The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Transformers > Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-05-2010, 03:50 PM   #701
Rumpy Bulge Dubz
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,289
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Do you even understand what you're asking? In order to have a Transformers movie that's nothing but robots, it would have to be all CGI. That's the cheapest possible route besides going out and actually building a bunch of life size robots, which is just not practical. No company in Hollywood has the resources or money to pull that off. So that leaves us with either an animated movie, or a CGI movie (i.e.TMNT).

Look, it's the humans that add the "live action" aspect to these films, take them out of the equation and you're left with a CGI fest, that's it.

Rumpy Bulge Dubz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 09:02 PM   #702
Mr.?
Side-Kick
 
Mr.?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,069
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Boney Dubz View Post
Do you even understand what you're asking? In order to have a Transformers movie that's nothing but robots, it would have to be all CGI. That's the cheapest possible route besides going out and actually building a bunch of life size robots, which is just not practical. No company in Hollywood has the resources or money to pull that off. So that leaves us with either an animated movie, or a CGI movie (i.e.TMNT).

Look, it's the humans that add the "live action" aspect to these films, take them out of the equation and you're left with a CGI fest, that's it.
That's BS, with that logic Avatar would have never been made.

I have no qualms about having humans if they are there as they are battling in the streets or something but having one as the main character is.....I just don't get the logic in that, at all.

Mr.? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 10:43 PM   #703
Jager X
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,422
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.? View Post
That's BS, with that logic Avatar would have never been made.

I have no qualms about having humans if they are there as they are battling in the streets or something but having one as the main character is.....I just don't get the logic in that, at all.
How is it hard for you to understand? It is called live action because of the importance of the human element in the story. Introducing humans into a story of alien being helps the viewer better invest in what is going on. The scenario put forth in TF will most likely never happen, but we are left in awe by amazing, frightening, and devestating it would be if it did happen. This has been the logic of ALL sci-fi movies with such stories. I don't care how advanced cgi and practical effects become, no studio is going to risk bankrupting their company with expensive explosions, city permits, insurance, etc. just to shoot a film with no humans at the center.

Jager X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 11:41 PM   #704
Mr.?
Side-Kick
 
Mr.?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,069
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jager X View Post
How is it hard for you to understand? It is called live action because of the importance of the human element in the story. Introducing humans into a story of alien being helps the viewer better invest in what is going on. The scenario put forth in TF will most likely never happen, but we are left in awe by amazing, frightening, and devestating it would be if it did happen. This has been the logic of ALL sci-fi movies with such stories. I don't care how advanced cgi and practical effects become, no studio is going to risk bankrupting their company with expensive explosions, city permits, insurance, etc. just to shoot a film with no humans at the center.
A live action needs a human as the main character to be called live action? Makes no sense. You don't need a human as the main character in the movie to be invested in the story. Just make the autobots and decepticons each have a distinctive personality, that will make people care about the story and get them involved. We are left in awe because we go to these movies to see the two factions smash and destroy each other, having Shia Lebouf (or any human for that matter) as the main character is pointless and helps the story in no shape or form.

I don't care if there are humans in the story (As side characters, victims, etc.) but having one be what the whole story revolves around is dumb.

Mr.? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 01:26 AM   #705
Ipodman
Love Tension
 
Ipodman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,649
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

The cartoon has humans all the wAy from the beginning anyway...

And the new love interest already looks like a better Carly than Megan fox

Ipodman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 01:52 AM   #706
*Dead*End*
Jesus Christ = my Saviour
 
*Dead*End*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Northwest of the U.S.A.
Posts: 573
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.? View Post
A live action needs a human as the main character to be called live action? Makes no sense. You don't need a human as the main character in the movie to be invested in the story. Just make the autobots and decepticons each have a distinctive personality, that will make people care about the story and get them involved. We are left in awe because we go to these movies to see the two factions smash and destroy each other, having Shia Lebouf (or any human for that matter) as the main character is pointless and helps the story in no shape or form.

I don't care if there are humans in the story (As side characters, victims, etc.) but having one be what the whole story revolves around is dumb.
I agree with you. Beastwars was a good example of a good Robot centered story, where you've actually cared about the robots.

G1 TRANSFORMERS cartoon series weren't about humans, eventhough there was the sidestory of Spike, and his dad. However humans were usually just plot devices in the G1 cartoon.

On the other hand, I agree that it would be perhaps too expensive to have a robot as the main character. Let me illustrate this point. Imagine that Shia (or Sam) in the first movie would be completely CGI (AVATAR standard). And since he was in the majority of the scenes, the cost would be too great imo.

__________________
"We are all just food for rust."
~ Dead End
*Dead*End* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 05:48 AM   #707
Ipodman
Love Tension
 
Ipodman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,649
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Then the movie could be shorter ... The transformers movie are too long anyway

Ipodman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 07:16 AM   #708
Rumpy Bulge Dubz
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,289
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.? View Post
That's BS, with that logic Avatar would have never been made.

I have no qualms about having humans if they are there as they are battling in the streets or something but having one as the main character is.....I just don't get the logic in that, at all.
you don't get the logic because you're being freaking difficult and ignorant. You're asking for too damn much and complaining about ********. In a nutshell

Rumpy Bulge Dubz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 10:03 AM   #709
Mr.?
Side-Kick
 
Mr.?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,069
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ipodman View Post
The cartoon has humans all the wAy from the beginning anyway...
Yes, but not as main characters. Thats my problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Boney Dubz View Post
you don't get the logic because you're being freaking difficult and ignorant. You're asking for too damn much and complaining about ********. In a nutshell
You resorting to name calling and I'm ignorant?

Fact is if it was a heavy CGI movie studios could pay for it. Avatar and the 2005 remake of King Kong come to mind.

These movies are already heavy CGI to begin with, so adding more scenes with the Autobots/Decepticons talking, fighting, whatever isn't going to make that much of a difference in budget.

Mr.? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 05:32 PM   #710
Jager X
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,422
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.? View Post
Yes, but not as main characters. Thats my problem.



Fact is if it was a heavy CGI movie studios could pay for it. Avatar and the 2005 remake of King Kong come to mind.

These movies are already heavy CGI to begin with, so adding more scenes with the Autobots/Decepticons talking, fighting, whatever isn't going to make that much of a difference in budget.
You keep bringing up other live actions movies to prove your point but you seem to keep overlooking something. All those movies were pushing the boundaries with the cgi because humans, REAL PEOPLE, were at the center of the story King Kong is about a director and a ship crew's misadventure on an island that was inhabited by savage creatures, including a giant gorilla. Avatar was about a cripple's journey into this foreign land. You take the humans out then there is no reason at all to use actual set peices or rent out a two mile empty plane hangar to mo-cap actors moving around the set as they would in an actual jungle.

.It is crucial that the meshing of real world and cgi is as seamless as possible. Noone wants to sit through Transformer movie where Optimus looks like he was ripped from a Pixar movie. But if you nothing but robots in it, then it would be most logical to just do a cheaper full cgi film.

Jager X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 06:43 PM   #711
Mr.?
Side-Kick
 
Mr.?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,069
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jager X View Post
You keep bringing up other live actions movies to prove your point but you seem to keep overlooking something. All those movies were pushing the boundaries with the cgi because humans, REAL PEOPLE, were at the center of the story King Kong is about a director and a ship crew's misadventure on an island that was inhabited by savage creatures, including a giant gorilla. Avatar was about a cripple's journey into this foreign land. You take the humans out then there is no reason at all to use actual set peices or rent out a two mile empty plane hangar to mo-cap actors moving around the set as they would in an actual jungle.

.It is crucial that the meshing of real world and cgi is as seamless as possible. Noone wants to sit through Transformer movie where Optimus looks like he was ripped from a Pixar movie. But if you nothing but robots in it, then it would be most logical to just do a cheaper full cgi film.
The people in King Kong were not the main characters of the movie, the main character is Kong. You seem to think I'm against people being in a Transformers movie but I'm not, I'm against the whole story revolving around them. I'll say it again humans are fine as supporting characters or whatever, but having them as the main characters of the movie are pointless. The story is not about them its about Autobots vs Decepticons, that's what people want to see and that's why these movies make money. If they cut down Sam's (The humans) screen time down to a side character nobody would care and I guarantee it would sell just as well, if not better, then the previous two.

I don't get why you have this idea that if the bots had the majority of the screen time they would sacrifice live action for full CGI. They could still do the same things they are doing now but just make the humans roles smaller.

Mr.? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 07:10 PM   #712
Jake Cassidy
Side-Kick
 
Jake Cassidy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,015
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

It's just too expensive. It costs $2 million for about a minute for each robot on screen.

Jake Cassidy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 07:29 PM   #713
Mr.?
Side-Kick
 
Mr.?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,069
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake Cassidy View Post
It's just too expensive. It costs $2 million for about a minute for each robot on screen.
As expensive as Kong, Avatar, The Star Wars prequels, etc. where 90% of the movie is CGI?

There's no way that filming locations and adding the bots in during post production is as expensive as those movies.

Mr.? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 07:48 PM   #714
AVEITWITHJAMON
Cloud kicks ass
 
AVEITWITHJAMON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 35,365
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.? View Post
As expensive as Kong, Avatar, The Star Wars prequels, etc. where 90% of the movie is CGI?

There's no way that filming locations and adding the bots in during post production is as expensive as those movies.
I dont get your logic here, as all of those movies had a lot of humans in.

__________________
2018 movie ratings out of 10:

1)Avengers: Infinity War-9.5(2)A Quiet Place-9(3)Black Panther-9(4)Deadpool 2-9(5)The Shape of Water-8.5(6)Ready Player One-8(7)Solo: A Star Wars Story-8(8)Jurassic World- Fallen Kingdom-7.5(9)Tomb Raider-7(10)Pacific Rim Uprising-7
AVEITWITHJAMON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 07:50 PM   #715
Mr.?
Side-Kick
 
Mr.?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,069
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON View Post
I dont get your logic here, as all of those movies had a lot of humans in.
I know that I'm not against humans in a Transformer movie, I'm against them being the main characters.

Mr.? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 09:27 PM   #716
Jager X
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,422
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.? View Post
The people in King Kong were not the main characters of the movie, the main character is Kong. You seem to think I'm against people being in a Transformers movie but I'm not, I'm against the whole story revolving around them. I'll say it again humans are fine as supporting characters or whatever, but having them as the main characters of the movie are pointless. The story is not about them its about Autobots vs Decepticons, that's what people want to see and that's why these movies make money. If they cut down Sam's (The humans) screen time down to a side character nobody would care and I guarantee it would sell just as well, if not better, then the previous two.

I don't get why you have this idea that if the bots had the majority of the screen time they would sacrifice live action for full CGI. They could still do the same things they are doing now but just make the humans roles smaller.
Kong was not the main character, despite the movie being named after him. The main characters were the humans, the movie revolved around the humans and their response to discovering a 30ft tall gorilla.

Just because a movie is named after a character in the film does not mean that the movie should/would be revolved around that character. Tron, Aliens, Predator all revolved around the humans interacting with the title characters.

This is not a foreign concept, here. There is no, I repeat, NO LOGIC in destroying real buildings, creating real explosions, making citizens with real jobs lives' more difficult by blocking off sections of the city, etc. just to make a move where it does not revolve around humans. Happy Feet is the only reasonable way to go. That or , you know, make a full cg movie.

Jager X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 10:06 PM   #717
Mr.?
Side-Kick
 
Mr.?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,069
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jager X View Post
Kong was not the main character, despite the movie being named after him. The main characters were the humans, the movie revolved around the humans and their response to discovering a 30ft tall gorilla.

Just because a movie is named after a character in the film does not mean that the movie should/would be revolved around that character. Tron, Aliens, Predator all revolved around the humans interacting with the title characters.

This is not a foreign concept, here. There is no, I repeat, NO LOGIC in destroying real buildings, creating real explosions, making citizens with real jobs lives' more difficult by blocking off sections of the city, etc. just to make a move where it does not revolve around humans. Happy Feet is the only reasonable way to go. That or , you know, make a full cg movie.
If you honestly don't think Kong was the main character your insane, its all about him. He is first seen as just a monster, falls in loves with Ann, protects her, gets taken from his home, placed in a foreign place, and finally killed. Ann certainly isn't the main character she serves as the catalyst to show Kong is more then just a beast. The human characters stories revolve around Kong and the way he changes all their lives.

Yeah I know that, don't act like you're schooling me on movies.

Once again your talking like I'm saying no humans should be in the movie, are you even reading what I'm saying? There would still be people on set but they wouldn't be the MAIN characters of the movie. The story shouldn't revolve around Sam Whitwickey, It should revolve around the Autobots trying to take out the Decepticons and vice versa. 1st movie was them needing Sam because he had the Grandfather's glasses and both factions needed them to find the allspark, second they needed him because of the symbols he was seeing. See what I'm saying? The story is revolving around this irrelevant character.

Mr.? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2010, 01:48 AM   #718
Jager X
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,422
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Look aat the movie Aliens, for example. The movie is about a bunch a deadly creatures, but are they they main characters? No, Ripley and the marines are. The story revolves around those humans trying to survive the onslaught from the ALIENS. It doesn't make them any less important nor are their roles in the story any less critical. It is the same with King Kong and it is the same with Transformers. Just because the movie revolved around Sam - who is a relevant character - does not mean that the Transformers are not at the core of the film or that they are less important characters. We are just viewing the movie from someone else's perspective, no more no less.

Jager X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2010, 08:39 AM   #719
Marvin
Side-Kick
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 19,612
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.? View Post
That's BS, with that logic Avatar would have never been made.
avatar was as much about humans as it was about alieans.

-not only was man the "villan" he was also the "hero"
-he was also the aliean in disguise

trying to imagine a humanless avatar movie being greenlit is impossible.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.
Marvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2010, 09:01 AM   #720
AVEITWITHJAMON
Cloud kicks ass
 
AVEITWITHJAMON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 35,365
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.? View Post
I know that I'm not against humans in a Transformer movie, I'm against them being the main characters.
Humans were the main characters in Avatar, Star Wars and King Kong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jager X View Post
Kong was not the main character, despite the movie being named after him. The main characters were the humans, the movie revolved around the humans and their response to discovering a 30ft tall gorilla.
Just because a movie is named after a character in the film does not mean that the movie should/would be revolved around that character. Tron, Aliens, Predator all revolved around the humans interacting with the title characters.

This is not a foreign concept, here. There is no, I repeat, NO LOGIC in destroying real buildings, creating real explosions, making citizens with real jobs lives' more difficult by blocking off sections of the city, etc. just to make a move where it does not revolve around humans. Happy Feet is the only reasonable way to go. That or , you know, make a full cg movie.
Compared to the humans, Kong was barely in the movie, it was all about them for the majority of the movie, we see the story through their eyes, same with Avatar and Star Wars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
avatar was as much about humans as it was about alieans.

-not only was man the "villan" he was also the "hero"
-he was also the aliean in disguise

trying to imagine a humanless avatar movie being greenlit is impossible.
Exactly, Jake was in every frame of the movie, as Cameron said, and he was human.

__________________
2018 movie ratings out of 10:

1)Avengers: Infinity War-9.5(2)A Quiet Place-9(3)Black Panther-9(4)Deadpool 2-9(5)The Shape of Water-8.5(6)Ready Player One-8(7)Solo: A Star Wars Story-8(8)Jurassic World- Fallen Kingdom-7.5(9)Tomb Raider-7(10)Pacific Rim Uprising-7
AVEITWITHJAMON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2010, 09:32 AM   #721
Cth
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Concord, NC USA
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.? View Post
If you honestly don't think Kong was the main character your insane, its all about him. He is first seen as just a monster, falls in loves with Ann, protects her, gets taken from his home, placed in a foreign place, and finally killed. Ann certainly isn't the main character she serves as the catalyst to show Kong is more then just a beast. The human characters stories revolve around Kong and the way he changes all their lives.
In order to get to that point, you need to establish Ann as a character.

In the most recent version, Kong doesn't show up until 75 minutes into the film.

Regardless of whether YOU think she's a main character or not, she's the audience's window into the movie. In order for you to feel Kong's death, they manipulate audience emotions by taking a character who is terrified of Kong, who over the course of the film grows to appreciate and feel affection towards him.

Without Ann being established this way, you have giant CGI monster with interchangable cypher character meet, monkey gets loose, monkey dies.
There's no emotional payoff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.? View Post
Once again your talking like I'm saying no humans should be in the movie, are you even reading what I'm saying? There would still be people on set but they wouldn't be the MAIN characters of the movie. The story shouldn't revolve around Sam Whitwickey, It should revolve around the Autobots trying to take out the Decepticons and vice versa. 1st movie was them needing Sam because he had the Grandfather's glasses and both factions needed them to find the allspark, second they needed him because of the symbols he was seeing. See what I'm saying? The story is revolving around this irrelevant character.
Like it or not, Sam's inclusion is because of Spielberg. Without Spielberg the film wouldn't have been made to begin with.

Spielberg clearly was right, since it connected with audiences in a big way.

The story of a boy getting his first car, first love, and maturing was a window everyone could identify with.

Sure, they could have done it from the perspective of the bots originally, but the film would have been about 15 minutes long due to budgetary constraints. And no one would have financed the film, based on the previous ventures into those type films (Final Fantasy, Robot Jox, etc)

The reality of it is that they did the best they could with the money they had on an untested property.

Cth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2010, 09:55 AM   #722
Mr.?
Side-Kick
 
Mr.?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,069
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

I don't have time to sit here and respond to 600 people but I was watching the first Transformers last night. Ok look at it this way, keep the first movie as is but take out Shia/Megan Fox and give that screen time to the Autobots/Decepticons. That would be awesome imo because you would have had more screen time for the bots while having a human element still prominently there in the military. Something like that is what I'de like.

And I don't understand when people respond to me they keep saying "This movie would be stupid without people" I'm not saying it shouldn't have people I'm saying it shouldn't have a human as the main character.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cth View Post
In order to get to that point, you need to establish Ann as a character.

In the most recent version, Kong doesn't show up until 75 minutes into the film.

Regardless of whether YOU think she's a main character or not, she's the audience's window into the movie. In order for you to feel Kong's death, they manipulate audience emotions by taking a character who is terrified of Kong, who over the course of the film grows to appreciate and feel affection towards him.

Without Ann being established this way, you have giant CGI monster with interchangable cypher character meet, monkey gets loose, monkey dies.
There's no emotional payoff.
Ok so your saying exactly what I said, she's used to show Kong's more then a giant monster. Still doesn't make her the main character. You could argue that she is for the first hour, but once Kong hits its his movie from that point on (And seeing as the movie is three hours, two hours is definitely enough time for Kong's story). Without Kong the whole movie would fall apart.

Mr.? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2010, 10:27 AM   #723
chaseter
Barf
 
chaseter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 45,670
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cth View Post
In order to get to that point, you need to establish Ann as a character.

In the most recent version, Kong doesn't show up until 75 minutes into the film.

Regardless of whether YOU think she's a main character or not, she's the audience's window into the movie. In order for you to feel Kong's death, they manipulate audience emotions by taking a character who is terrified of Kong, who over the course of the film grows to appreciate and feel affection towards him.

Without Ann being established this way, you have giant CGI monster with interchangable cypher character meet, monkey gets loose, monkey dies.
There's no emotional payoff.



Like it or not, Sam's inclusion is because of Spielberg. Without Spielberg the film wouldn't have been made to begin with.

Spielberg clearly was right, since it connected with audiences in a big way.

The story of a boy getting his first car, first love, and maturing was a window everyone could identify with.

Sure, they could have done it from the perspective of the bots originally, but the film would have been about 15 minutes long due to budgetary constraints. And no one would have financed the film, based on the previous ventures into those type films (Final Fantasy, Robot Jox, etc)

The reality of it is that they did the best they could with the money they had on an untested property.
This is and probably will be the most intelligent post in here ever.

__________________
"You can leave a penny, you can't take a penny. You can leave a penny anytime. You have to spend $10 to take a penny. Store policy."
"Since when has this been store policy?"
"Uh, since my boss made up the policy. You gonna pay? You're holding up my line of one other person. You can't afford your milk, step aside. What, daddy didn't give you enough milk money? Little baby gonna cry about it? Just step aside."
And that is how Uncle Ben dies.
chaseter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2010, 12:10 PM   #724
Marvin
Side-Kick
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 19,612
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

I think that if they presented a more robot focused narrative (a relative first for holloywood) it could have been interesting if only they gave the robots/alien more developed and less like the cartoon personalities.
for example if Iron hide was really nothing but condescending to the humans he's forced to protect and in the end sacrifices himself in a full character arc moment. The problem with that is that the audience just wouldn't have been there.

that parallel human story(in the first) drew and entertained an entire audience in itself. and honestly a full on non human genre film is not what the audience is looking for.

if it weren't for the human element in both Avatar and District 9 they would have done poorly.
superhero films have it easy

I think all that needs to happen is that the robots/aliens need more developed anchored characters.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.
Marvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2010, 01:45 PM   #725
Mr.?
Side-Kick
 
Mr.?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,069
Default Re: Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
I think that if they presented a more robot focused narrative (a relative first for holloywood) it could have been interesting if only they gave the robots/alien more developed and less like the cartoon personalities.
for example if Iron hide was really nothing but condescending to the humans he's forced to protect and in the end sacrifices himself in a full character arc moment. The problem with that is that the audience just wouldn't have been there.

that parallel human story(in the first) drew and entertained an entire audience in itself. and honestly a full on non human genre film is not what the audience is looking for.

if it weren't for the human element in both Avatar and District 9 they would have done poorly.
superhero films have it easy

I think all that needs to happen is that the robots/aliens need more developed anchored characters.
Yes its annoying. Alot of the Autobots/Decepticons are kind of just....there.

Mr.? is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:34 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of Mandatory Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2018 All Rights Reserved.