Dark of the Moon Michael Bay has killed Transformers for me

[roach]

we won't know that until we see a multi-million dollar G1 version.

which will probably not happen since these are highly sucessful

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

G1-based designs would have looked fine after the $200 million spit shine.

looking fine...maybe, but not very realistic, particularly considering what their origins are in this universe.

The Rock had pretty good characters.

No it really didnt.

What it had was a couple of great actors that did their best to maske something out of nothing.

Same with the Bad Boys films.

and I think G1 robots looked alien enough,

Right, ears, eyes that blinked, mouths that were slits in metal, most hands had fingers

Your letting your nostalgia for the old over ride common sence and logic.

any man-made appearance was related to their alt-forms which were based on human vehicles/machines.

wrong, the man made apparance was heavy in their robot modes.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

we won't know that until we see a multi-million dollar G1 version.

I think its pretty obvious a full G1 adaptation wouldnt work out that great.

Just look at all the recent G1 IDW, comics.

Yes, heavily based/influenced by G1, but the designs are far more detailed and intricate.

 

[roach]

i look at the movies as another iteration of Transformers...just like Armada and Beast Wars

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

i look at the movies as another iteration of Transformers...just like Armada and Beast Wars

Thats the best way to look at it because thats what it is.

The films still werent great anyway.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

looking fine...maybe, but not very realistic, particularly considering what their origins are in this universe.

The bionicle look isn't very realistic either. Most of the time the robot-form doesn't have enogh "skin" to cover the entire alt-mode.

No it really didnt.

What it had was a couple of great actors that did their best to maske something out of nothing.

Ed Harris and Sean Connery had great characters in the Rock.

Right, ears, eyes that blinked, mouths that were slits in metal, most hands had fingers

Your letting your nostalgia for the old over ride common sence and logic.

but Bay's transformers have mouths and fingers.

If nostalgia is overriding my common sense what's overriding yours?

wrong, the man made apparance was heavy in their robot modes.

yeah and the robots looked man-made because their alt-forms were based on man-made vehicles. Which makes sense.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think its pretty obvious a full G1 adaptation wouldnt work out that great.

Just look at all the recent G1 IDW, comics.

Yes, heavily based/influenced by G1, but the designs are far more detailed and intricate.

You can't tell how major studio CGI would look from a random comic book drawing.

 

[nogap87]

Just look at all the recent G1 IDW, comics.

Yes, heavily based/influenced by G1, but the designs are far more detailed and intricate.

That's pretty much what I was referring to when I said G1-BASED.

I don't want to see a Transformers movie where Prime's back wheels magically disappears when in robot mode.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

which will probably not happen since these are highly sucessful

Spider-man 3 made more than any Bayformer movie worldwide.

Yet we'll see Spider-man reboot in 2012.

anything's possible.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

The bionicle look isn't very realistic either. Most of the time the robot-form doesn't have enogh "skin" to cover the entire alt-mode.

Its more "in tuned" with what they are, alien life forms.

Ed Harris and Sean Connery had great characters in the Rock.

I repeat, the film had was a couple of great actors that did their best to make something out of nothing.

but Bay's transformers have mouths and fingers.

not all of them, and they werent very "humanoid type".

If nostalgia is overriding my common sense what's overriding yours?

Sorry, but you havent even come close to questioning my common sence on this issue.

yeah and the robots looked man-made because their alt-forms were based on man-made vehicles. Which makes sense.

Sorry, they looked man made even on Cybertron before they came to earth.

Ribbits, welded parts, nut's and bolts.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Spider-man 3 made more than any Bayformer movie worldwide.

Yet we'll see Spider-man reboot in 2012.


anything's possible.

Were not getting a Spiderman reboot because the studio or fans think S3 sucked

You can't tell how major studio CGI would look from a random comic book drawing.

You can tell what the audiance is going to gravitate too by drawings.

Further more, plenty of CGI renderings were made useing G1 designs, even by the pro's.

They werent very well recieved by general audiences.

 

[nogap87]

Would love to see those renders. I've only seen an early Megatron.

 

[Marvin]

G1-based designs would have looked fine after the $200 million spit shine.

looking at the bay films, I'd say this statement already applies.

G1 designs have long been derivative of an 80's drawn for animation character design. Their faces have always been the biggest sign of this to me. All the comics and future cartoons based on that work have suffered and been hindered by that circumstance. Even when beast wars and especially when beast machines featured the g1 characters this became evident moreso than ever.

Now if a show like beastwars can come along with its computer models that don't have to be penciled 24 times a second, and convey characters that look more intricate, interesting and functional than drawn for classical animation g1 derivatives I don't see why Bay and ILM would waste their time hindering the look of their live action films by catering to the needs of the few for the sake of nostalgia

[YT]PmeM4N2eHhY[/YT]

What it had was a couple of great actors that did their best to maske something out of nothing.

All bay has ever done is make something out of nothing. I'm sure ten out of ten other directors could make the scripts he's shot as successful as he has.

You say bay films don't have "characters," which is a discussion in itself, but the question that spawns is why should they? Bay has never set out to make a Malick film let alone a character study. Why is he the one director that is questioned for not infusing his buddy cop flicks with character study and so on and so fourth? ( My theory is because they are so successful)

As far as substance, unlike the bad boys script the script for the rock had plenty, by way of patriotism, family ties, post war integration..etc and by some unseen miracle, bay somehow kept them in the film.

success is a measure of intent.

If bay wanted to make TF a character study he would/could, I think he's far more interested in entertaining his audience.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Would love to see those renders. I've only seen an early Megatron.

I guess you could try google.

They were pretty easy to find in 05 and 06 on TF fan sites.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

All bay has ever done is make something out of nothing. I'm sure ten out of ten other directors could make the scripts he's shot as successful as he has.

Bay knows how to make a flashy noise film.

Hes not a story teller.

You say bay films don't have "characters," which is a discussion in itself,

One which we already had.

but the question that spawns is why should they? Bay has never set out to make a Malick film let alone a character study.

You tried the same argument and failed last time.

Why try it again??

As far as substance, unlike the bad boys script the script for the rock had plenty, by way of patriotism, family ties, post war integration..etc and by some unseen miracle, bay somehow kept them in the film.

Yes, a miracle he didnt completely remove all the substance from that film.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Its more "in tuned" with what they are, alien life forms.

Bayformers look busier. That is the only "alien" thing about them. You could have the same effect from adding more detail to G1 designs.

I repeat, the film had was a couple of great actors that did their best to make something out of nothing.

Sorry but even great actors can't do anything with a bad character.

not all of them, and they werent very "humanoid type".

Yes almost all of Bay's Transformers had fingers and mouths.

Sorry, but you havent even come close to questioning my common sence on this issue.

Sorry but that is your very biased opinion.

Sorry, they looked man made even on Cybertron before they came to earth.

Ribbits, welded parts, nut's and bolts.

They looked the same to make them recognizable.

1) Aliens don't have to look alien. Look at Superman.

2) The cybertronian forms need to look alien if anything, not their Earth based models which should look man-made

3) Machines are all based on mathematic principles which are universal. There are bound to be similarities.

4) Transformers are built. They don't need to look organic. Not at all.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Were not getting a Spiderman reboot because the studio or fans think S3 sucked

The studio doesn't care about fans. They were ready to go forward with SM4 but they didn't like the direction it was going so they started over.

You can tell what the audiance is going to gravitate too by drawings.

Further more, plenty of CGI renderings were made useing G1 designs, even by the pro's.

They werent very well recieved by general audiences.

What is your source for this info?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

All bay has ever done is make something out of nothing. I'm sure ten out of ten other directors could make the scripts he's shot as successful as he has.

You say bay films don't have "characters," which is a discussion in itself, but the question that spawns is why should they? Bay has never set out to make a Malick film let alone a character study. Why is he the one director that is questioned for not infusing his buddy cop flicks with character study and so on and so fourth? ( My theory is because they are so successful)

As far as substance, unlike the bad boys script the script for the rock had plenty, by way of patriotism, family ties, post war integration..etc and by some unseen miracle, bay somehow kept them in the film.

success is a measure of intent.

If bay wanted to make TF a character study he would/could, I think he's far more interested in entertaining his audience.

Star Wars OT is not a character study but it still has great characters who improve the story-driven action.

 

[Chris B]

we won't know that until we see a multi-million dollar G1 version.

Honestly, I'd be willing to bet that any future TF reboot will be the same deal as with the Bays films; with whomever directing taking the basic story and characters and putting his own spin on the mythos.

 

[Marvin]

Bay knows how to make a flashy noise film.
Hes not a story teller.

no, he's a film director
(and you know where I'm going with this one)

One which we already had.

indeed

You tried the same argument and failed last time.
Why try it again??

you answered your own question,
however, I won't give up on you, you might just get it yet.

Yes, a miracle he didnt completely remove all the substance from that film.

like he did with badboys right.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Honestly, I'd be willing to bet that any future TF reboot will be the same deal as with the Bays films; with whomever directing taking the basic story and characters and putting his own spin on the mythos.

It depends on who's in charge at the time, what writers they get and how much the director likes/dislikes the source material.

So, like I said, anything is possible.

 

[nogap87]

Now if a show like beastwars can come along with its computer models that don't have to be penciled 24 times a second, and convey characters that look more intricate, interesting and functional than drawn for classical animation g1 derivatives I don't see why Bay and ILM would waste their time hindering the look of their live action films by catering to the needs of the few for the sake of nostalgia

I thought the look of the movie was already hindered when it had to cater to GMC in order to offset cost.

I guess you could try google.

They were pretty easy to find in 05 and 06 on TF fan sites.

Bah. I would just wind up sifting through a bunch of fan art.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Bayformers look busier. That is the only "alien" thing about them.

Your in denial.

The "bug like" faces, the claws for hands on many, they are far more alien looking then their G1 counterparts.

You could have the same effect from adding more detail to G1 designs.

"could" being the key word.But I dont find it likely.They put a lot more detail into the few G1 characters we saw in Beast Wars.

And as great as they looked, they still didnt look like alien organic robots.

Sorry but even great actors can't do anything with a bad character.

Complete and total BS.

Even Mike Myers show us that with his "good actor" bit in one of the Wayne's World films.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yluZgzkA8MM
time frame 01;05

A good actor can and always make a difference

Yes almost all of Bay's Transformers had fingers and mouths.

No, not most.

Your only thinking of the main characters, there were far many other TF's in the film.

Sorry but that is your very biased opinion.

No its not, you havent sited one example of anything in my argument that isint correct.

They looked the same to make them recognizable.

Wrong.

They looked the same because there wasnt enough money in the budget to afford making 26 new character models.

1) Aliens don't have to look alien. Look at Superman.

Very poor example.

Alien,, he may be, but Superman was intended to loook like the every day man

2) The cybertronian forms need to look alien if anything, not their Earth based models which should look man-made

Their robot mode, on Cybertron or Earth, should look alien

Transformers are living, reproducing alien robots.

They needed to look the part

3) Machines are all based on mathematic principles which are universal. There are bound to be similarities.

Only applicable if these were machines that were made by others.

TF's are born and grow like any other biological life form.

4) Transformers are built. They don't need to look organic. Not at all.

These TF's arent built, they are born

And for that mater, only TF's from the G1 toon series were all built.

The G1 comic has a different take on it.

They were ready to go forward with SM4 but they didn't like the direction it was going so they started over.

No, the director backed out, forcing them to start over.

What is your source for this info?

Its called memory.

Plenty of leaked cgi rendering were released the few years leading up to the first films production.

Most werent very well received by the fandom, and even less liked by general audiences.

no, he's a film director
(and you know where I'm going with this one)

Film directors are also supposed to be story tellers.

you answered your own question,
however, I won't give up on you, you might just get it yet.

Sorry if this sounds rude, but you failed last time because the argument had as little substance as Bays films have, in general.

like he did with badboys right.

That film had no substasnce, whatb it had was 2 over the top actors that made the film enjoyable.

Bah. I would just wind up sifting through a bunch of fan art.

You might, after so many years, I no longer have any links.

sorry

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Your in denial.

The "bug like" faces, the claws for hands on many, they are far more alien looking then their G1 counterparts.

Bug faces and claws don't make them alien. Bugs and animals with claws are Earth based. You're just making them more like insects and clawed animals.

"could" being the key word.But I dont find it likely.They put a lot more detail into the few G1 characters we saw in Beast Wars.

And as great as they looked, they still didnt look like alien organic robots.

I don't think robots need to look organic.

Complete and total BS.

Even Mike Myers show us that with his "good actor" bit in one of the Wayne's World films.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yluZgzkA8MM
time frame 01;05

A good actor can and always make a difference

That's how you prove actors can fix any bad character? A Waynes World cllip?

No, not most.

Your only thinking of the main characters, there were far many other TF's in the film.

You forgot the original point.

It was that Bay's Transformers were more alien because they didn't have fingers and mouths. That point has already been disproven since many of them do have fingers and mouths.

No its not, you havent sited one example of anything in my argument that isint correct.

again that is your biased opinion and no matter how many times you repeat it, it will remain a biased opinion.

Wrong.

They looked the same because there wasnt enough money in the budget to afford making 26 new character models.

Making a different cartoon drawing doesn't require much of an increase in budget.

Very poor example.

Alien,, he may be, but Superman was intended to loook like the every day man

and Transformers were intended to have a man-made appearance so they could blend in with Earth based technology.

Transformers are living, reproducing alien robots.

They don't have to be.

Only applicable if these were machines that were made by others.

TF's are born and grow like any other biological life form.

I happen to prefer Transformers as built robots bestowed with life. It forces one to question what life actually is.

These TF's arent built, they are born

And for that mater, only TF's from the G1 toon series were all built.

The G1 comic has a different take on it.

read above.

No, the director backed out, forcing them to start over.

We don't know if Raimi was fired or quit.

Its called memory.

Plenty of leaked cgi rendering were released the few years leading up to the first films production.

Most werent very well received by the fandom, and even less liked by general audiences.

well excuse me if I don't believe everything I read.

 

[Marvin]

Film directors are also supposed to be story tellers.

Like I said before, the definition of film or rather the medium for displaying moving images via the principle of persistence of vision unified by a theme,is so broad that that statement is only applies in service of your point.

The very existence of films(weather good or bad) that have no story is proof positive that presence of story isn't necessary when defining the art form.

my opinion.

Sorry if this sounds rude, but you failed last time because the argument had as little substance as Bays films have, in general.

no offense taken, I however think the argument has plenty validity, it's just not being absorbed.

That's like citing that the creators of the transformers line are failures at Asimov caliber science fiction when really they can't be failures at what they aren't trying to do. The case is even more evident when you look at a hollywood directors role in the machine of film producing.

That film had no substasnce, whatb it had was 2 over the top actors that made the film enjoyable.

the point being that that film unlike the rock had no "substance" to begin with yet I'm sure bay is blamed for robbing it of any and all.

it was an enjoyable film as you say yourself, and with that you can see what bays intents are. Why "make the film better" with the checklist of "thought provoking films" tropes?

I'll leave you to it though, I have art to make and you have other discussions to keep you busy it appears.