. Bringing in Ehren Krueger as a writer is a good choice. Apparetntly he really impressed Hasbro with his knowledge of the franchise. They want to bring back that sense of awe and wonder that the first movie had. Scenes like the Blackout attack, or when the Autobots reveal themselves for the first time are good examples of that.
Shockwave is one of the main villains in this one (finally!) and was hoping to see him in the teaser, but they can wait with that. From what has been leaked from on set, he looks amazing:
The first Transformers was disappointing without being a complete disaster. The second film was a complete disaster. A cinematic train wreck to the tune of 200 million dollars. It still boggles my mind that they spent that much money to make a movie that bad.
I refuse to get my hopes up for this one. Micheal Bay has squandered any good will he may have had with me. Unless the reviews for this new film come back claiming that it is significantly better than the first Transformers film, I will not see it in theaters.
Also, the title they came up with does not inspire confidence. "Dark of the Moon" actually sounds worse than "Revenge of the Fallen." And this teaser video is already insulting my intelligence. The astronauts of Apollo 11 didn't land on the dark side of the moon. And the moon is always facing the same way relative to earth. That's why the "dark side" of the moon is significant, it's always dark. (facing away from the earth) The communication black-out thing they are mentioning is the same kind of silly drivel that I despised about the first two films.
Also, the title they came up with does not inspire confidence. "Dark of the Moon" actually sounds worse than "Revenge of the Fallen." And this teaser video is already insulting my intelligence. The astronauts of Apollo 11 didn't land on the dark side of the moon. And the moon is always facing the same way relative to earth. That's why the "dark side" of the moon is significant, it's always dark. (facing away from the earth) The communication black-out thing they are mentioning is the same kind of silly drivel that I despised about the first two films.
Ummmm no. The far side of the moon is not always dark. The moon is tidally locked with the earth so the same side always faces us. The other side sometimes faces the sun, sometimes faces out into the solar system.
Ummmm no. The far side of the moon is not always dark. The moon is tidally locked with the earth so the same side always faces us. The other side sometimes faces the sun, sometimes faces out into the solar system.
(pinches bridge of nose) I am aware of that. In this context "dark" is referring to the fact that the astronauts are cut off from communication to earth. (according to the trailer) However, there is no reason for them to be cut off from communication unless they were actually on the dark side of the moon. (which they aren't) So either NASA is telling a rather obvious lie about the astronauts being cut off, or we are dealing with a rather obvious plot hole in the trailer for a film that hasn't come out yet.
This is the kind of sloppy writing that so badly plagued the second Transformers film. The first movie wasn't a shining example of writing either, but it at least kept things reasonably simple. "Revenge of the Fallen" went absolutely nuts with ludicrous story elements that never seemed to fit together.
The idea of incorporating the moon landing into a Transformers film is interesting. But then, so was the idea of spy Transformers disguised as older vehicles. Where did that lead? Robo-beard.
This trailer looks pretty good. But it is already hinting at the pitfalls ahead for this movie. I refuse to be excited for this film.
In terms of communication, yes the astronauts would go out of radio communication if they were are on the side of the moon facing away from the earth. I was under the impression you were talking about the actual surface of the moon, my apologies. The primary reason that radio signals wouldn't be able to get a signal through the moon. there would have to be a relay satellite in view of both the earth and the astronauts.
The big plot hole I already see with this trailer is if the americans had seen this ship, that would mean the russians, other countries and possibly even amateur astronomers could have seen it as well.
I've still not been able to look past the character designs being overly busy and hard to read or the fact that the transformers were seemingly a second string focus to shia la douchebag and megan fox
That's my thought, and I guess you can get the hint at the end, with the almost fractal thing going in the eye of the transformer: it has so much detail it can mean the eye is insanely huge in the first place !
Yeah... was being sarcastic. I hope its not him because he is smaller and I don't want them to come up with some dumb twist were he is like a normal transformer but starts absorbing other transformers and grows huge this way... sigh...
interesting...... that was really laid back for one of his trailers but i never try to get overly worked up about a Michael bay movie... ill go to see it like the others but really only for the vfx *sad face*
I thought that was awesome although I wouldnt have realised it was transformers until the very end. I liked the 2nd film, didnt love it but I think people are too harsh on it, but Im a sucker for explosioni's.
I so hope its got unicron in there somewhere but they need to make him MASSIVE!!!!!!!!!....and megan fox better not be in it!!!! shes too slutty and Shia lebouef would never ever be in her league, not even with transformers for friends.
I'm another that liked the first, but didn't like the second.
"The Jesus" guy really grates on me. When he's trying to be obviously comedic, he's the worst. And the second film has lots of him shoehorned in.
Massive robot battles, in space? Shit could be awesome, as long as you're able to ignore/forgive/wade through the usual crap that comes with these type of eye candy films.
I'm conflicted. I see myself as a PC gamer elitist who shits on all the crap games that most people love. But when it comes to movies, I love this shit. Big robots blowing the shit out of each other with all kinds of eye candy and speical effects? SIGN ME UP.
Not my favorite franchise, but would i pay for it? hell yeah.
If I'm going to watch Hollywood drivel in the first place, I much prefer they feature T&A, huge robot battles and special effects eye candy to something inane like "The Hurt Locker" which is not only unintelligent and embarrassingly inaccurate, but doesn't even have a storyline, let alone entertaining action scenes.
But what if the T&A is skanky and overly made-up? What if the huge robot battles are poorly choreographed and use terrible camera angles? What if the special effects are obviously being used to distract from the films numerous flaws.
I am willing to bend a little on the first Transformers movie. As lackluster as it was, it wasn't particularly offensive most of the time. You just shut off your brain for two and a half hours and enjoyed the pretty effects. I can accept that sort of popcorn experience from time to time. Who doesn't like huge explosions?
But with the second Transformers film, the entire experience constantly assaulted my senses, and sensibilities. The first film required me to check my brain at the door. The second film actively crapped on my intelligence. Flagrantly offensive throw-away comedy characters? Leg humping? Robo-balls? The number of transgressions that film committed were so numerous that all of the special effects and 3D animations were unable to distract me from how terrible the movie was. And I like me some 3D special effects, so that is quite an achievement in poor cinematography.
Saying that you enjoy a mindless popcorn flick is one thing. But "Revenge of the Fallen" went beyond the pale. I'm just wondering if Transformers 3 is going to manage to be closer to Transformers 1, (not entirely horrible) or if Micheal Bay will actually try to outdo Transformers 2, and make the worst big-budget action film ever.
I agree it's not the most amazing, mind challenging experience but giant cg robots that fuck shit up, it's loud, it's got a hot chick (call her sleazy all you want but 9 out of 10 guys on this board wouldn't toss her out of bed), and I don't have to fucking sit there and think for weeks wondering what the fuck happened like I am still doing with Inception.
Take it for what it is. We shouldn't be snubbing our nose and acting like elitist bitches. I mean I don't like when people talk that way about games and our industry when most of the time they have no idea what they are talking about.
Per you are right. It is HUGELY successful and Bay is a genious!
Just remember, Bay likes to 'mix it up' with some of his own shit. Hell, for all we know, this is Cosmos. You're expecting to much if you think he's going to properly match it with an original Transformer.
I'm gonna dissagree and say, transformers is garbage. You can claim i am shallow, or have no tastes as an artist, but my opinion still stands. I know what i like and this isn't it.
The transformers movies are easy targets for ridicule, especially among people that overestimate their own level of intelligence and/or maturity.
Most Hollywood productions are just as stupid, if not moreso, but feature serious tone and subject matters, which some people interpret as signs of depth and intelligence.
You don't see critics enthusiastically ridiculing a movie like "The Illusionist", although it is inferior to "The Transformers" on an intellectual level. Some people are just simple-minded enough to make the shallow comparison of "big robots, ass and explosions" versus "demure gentlemen in a period setting", which naturally has a predictable outcome.
If I'm going to watch Hollywood drivel in the first place, I much prefer they feature T&A, huge robot battles and special effects eye candy to something inane like "The Hurt Locker" which is not only unintelligent and embarrassingly inaccurate, but doesn't even have a storyline, let alone entertaining action scenes.
Not liking a film makes one a psuedo intellectual? Huh? Per. Say what you will. But I believe The Dark Knight pretty much flips your theory on its head.
Whether someone (including myself) likes the movies or not is subjective and not something I'm interested in discussing, but I'll bring up three points, just to stir the shit and dare noobs to contradict me:
-Transformers is one of the absolute most successful film franchises in history.
-Michael Bay is one of the most successful film directors in history.
-Michael Bay is an extremely skilled film director.
-You are seriously putting forward the argument that financial success is the same thing as quality? You know better than that.
-No argument on Micheal Bay's success. He makes blockbuster movies that earn a lot of money. It is his MO.
-Now here is where we're really going to have to disagree. Micheal Bay is a good producer. But as far as directing goes his work is extremely formulaic. He heavily favors orchestral scores, slow motion dramatic shots, billowing U.S. flags, and as much military hardware as he can cram into a film. If that's your thing, then it is understandable that you would enjoy his work.
Transformers 2 had all of Micheal Bay's signature elements. But somewhere along the line they forgot to find a decent script for the film. There are numerous and enormous plot holes. The characters' dialog is garbage. And perhaps most glaringly, the movie openly ridicules and despises it's own audience as blatantly as it can.
At one point in the film, they introduce an "old" robot. But some creaking joints and wise characterization is not enough for Revenge of the Fallen's audience. Oh no! Those morons won't be convinced of the robot's advanced years unless we stoop him over, give him a robot walking stick, and a long robot beard!
Science fiction movies don't do as well with the "urban" market. So how do we make Transformers 2 appeal to the inner city crowd? Let's put in two throw-away robot characters who have squashed heads, abnormally large robot ears, gold teeth, and speak in robot Ebonics. And just for good measure, we'll make the two of them incredibly stupid and fight each other constantly. Since they are such obvious comedy relief we'll attach them to the main characters for no reason so that they can be in the entire film. Should we make them relevant in any way to the plot? Of course not!
As much low-brow humor as we've managed to cram into this film, I think we still have room for one last push near the end. Let's have one of the main characters climb up the pyramid until he can get a good luck at the crotch of the enormous robot. Is there any reason for him to actually be climbing the pyramid? The plot point is that he is directing a ship several miles away to fire a rail gun at the giant robot. But there isn't actually any need for him to be higher up. The robot is huge and on top of a pyramid. You can see it fine from anywhere nearby. The character is specifically climbing the pyramid so that he can see the robot's testicles, and then comment loudly over his radio about his position "beneath the robot's scrotum." Why did he mention robot scrotums over the radio? Because the director wanted to hear him say it.
I love how angry people get about the transformer movies, personally I think you should be angry with GI Joe, god damn awful movie. atleast transformers is watchable
If it only was that simple, Richard. You should know how many hopefuls are submitting scripts each year and how many talented people are fighting for Bay's job.
Actually, it is that simple, and you just pointed out why. Out of all the potential stories they could have told, that they had available to them, they picked that one. Of all the directors they could have chosen, they went with Bay. It is true that this resulted in financial success, but it did not result in critical success. (reaffirming my point that the two are not one and the same) Bay produced a terrible movie that sold well. I'm not saying that he didn't do his job. I'm saying that he could have easily done his job better. And part of that would have been choosing and directing a better script. If Bay had been creative enough, he could have written a better script himself. A lot of great directors and producers have done exactly that in the past.
The second half of your post criticizes Transformers 2 for being too dumb for its audience. Again, Richard, it's a simple concept; if they wanted a high-brow Transformers movie, they could have made that. They chose not to, and the movies were immensely successful. Should that not be a clear indication that you are overestimating the critical ability of the general audience?
I'll concede this point somewhat. Transformers probably isn't too dumb for its target audience. And I probably am overestimating the critical ability of the general audience. But I also firmly believe that the "general audience" is immensely stupid. And as you are so fond of pointing out, my opinion on this matter is quite subjective. It is difficult for me to put myself into the mindset of the intellectually challenged, and possibly inebriated target audience that Michael Bay was aiming for.
You are correct that Micheal Bay was a good financial choice for the film. Numbers don't lie, and the investors are quite happy. (hence the impending sequel) But you aren't ever going to convince me that Revenge of the Fallen is a quality cinematic creation. By any standards I measure it against, it is a bad film.
Replies
hopefully they can slow this one down a bit. i almost had 23 seizures while watching the last one.
cg zoom in on a spinning metal orgy until i don't know what the fuck is going on and then someone tells me what i just watched is transformers.
Also... Alpha Trion?
[edit]
On second thought, probably Unicron
I didn't see a boob or an explosion.
Thankfully we have this website:
http://www.explosionsandboobs.com/
best.... site.... ever....
And they could've at least picked a hotter replacement :P
Hated the 2nd, if fact REALLY hated the second. Just WTF!!!
Lets hope this is back to basics. Action start to finish, no love interest crap and NO stupid transformers created for toy sales. Oh and no terminator chicks either.
From what I've been reading, everyone involved is highly aware of what went wrong with the second movie. Too over the top, too ambitious, and all without having a solid script due to the writers strike. Bringing in Ehren Krueger as a writer is a good choice. Apparetntly he really impressed Hasbro with his knowledge of the franchise. They want to bring back that sense of awe and wonder that the first movie had. Scenes like the Blackout attack, or when the Autobots reveal themselves for the first time are good examples of that.
Shockwave is one of the main villains in this one (finally!) and was hoping to see him in the teaser, but they can wait with that. From what has been leaked from on set, he looks amazing:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_G96gxvrHqrE/TE1GWmNJCcI/AAAAAAAAI7w/f9S7USqGT20/s1600/TF3ChicagoShockwaveSoundwave.jpg
I would highly suspect that the robot you see in that trailer is Alpha Trion, or maybe Vector Prime.
I refuse to get my hopes up for this one. Micheal Bay has squandered any good will he may have had with me. Unless the reviews for this new film come back claiming that it is significantly better than the first Transformers film, I will not see it in theaters.
Also, the title they came up with does not inspire confidence. "Dark of the Moon" actually sounds worse than "Revenge of the Fallen." And this teaser video is already insulting my intelligence. The astronauts of Apollo 11 didn't land on the dark side of the moon. And the moon is always facing the same way relative to earth. That's why the "dark side" of the moon is significant, it's always dark. (facing away from the earth) The communication black-out thing they are mentioning is the same kind of silly drivel that I despised about the first two films.
the setting location is much different from 1 and 2 ...
Ummmm no. The far side of the moon is not always dark. The moon is tidally locked with the earth so the same side always faces us. The other side sometimes faces the sun, sometimes faces out into the solar system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/smg-transformers-10-questions.html
probably watch it just to see how silly it can be.
You take that back! Shia LaBeouf is a mother fucking saint! A SAINT!
Dunno, I've been a fan of most of his movies, ever since Project Green Light and Battle of Shaker Heights...and yes I even liked him in Indy.
I'm not a big Transformers fan, not even as a kid. But, the movies are enjoyable enough to watch on HBO or something with a bowl of popcorn.
(pinches bridge of nose) I am aware of that. In this context "dark" is referring to the fact that the astronauts are cut off from communication to earth. (according to the trailer) However, there is no reason for them to be cut off from communication unless they were actually on the dark side of the moon. (which they aren't) So either NASA is telling a rather obvious lie about the astronauts being cut off, or we are dealing with a rather obvious plot hole in the trailer for a film that hasn't come out yet.
This is the kind of sloppy writing that so badly plagued the second Transformers film. The first movie wasn't a shining example of writing either, but it at least kept things reasonably simple. "Revenge of the Fallen" went absolutely nuts with ludicrous story elements that never seemed to fit together.
The idea of incorporating the moon landing into a Transformers film is interesting. But then, so was the idea of spy Transformers disguised as older vehicles. Where did that lead? Robo-beard.
This trailer looks pretty good. But it is already hinting at the pitfalls ahead for this movie. I refuse to be excited for this film.
The big plot hole I already see with this trailer is if the americans had seen this ship, that would mean the russians, other countries and possibly even amateur astronomers could have seen it as well.
I've still not been able to look past the character designs being overly busy and hard to read or the fact that the transformers were seemingly a second string focus to shia la douchebag and megan fox
I mean look, they are both orange!!
I just watch them for the BAYSPLOSIONS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AR23f08yBA
EDIT: Btw I'm calling this: Unicron is the beard-former and he uses nanomachines to eat planets. And he explodes in the end.
Wouldn't he be a lot bigger?
That's my thought, and I guess you can get the hint at the end, with the almost fractal thing going in the eye of the transformer: it has so much detail it can mean the eye is insanely huge in the first place !
http://www.ticobot.com/AlphaTrion2.jpg
No way is that Unicron.
I so hope its got unicron in there somewhere but they need to make him MASSIVE!!!!!!!!!....and megan fox better not be in it!!!! shes too slutty and Shia lebouef would never ever be in her league, not even with transformers for friends.
Why?
BECAUSE THEN THE SERIES IS OVER AND WE CAN'T SEE MICHAEL BAY RUIN IT ANYMORE.
"The Jesus" guy really grates on me. When he's trying to be obviously comedic, he's the worst. And the second film has lots of him shoehorned in.
Massive robot battles, in space? Shit could be awesome, as long as you're able to ignore/forgive/wade through the usual crap that comes with these type of eye candy films.
Not my favorite franchise, but would i pay for it? hell yeah.
But what if the T&A is skanky and overly made-up? What if the huge robot battles are poorly choreographed and use terrible camera angles? What if the special effects are obviously being used to distract from the films numerous flaws.
I am willing to bend a little on the first Transformers movie. As lackluster as it was, it wasn't particularly offensive most of the time. You just shut off your brain for two and a half hours and enjoyed the pretty effects. I can accept that sort of popcorn experience from time to time. Who doesn't like huge explosions?
But with the second Transformers film, the entire experience constantly assaulted my senses, and sensibilities. The first film required me to check my brain at the door. The second film actively crapped on my intelligence. Flagrantly offensive throw-away comedy characters? Leg humping? Robo-balls? The number of transgressions that film committed were so numerous that all of the special effects and 3D animations were unable to distract me from how terrible the movie was. And I like me some 3D special effects, so that is quite an achievement in poor cinematography.
Saying that you enjoy a mindless popcorn flick is one thing. But "Revenge of the Fallen" went beyond the pale. I'm just wondering if Transformers 3 is going to manage to be closer to Transformers 1, (not entirely horrible) or if Micheal Bay will actually try to outdo Transformers 2, and make the worst big-budget action film ever.
peace!
I agree it's not the most amazing, mind challenging experience but giant cg robots that fuck shit up, it's loud, it's got a hot chick (call her sleazy all you want but 9 out of 10 guys on this board wouldn't toss her out of bed), and I don't have to fucking sit there and think for weeks wondering what the fuck happened like I am still doing with Inception.
Take it for what it is. We shouldn't be snubbing our nose and acting like elitist bitches. I mean I don't like when people talk that way about games and our industry when most of the time they have no idea what they are talking about.
Per you are right. It is HUGELY successful and Bay is a genious!
agree to dissagree.
Not liking a film makes one a psuedo intellectual? Huh? Per. Say what you will. But I believe The Dark Knight pretty much flips your theory on its head.
-You are seriously putting forward the argument that financial success is the same thing as quality? You know better than that.
-No argument on Micheal Bay's success. He makes blockbuster movies that earn a lot of money. It is his MO.
-Now here is where we're really going to have to disagree. Micheal Bay is a good producer. But as far as directing goes his work is extremely formulaic. He heavily favors orchestral scores, slow motion dramatic shots, billowing U.S. flags, and as much military hardware as he can cram into a film. If that's your thing, then it is understandable that you would enjoy his work.
Transformers 2 had all of Micheal Bay's signature elements. But somewhere along the line they forgot to find a decent script for the film. There are numerous and enormous plot holes. The characters' dialog is garbage. And perhaps most glaringly, the movie openly ridicules and despises it's own audience as blatantly as it can.
At one point in the film, they introduce an "old" robot. But some creaking joints and wise characterization is not enough for Revenge of the Fallen's audience. Oh no! Those morons won't be convinced of the robot's advanced years unless we stoop him over, give him a robot walking stick, and a long robot beard!
Science fiction movies don't do as well with the "urban" market. So how do we make Transformers 2 appeal to the inner city crowd? Let's put in two throw-away robot characters who have squashed heads, abnormally large robot ears, gold teeth, and speak in robot Ebonics. And just for good measure, we'll make the two of them incredibly stupid and fight each other constantly. Since they are such obvious comedy relief we'll attach them to the main characters for no reason so that they can be in the entire film. Should we make them relevant in any way to the plot? Of course not!
As much low-brow humor as we've managed to cram into this film, I think we still have room for one last push near the end. Let's have one of the main characters climb up the pyramid until he can get a good luck at the crotch of the enormous robot. Is there any reason for him to actually be climbing the pyramid? The plot point is that he is directing a ship several miles away to fire a rail gun at the giant robot. But there isn't actually any need for him to be higher up. The robot is huge and on top of a pyramid. You can see it fine from anywhere nearby. The character is specifically climbing the pyramid so that he can see the robot's testicles, and then comment loudly over his radio about his position "beneath the robot's scrotum." Why did he mention robot scrotums over the radio? Because the director wanted to hear him say it.
Actually, it is that simple, and you just pointed out why. Out of all the potential stories they could have told, that they had available to them, they picked that one. Of all the directors they could have chosen, they went with Bay. It is true that this resulted in financial success, but it did not result in critical success. (reaffirming my point that the two are not one and the same) Bay produced a terrible movie that sold well. I'm not saying that he didn't do his job. I'm saying that he could have easily done his job better. And part of that would have been choosing and directing a better script. If Bay had been creative enough, he could have written a better script himself. A lot of great directors and producers have done exactly that in the past.
I'll concede this point somewhat. Transformers probably isn't too dumb for its target audience. And I probably am overestimating the critical ability of the general audience. But I also firmly believe that the "general audience" is immensely stupid. And as you are so fond of pointing out, my opinion on this matter is quite subjective. It is difficult for me to put myself into the mindset of the intellectually challenged, and possibly inebriated target audience that Michael Bay was aiming for.
You are correct that Micheal Bay was a good financial choice for the film. Numbers don't lie, and the investors are quite happy. (hence the impending sequel) But you aren't ever going to convince me that Revenge of the Fallen is a quality cinematic creation. By any standards I measure it against, it is a bad film.