Dark of the Moon Michael Bay has killed Transformers for me

[MessiahDecoy123]

Who said that the Transformer writers and artist had the same toy-selling goals as the Hasbro executives? Did the artist and writers have a clause in their contract that said they only could care about selling toys?

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Yeah if you're going to knock Transformers for being an over-glorified toy commercial you have to knock Star Wars too.

Well, Star Wars didnt start out as a toyline.

 

[chaseter]

Dude, what are you talking about??
When did I admit Hasbro was involved in the creative process??
I never said they were or werent.

You said that Hasbro wanted the tank to be named Brawl in the first movie. That right there shows that Hasbro has involvement. You think they just went away for the second movie?

I said, Bay didnt care much for what Hasbro wanted as evident by his refusing a character name Hasbro wanted.

At the end of the day Hasbro owns the license to all of these characters and they can say no if Michael Bay turns Optimus into a cross dressing fembot with a fondness for flag poles. Just like Sony owns Spider-Man, they still have Marvel execs who oversee production. Do you know who Avi Arad is? Do you know what he did to Spider-Man 3? He didn't work for Sony, he worked for Marvel. Yet he was one of the producers of Spider-Man 3 and caused the insertion of Venom. There is an Avi Arad that works for Hasbro that oversees production of the movie.

Now I know your having trouble reading, but you cant see with your own eyes either??
Heres the link again.
http://www.tfu.info/2010/Decepticon/WMConstructiconDevastator/devastator.htm
Each part of that toy does indeed transform into its individual robots.

No I saw it and that is a really crappy toy. They wanted it to where each part was it's own figure that could be sold separately. It could be a vehicle and then a robot. You buy all of them and you can make Devastator. They couldn't do it. Here, read this if you don't think Hasbro works with the production designing each robot to be able to make a toy:
http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=16429930&postcount=3561

Like I said, story wise his parts were in 2 places at the same time, but they werent in the same scene.
So, your argument fails again.
Care to try again.

They were parked in a quarry. They then became Devastator. They were then destroyed by the rail gun. While the parts of Devastator were fighting the autobots over Sam, the Twins were fighting Devastator. It was occurring at the same time. It isn't bad editing. It was done on purpose.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Well, Star Wars didnt start out as a toyline.

But Lucas was planning to sell toys before the movie was released. Meaning he knew he could make a killing from selling toys before Star Wars was even released. Star Wars was a toy commercial too.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

You said that Hasbro wanted the tank to be named Brawl in the first movie. That right there shows that Hasbro has involvement.

No, that shows that Hasbro wanted involvement.

Now, remind me, what was the name used on the tank in the first film.....was it Brawl.

No it wasnt.

You think they just went away for the second movie?

I still dont swee why your bring it up.

I never made any mention to Hasbros involvement or lack of.

At the end of the day Hasbro owns the license to all of these characters and they can say no if Michael Bay turns Optimus into a cross dressing fembot with a fondness for flag poles. Just like Sony owns Spider-Man, they still have Marvel execs who oversee production. Do you know who Avi Arad is? Do you know what he did to Spider-Man 3? He didn't work for Sony, he worked for Marvel. Yet he was one of the producers of Spider-Man 3 and caused the insertion of Venom. There is an Avi Arad that works for Hasbro that oversees production of the movie.

All irrelevant to the debate.

By the way, your wrong.

Sony does not own the character of Spiderman, what they own is the current rights to make Spiderman movies.

Avi Arad also produced the first 2 Spidy films, all thew X-men films, Blade,Ironman 2.

He's had his share of sucsses and failure.

No I saw it and that is a really crappy toy.

Its irrelevant that you think its a crappy toy.

You first claimed that Hasbro did not make a Devastator toy for the film that could break down too individual bots.

YOU WERE WRONG

You then claimed that the toy I linked did not break down too individual bots.

AGAIN...YOU WERE WRONG

You then claimed Hasbro wasnt capable of making a Devastator toy for the film that could break down too individual bots.

And a 3rd time

YOU WERE WRONG.

They wanted it to where each part was it's own figure that could be sold separately. It could be a vehicle and then a robot. You buy all of them and you can make Devastator.

Which is exactly what the toy I linked to you is.

It can be a vehicle and then a robot and then combine with the others to form the bigger bot.

Althou it was sold as a SET,Each toy "could" be sold separately

They couldn't do it.

They did do it, and I already proved it.

Here, read this if you don't think Hasbro works with the production designing each robot to be able to make a toy:
http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=16429930&postcount=3561

Again ,irrelevant to the debate since I never said Hasbro had no input.

BTW, the link you provided is not a valid source.

So why post it.

They were parked in a quarry. They then became Devastator. They were then destroyed by the rail gun. While the parts of Devastator were fighting the autobots over Sam, the Twins were fighting Devastator. It was occurring at the same time. It isn't bad editing. It was done on purpose.

Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

Happening at the same time...YES.

Was it the same scene............NO.

And if you read the pre-production script you would know it was bad editing.

Those scenes werent supposed to happen at the same time.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

But Lucas was planning to sell toys before the movie was released. Meaning he knew he could make a killing from selling toys before Star Wars was even released. Star Wars was a toy commercial too.

No, he was "HOPING" to make a killing with the toys.He has said as much.

I repeat, Star Wars didnt start out as a toy.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

No, he was "HOPING" to make a killing with the toys.He has said as much.

I repeat, Star Wars didnt start out as a toy.

Planning to use a series as a launching pad for toys and using a series to sell an established toy line is pretty much the same thing.

Artistically they're identical marketing ploys.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Planning to use a series as a launching pad for toys and using a series to sell an established toy line is pretty much the same thing.

Artistically they're identical marketing ploys.

Hardly.

His original plan was to make one film, hoping it would be popular enough to make more in the series.

The idea to sell toys was almost an "after thought".It was a means to create capital to make the films.

It wasnt part of his original plan what swo ever.

 

[chaseter]

hahahaha

TYPING IN LARGE FONT MAKES ME RIGHT!!!

 

[chaseter]

Hardly.

His original plan was to make one film, hoping it would be popular enough to make more in the series.

The idea to sell toys was almost an "after thought".It was a means to create capital to make the films.

It wasnt part of his original plan what swo ever.

Prove it.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

hahahaha

TYPING IN LARGE FONT MAKES ME RIGHT!!!

No, the facts I posted make me right, so far just about everything you have said was incorrect.

Prove it.

Dont need to.Lucas has said it himself several times over the years.

He's commented on how when he made the deal with 2oth century Fox to make Star Wars, the studio was shocked to learn that he was not asking for a lot of money. Instead, Lucas wanted total control. He wanted to have the right to the final cut of the film, 40% of the net box-office gross, all rights to future sequels and ownership of all the merchandising rights associated with Star Wars so that he could negotiate all deals for merchandise, of what ever nature, to grow capital for future films.

In the 1970's, science fiction films were not very profitable, the idea of a toy line wasnt on anyone minds.. Hence, Fox thought they were ripping Lucas off. Sequel and merchandise rights to science fiction films were worthless at the time. In the end, this deal would eventually make Lucas a multi billionaire and cost Fox an untold fortune in lost revenues.

Lucas has spoken as to how he wanted control over Star Wars in order to keep the movie studio from ruining Star Wars and any future films based on it, not because Lucas was trying to make the best movie deal in Hollywood history.

 

[chaseter]

Sorry that doesn't count. You are wrong.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Sorry that doesn't count. You are wrong.

Like I said, theres no need to prove it.

Anyone whos a big fan of the man knows.

So, try again if you like, so far your nothing but fail.

 

[chaseter]

Nice proof. You totally made everyone change their mind on the issue.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Nice proof. You totally made everyone change their mind on the issue.

You really have reading comprehension skills problems dont you?

 

[chaseter]

I mean I wasn't for sure but when you said everyone knows and that there was no need to provide evidence, I totally realized that you were right.

You see how I just showcased your hypocrisy in this thread? You don't take my word but you expect everyone take your's? Hilarity. If you don't believe me I don't care, but I rofl at the fact that you throw your weight around here like it means something. Everyone believe sto_vo_kor 2000...dude is legit.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I mean I wasn't for sure but when you said everyone knows and that there was no need to provide evidence, I totally realized that you were right.

You see how I just showcased your hypocrisy in this thread? You don't take my word but you expect everyone take your's? Hilarity. If you don't believe me I don't care, but I rofl at the fact that you throw your weight around here like it means something. Everyone believe sto_vo_kor 2000...dude is legit.

Right...

I never asked anyone to take my word.

I wasnt trying to debate an issue.I reported a well known fact.

As to why I didnt feel the need to provide proof, it was because I provided you proof on the Movie Devestator toy and you dismissed it with out even looking at the link I provided.

If you had looked at it you would have seen that the toy did indeed break down to smaller bots and vehicles.

But if you want proof on the Lucas issue, here He is talking about some of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mztK3s63_OM

 

[Hotwire]

True , story wise his parts and the whole were in 2 different places at the same time but thats not the same scene.

That was poor editing on Bays behalf not Hasbro's doing.

A common occurrence in the G1 cartoon. Just saying.

 

[Avengers-Report]

What are we arguing about? I am too lazy to read all of that non-sense haha.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

A common occurrence in the G1 cartoon. Just saying.

Very true.

What are we arguing about? I am too lazy to read all of that non-sense haha.

It boils down to comments like "what do you expect, its based on a toy" and me and others saying thats a very weak position and argument to make.

 

[Avangarde]

What are we arguing about? I am too lazy to read all of that non-sense haha.

Something something Dark Side, something something Han Solo

 

[Marvin]

still eh.

The original G1 was a saturday morning cartoon, those almost by definition were made to stimulate toy and cereal sales and all but a few were anything more than simple stories. The original Transformer movie was a glorified toy commercial with fans not seasoned enough to call the creators on their bs. Along comes 2007 and we all see it for what it really it. Some accept it some hate themselves for it, the rest hate the producers.

Next people are going to be going on about how Bay turned Ninja Turtles from henry the 8th to party of 5 with fart jokes. And speaking of that. The late (truly)great Beast Wars had solid forward movie plot and characters and righteous ideas but it also had it's share of mindless humor and FART JOKES.
Transformers 2007...forward moving simple story, characters, and fart jokes...

The idea of a jive talking autobot was around long before 2006, it was only hated after 2007.

Someone said Toy story was an amazing story? Please, pixar makes solid films but their not writing shakespere over there (compare a bugs life to kurasawa), it's simple cause and effect material with an overdose of sentimentility. Moreover how ridiculous to suggest that toy story was toy line before the films came out. Paramount had to deal with the cretive officers of the robots in disguise toy line they wanted to adapt, very much in the same way WB had to deal with the wizard "line" JK Rowling has with harry potter Or summit with twilight vampires/warewolves. Toy story just has toys, which is a lot more comparable to the simple concepts of wizards. Obvious really.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Correction...

Transformers 2007...forward moving simple story, 1 character, and fart jokes...

Someone said Toy story was an amazing story?

I believe I said "Great" not amazing.

Moreover how ridiculous to suggest that toy story was toy line before the films came out.

No one suggested that at all.

The only thing suggested was that the movie was based on toys.

 

[Marvin]

actually TINO has about traditional 3 characters and a few more supporting, but it different when one uses fanboy vision.

Well as along as the disadvantages of toylines are stated, all is as it should be.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

actually TINO has about traditional 3 characters and a few more supporting, but it different when one uses fanboy vision.

Its really got nothing to do with "fan boy" vision.

Lack of characters/characterizations is quite common in Bay films.

And it was an issue in the first TF film.

Well as along as the disadvantages of toylines are stated, all is as it should be.

I'm not sure what you mean.