Transformers How do you guys feel at this point.......

[Avangarde]

Bumblebee

 

[ShadowBoxing]

You make a valid point. Personally, I view this Transformers movie as another incarnation of the franchise, which uses G1 as it's primary template, but also takes element from the other versions.

While it does take elements like Minicons from Armada or almost techno-organic like Vehicon forms from Beast Machines, it lacks in one major area. The film isn't about the Transformers: not hardly. In fact their involvement is merely window dressing (and to an unnecessary degree) to the human driven plot and story.

Transformers, contrary to what semantics arguers at the Allspark are touting now that I brought this up, is not an "Invasion cartoon". The Transformers were never invading, ever. The story is they were trapped there while en route from their home, awoken by some volcanic eruption. It was neither their intent nor desire to come here. This is the opposite. The Aliens are the Transformers, not the humans. The Alien world is Cybertron (which like in most invasion films is never seen). The Decepticons are the ones the humans, not the Autobots, have to stand against. Same as ID4, or any other "Alien Invasion" film. Transformers is the same as E.T., while it features "vistors from other worlds" we are suppose to sympathize with the Transformers, not the humans. In fact the humans aren't suppose to have a story to sympathize with (unless they become binary bonded with Transformers).

 

[CFlash]

Bayformers should be rechristened as "Bionicles: The movie"

http://www.lego.com/eng/bionicle/productPage.aspx?family=piraka

http://www.lego.com/eng/bionicle/productPage.aspx?family=titan

http://www.lego.com/eng/bionicle/productPage.aspx?family=2005&productNumber=8755

http://www.lego.com/eng/bionicle/productPage.aspx?family=2005&productNumber=8756

I agree. The "creature-like faces" and skeletal wirey bodies seems to be the main inspiration for this movie. Not Transformers.

 

[thegameq]

I'm optimistic. I've liked what we have heard of the story. I like the designs. I'am happy that Peter Cullen is coming back, as well as possibly Frank Welker. I'm sorry, but I think that it is pretty obvious that the only way some TF fans would be happy would be if the film was a live-action renactment of the More than meets the Eye" miniseries from the cartoon, or the first four issues of the comics.

Considering that the only reason the movie is being made at all is because of the popularity with fans, is it unreasonable for fans to expect a live action version of G1? Yes,of course update the robotic look for our times without going overly anime.

Take the things that made the cartoon/comicbook so popular and translate it to the big screen. Do you believe a character driven action scifi drama with the Transformers as the main characters and the humans and earth as a backdrop would perform so poorly at the box office?

That is what made the Transformers great you know. The stories were told from the standpoint of "these" visitors who continue their war on our planet and the humans get caught in the crossfire.

Do you think the average moviegoer is to dense to comprehend such a story? Would such a story be considered to heavy for summer movie fair?

I believe that by attempting to "re-tell" the Transformers for a different generation is a huge mistake, especially if the story doesn't capitalize on what made the series so enjoyable in the first place. Studios are so afraid of losing money that they have very little faith in the source material for such films. As a result they want to change it and reshape to draw better at the box office.

Transformers if told as it is meant to be would be a great scifi story. As is, it's just another loud, forgettable summer film to be watched once and filed away under the heading "it was an ok film". A Michael Bay film in other words.

Damn....why the tendency to aim so low with these films, rather than shoot for the stars, is beyond me. If Jackson and New Line can do it with LOTR, why not other genre films?

 

[1987olds442]

From the very get go I actually never understood the point of even making a Transformers movie with live action shots... All that was going to do is limit what could have been done. Personally I would have rather them to have made a full CGI movie and have Simon Furman brought in as the main Writer... Or just take the currently IDW continuity and used that for the script But oh well...

 

[thegameq]

From the very get go I actually never understood the point of even making a Transformers movie with live action shots... All that was going to do is limit what could have been done. Personally I would have rather them to have made a full CGI movie and have Simon Furman brought in as the main Writer... Or just take the currently IDW continuity and used that for the script But oh well...

Oh my God I can't believe someone actually said it!

I believe that's one of the reason they've decided to redo the TMNT in CGI rather than live action because of the obvious limitations of live action.

Transformers in live action sounds great at first but then the implications set in. Then your gut feelings tell you, oh no, they're going to mess it up, I just know it.

I like my brothers reaction when I called him at work and told him about the Transformers movie.

"Oh my God, they're going to totally f**k Tranformers up. They're going to sh** all over my damn Transformers yo. Damn. They should just leave that sh** alone."

 

[CFlash]

From the very get go I actually never understood the point of even making a Transformers movie with live action shots... All that was going to do is limit what could have been done. Personally I would have rather them to have made a full CGI movie and have Simon Furman brought in as the main Writer... Or just take the currently IDW continuity and used that for the script But oh well...

I'm not sure I agree there. I've always thought a live-action TF movie- done properly- could be a very good sci-fi instant classic (think Terminator).

As much as I'm looking forward to the animated TMNT (and I'm looking forward to it right now more than Transformers), I thought the 1988 live action was pretty good... some faults notwithstanding.

This movie, on the other hand, went downhill as soon as Michael Bay was picked as director IMO. It could have been a classic... now it's shaping up to be forgettable popcorn fluff.

 

[CFlash]

Considering that the only reason the movie is being made at all is because of the popularity with fans, is it unreasonable for fans to expect a live action version of G1? Yes,of course update the robotic look for our times without going overly anime.

Take the things that made the cartoon/comicbook so popular and translate it to the big screen. Do you believe a character driven action scifi drama with the Transformers as the main characters and the humans and earth as a backdrop would perform so poorly at the box office?

That is what made the Transformers great you know. The stories were told from the standpoint of "these" visitors who continue their war on our planet and the humans get caught in the crossfire.

Do you think the average moviegoer is to dense to comprehend such a story? Would such a story be considered to heavy for summer movie fair?

I believe that by attempting to "re-tell" the Transformers for a different generation is a huge mistake, especially if the story doesn't capitalize on what made the series so enjoyable in the first place. Studios are so afraid of losing money that they have very little faith in the source material for such films. As a result they want to change it and reshape to draw better at the box office.

Transformers if told as it is meant to be would be a great scifi story. As is, it's just another loud, forgettable summer film to be watched once and filed away under the heading "it was an ok film". A Michael Bay film in other words.

Damn....why the tendency to aim so low with these films, rather than shoot for the stars, is beyond me. If Jackson and New Line can do it with LOTR, why not other genre films?

What I can't understand is how some filmmakers keep getting work. Michael Bay is consisently derided by almost every insider, critic, and movie buff as the WORST that Hollywood has to offer. Don Murphy hasn't had a super-successful movie EVER... and indeed is credited with destroying what might otherwise have been great movies (Natural Born Killers, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell).

Sadly, the goal of many filmmakers and producers isn't to "be good" or even to make "break-records" movies like Spider-man or Pirates of the Caribbean. It's too make some return on your investment. It's safer to aim at the %10 profit margin than to aim for the $1 Billion Pirates stratosphere.

Why should they gamble? Just make "safe" movies for the masses that make their money back with maybe 10% on top. When you gamble you MIGHT get Spider-man... but you might also get Superman Returns instead (which I loved... but apparently a lot of people didn't). When you play it SAFE you get Fantastic Four... and all financiers are happy.

 

[thegameq]

What I can't understand is how some filmmakers keep getting work. Michael Bay is consisently derided by almost every insider, critic, and movie buff as the WORST that Hollywood has to offer. Don Murphy hasn't had a super-successful movie EVER... and indeed is credited with destroying what might otherwise have been great movies (Natural Born Killers, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell).

Sadly, the goal of many filmmakers and producers isn't to "be good" or even to make "break-records" movies like Spider-man or Pirates of the Caribbean. It's too make some return on your investment. It's safer to aim at the %10 profit margin than to aim for the $1 Billion Pirates stratosphere.

Why should they gamble? Just make "safe" movies for the masses that make their money back with maybe 10% on top. When you gamble you MIGHT get Spider-man... but you might also get Superman Returns instead (which I loved... but apparently a lot of people didn't). When you play it SAFE you get Fantastic Four... and all financiers are happy.

Sadly, your post pretty much sums it up.

All the more reason why I believe films like the LOTR trilogy and the SM trilogy are flukes that happen every once in a while. Worst, is how long we have to wait for the next fluke to come along.

CFlash, I have yet to risk seeing SR. My friends tell me it's not bad--it's just not what they wanted. It's basically another film where Singer did his own personal thing and said to hell with everyone else.

I already know it's not the Superman equivalent of Spider-man, but what's your take? I didn't think I would like Batman Begins, but it was a pretty good movie, not what I wanted, again, but it was done so well it was hard to totally dislike. Is it the same with SR?

 

[CFlash]

Sadly, your post pretty much sums it up.

All the more reason why I believe films like the LOTR trilogy and the SM trilogy are flukes that happen every once in a while. Worst, is how long we have to wait for the next fluke to come along.

CFlash, I have yet to risk seeing SR. My friends tell me it's not bad--it's just not what they wanted. It's basically another film where Singer did his own personal thing and said to hell with everyone else.

I already know it's not the Superman equivalent of Spider-man, but what's your take? I didn't think I would like Batman Begins, but it was a pretty good movie, not what I wanted, again, but it was done so well it was hard to totally dislike. Is it the same with SR?

I would agree with your friends. I appreciate Singers take on SR... and it's a very well made movie. On IMAX, it was downright breathtaking. It's a GOOD movie. Unfortunately, the parts that make it amazing- the action sequences- are few and far between.

I don't mind that a director has a different vision... as long as it's a well-made movie. For instance, Batman Begins: I would have preferred to finally see a real "detective noir" version of Batman (something like Sin City), but the cast was superb and the director made a brilliant movie.

What hurts are movies like Fantastic Four. The script was good.... the cast was pretty much perfect ('cept for maybe Alba who seemed a bit miscast).... but the movie had this "cheap" crappy director vibe. Directors and producers ruin what might otherwise be great movies. In the end Fantastic Four is forgettable. Not bad... but forgettable. I get the same feeling about Transformers right now.

 

[Avangarde]

Oh my God I can't believe someone actually said it!

I believe that's one of the reason they've decided to redo the TMNT in CGI rather than live action because of the obvious limitations of live action.

Transformers in live action sounds great at first but then the implications set in. Then your gut feelings tell you, oh no, they're going to mess it up, I just know it.

I like my brothers reaction when I called him at work and told him about the Transformers movie.

"Oh my God, they're going to totally f**k Tranformers up. They're going to sh** all over my damn Transformers yo. Damn. They should just leave that sh** alone."

A great example of this is Final Fantasy VII Advent Children, would have never worked as a live action (even if the Japanese made it), but done in CG its bloody fantasic. I don't care how Matrix like they would have made it, it still wouldn't have been as visually appealing IMO.

 

[Arcturus]

I have a simple, honest queston;

To all those that have low hopes for the film, do you think it's going to be a failure when it hits the theatres? I mean, you folks seem pretty sure as of right now, without seeing the film that it's a done deal that it's over.

Just remember, this is an honest queston and I mean no offense or whatnot.

 

[Avangarde]

I have a simple, honest queston;

To all those that have low hopes for the film, do you think it's going to be a failure when it hits the theatres? I mean, you folks seem pretty sure as of right now, without seeing the film that it's a done deal that it's over.

Just remember, this is an honest queston and I mean no offense or whatnot.

Sure it will do great in the box office, its just that there are going to be a few pissed fan boys thats all. I am a TF fan, but I am still looking forward to this movie, I will only form a propper opinion once I have seen it. Hopefully the new trailer might reveal something ground breaking to quiet some of the Bay Bashers.

 

[xwolverine2]

Hopefully the new trailer might reveal something ground breaking to quiet some of the Bay Bashers.

i seriously doubt that it wont

 

[Avangarde]

i seriously doubt that it wont

Wishful thinking

 

[xwolverine2]

do u seriously think there wont be anything cool coming from bay/spielberg/(/jablonsky)?

 

[Avangarde]

do u seriously think there wont be anything cool coming from bay/spielberg/(/jablonsky)?

Okay you've lost me, what were we talking about? Perhaps I missunderstood your previous comment, I thought you were implying that nothing good will come of this trailer.

 

[CFlash]

I have a simple, honest queston;

To all those that have low hopes for the film, do you think it's going to be a failure when it hits the theatres? I mean, you folks seem pretty sure as of right now, without seeing the film that it's a done deal that it's over.

Just remember, this is an honest queston and I mean no offense or whatnot.

I guess it depends on how you define "failure." Michael Bay's last effort, The Island, made its money back but it was considered by many to be a failure. Same goes for Superman Returns (due largely to the huge budget).

There's a reason Transformers was budgeted at $125 Million and not $200+ Million. It would have to be an all out and out Howard The Duck flop for it to not make its money back. I suspect Transformers will do "well" but definately not in Spider-man or Pirates of the Caribbean territory.

 

[Spark]

It was $150 million at the last count but they said it could go up (pre-filiming IIRC).

Plus The Island didn't make its money back at the BO. At least not as far as I can tell. More like sixty odd percent of its production costs if I'm reading those figures correctly.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=island05.htm

Although Transformers has way more to offer than that movie regardless of my opinion on Bay, which is both good and bad.

 

[V3n()M]

I am disappointed both at the designs and at the choice of director. Michael Bay is a great director but it just seems that with films like these you need a person who is both knowledgeable and passionate about the story and characters. He doesn't appear to be either, for him i think it's about money and little else which means the film will offer very little for story and even less for fans. I mean would you have a auto tech come over and work on your computer same thing here why have someone who knows nothing about Transformers try to deliver a transformer film just poor thought process.

 

[CFlash]

It was $150 million at the last count but they said it could go up (pre-filiming IIRC).

Plus The Island didn't make its money back at the BO. At least not as far as I can tell. More like sixty odd percent of its production costs if I'm reading those figures correctly.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=island05.htm

Although Transformers has way more to offer than that movie regardless of my opinion on Bay, which is both good and bad.

Throw in foreign gross.
Though you're right... Domestic is usually considered the "bellwether" and if you only count that it was a total flop.

 

[Spark]

Oh yeah, but if you want to be really anal, the cinema keeps half of that cash anyway so the studio only made $80 million worldwide. I don't know if it's just an anomaly, people have got sick of Bay, or the film itself wasn't Baytastic enough.

 

[CFlash]

Oh yeah, but if you want to be really anal, the cinema keeps half of that cash anyway so the studio only made $80 million worldwide. I don't know if it's just an anomaly, people have got sick of Bay, or the film itself wasn't Baytastic enough.

I have a feeling (wish?) that audiences have wisened up and got tired of that 90's craptastic sort of movie. The last one I remember seeing was Day after Tomorrow... and even that one wasn't half bad. The likes of Sam Raimi, Verbinsky, and Michael Mann have shown how you can make a blockbuster that is actually artistically good. Even newbies like JJ Abrams are taking more cues from Spielberg, Cameron, and Scott than Bay and Emmerich (thank god).

 

[Headless Knight]

I have a feeling (wish?) that audiences have wisened up and got tired of that 90's craptastic sort of movie. The last one I remember seeing was Day after Tomorrow... and even that one wasn't half bad. The likes of Sam Raimi, Verbinsky, and Michael Mann have shown how you can make a blockbuster that is actually artistically good. Even newbies like JJ Abrams are taking more cues from Spielberg, Cameron, and Scott than Bay and Emmerich (thank god).

They should take some cues from Bong Joon-ho. THE HOST is the best action movie I've seen this year by a mile. Probably the best monster movie I've seen in my life.

 

[Super78]

Personally, I really think 2007's Transformers will be what Godzilla was in 1998.

That is, it will be super-hyped and then SMACK! It will die a very fast death at the box office.

Point is, it seems the robots are not the main characters of the film, and the story is not told from their point of view (which is that IT SHOULD BE).

And then there are the designs. The only design I sort of liked was Prime -- and even THAT one was a bit over the top.

The rest of the designs (come on, TF fans, let's not kid ourselves) LOOK LIKE SH*IT!

Some have vagina mouths, some don't even have mouths.

Megatron, so far, looks like Predator, etc.

Why couldn't they take the original G1 designs as a 'template' and then UPDATE the look without making them look too drastic.

I bet you, when we first see Megatron (and we don't hear his voice, unless Welker's providing it), we won't know who the hell he is.

Thing is, you don't screw up with the Spidey costume or the Superman costume -- they BOTH were simply updated for the screen -- that was what the Transformers needed.

This movie, sorry folks, will be a bust at the BO.