Dark of the Moon Michael Bay has killed Transformers for me

[Sarge 2.0]

Agreed, they often involve


People jumping through massive destruction and explosions comming out with some scuffs and cuts............ if that.


That being said his direction of the actual actors is sub par at best.


He does at moments pull off some cool eye candy .....

Primes Roll out on the highway to intercept the big bad thing at the beginning of part 2 was well done.

Unfortuantly we never really got the idea of what kind of robots the destructicons were....... he end result was a monster that looked AWSOME.... but functioned really badly.


And seriously was it ever ever explained how the fallen was going to activate the device without the precious "key"

It all made very little sense at the end.

This is months old by now, but it's entirely relevant. Yes to all of this.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Bug faces and claws don't make them alien.

It does help them look more alien.

Its the reason why some of the more popular "alien" films have aliens that look a bot bug-ish.

I don't think robots need to look organic.

These robots are organic, wether you think they need to be or not.

They needed to look the part

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

Did you watch it??

If so, are you going to deny that Heston made that little bitty character come alive??

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.

How are you going to tell me what "MY" point was??

The point was that many of Bay's TF's didnt have fingers and mouths that resempled humon fingers and mouths or those that asppared manufactured by humans.

A point you havent even come close to disproving.

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

How is it an opinion??

Where have you even addressed my common sence on the issue??


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

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

Their alt modes were intended to blend in with Earth based technology.

There was never any need for their robot modes to do the same.

They don't have to be.

These are, and so were many of the G1 bots of the comics

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

Well that I can agree with.

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

All reliable reports was that he backed out due to pressure about character choices.

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

I'm not suggesting you do.

But, unless you werent following the production of the first film, or werent on line, this should be pretty common knowlidge.

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.

And its not a very apt one.

Not to show any disrespect , but the exsistence of films with no stort is proof positive that presence of a story is absolutely nessesary for it to be called art.

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.

This is exactly why I say theres no validity to your argument.

No one is suggesting that Bay tell a story as good as "A wrinkle in Time" or "To kill a conking bird" but he should be able to tell a story with more substance then "Greeen eggs and Ham" T To Kill a

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.

That may be the case with others, but not with me.

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?

Because, the films could have been so much better.

The franchise, the long term fans, and even the general audiance deserved better then we got.

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

Good nite.

 

[Jake Cassidy]

To Kill a conking Bird? What the ****?

The Rock is awesome

 

[Ipodman]

There should be 3D versions of the first two movies edited together and all the sex jokes cut out O.O

 

[roach]

There should be 3D versions of the first two movies edited together with just the sex jokes...nothing else

 

[Hotwire]

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

http://www.gamespot.com/users/tryfe_lyn/video_player?id=I3ZgwTL45b4PuTfW

 

[Hotwire]

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.

It also depends on what toys Hasbro wants to sell.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

http://www.gamespot.com/users/tryfe_lyn/video_player?id=I3ZgwTL45b4PuTfW

LOL!

"Beer belly" Optimus Prime looks nothing like G1 cartoons and comics.

Is that the best G1 rendition they could do? Give me a break. That looks like they did it just to say to the naysayers, "we tried and it didn't work".

um, no, you didn't try.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

It also depends on what toys Hasbro wants to sell.

I believe the movie designs come before the toy designs.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

It does help them look more alien.

Its the reason why some of the more popular "alien" films have aliens that look a bot bug-ish.

Robots don't need to have bug faces to pass for alien. The fact that they're 40 foot indestructable robots with lifeforces. Making them less humanoid robots just distracts from any parallel they have with humans.

These robots are organic, wether you think they need to be or not.

They needed to look the part

But they didn't need to be organic. They could've just as easily made Transformers built machines.

Did you watch it??

If so, are you going to deny that Heston made that little bitty character come alive??

There's a difference between being overly dramatic and turning a weak character into a great character.

How are you going to tell me what "MY" point was??

The point was that many of Bay's TF's didnt have fingers and mouths that resempled humon fingers and mouths or those that asppared manufactured by humans.

A point you havent even come close to disproving.

Bay's robots have fingers and mouths that look just as man made as any man-made droid you'll find on Star Wars.

How is it an opinion??

Where have you even addressed my common sence on the issue??

Because you are suggesting that your ideas are common sense and mine aren't. First of all that is not fact but an opinion because you can't prove it. Secondly it's biased because you want to "win" the debate so of course you will claim that you're opinion is more sensible.

There was never any need for their robot modes to do the same.

The robot mode has to resemble the alt-mode or they look like two unrelated machines.

These are, and so were many of the G1 bots of the comics

Again they didn't have to follow the comics in this case.

Well that I can agree with.

All reliable reports was that he backed out due to pressure about character choices.

But those were just rumors. We don't know what really happened behind closed doors.

I'm not suggesting you do.

But, unless you werent following the production of the first film, or werent on line, this should be pretty common knowlidge.

If the G1 CGI test is the one Hotwire posted then I'm not surprised at all that audiences didn't like it. It was terribly done.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

To Kill a conking Bird? What the ****?

Sorry typo

"To kill a mockingbird"

Robots don't need to have bug faces to pass for alien.

Never said they "NEEDED" too.

Just the fact that it was done and that it helped to give them an alien look.

But they didn't need to be organic.

Thats your opinion.

Fact is, trew out most of the G1 continuities, organic applys.

They could've just as easily made Transformers built machines.

They chose to go with more of the comics take on it.Nothing wrong with that.

There's a difference between being overly dramatic and turning a weak character into a great character.

Agreed, however thats not the case here, nor is it relevant to the point at hand.

Better actors can take crap parts and make something out of them.

Bay's robots have fingers and mouths that look just as man made as any man-made droid you'll find on Star Wars.

Most do not.

Primes mouth and lips looked like liquid metal, Megatron had jagged point teeth

Because you are suggesting that your ideas are common sense and mine aren't. First of all that is not fact but an opinion because you can't prove it. Secondly it's biased because you want to "win" the debate so of course you will claim that you're opinion is more sensible.

Even if that was what I was implying, you still havent approached common sense in my argument.You just havent cited anything in my argument that has questionable common sense/logic.

On the other hand, you claimed the G1 TF's looked "alien enough", and I'm sorry, but they never looked alien at all.

Just being 40ft robots doesnt make them look alien.

Thats why I said your letting nostalgia over ride common sense and logic.

They just never looked like alien life forms.

The robot mode has to resemble the alt-mode or they look like two unrelated machines.

Not to the degree that their alien origins should be forfeit.

Again they didn't have to follow the comics in this case.

But they chose to.

Nothing wrong with following the original media/myth of the series.

But those were just rumors. We don't know what really happened behind closed doors.

Not just rummors, its what the man himself eluded too.

And I find it likely since Marvel did the same with the director of the Ironman films, who has also backed out of doing Ironman 3 for the same reasons.

If the G1 CGI test is the one Hotwire posted then I'm not surprised at all that audiences didn't like it. It was terribly done.

That is one of them, but there were many others.

 

[roach]

I believe the movie designs come before the toy designs.

the list of characters they can use in the movies and alt modes comes from Hasbro not the writers or Bay

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I believe the movie designs come before the toy designs.

Actually, in the case of the movie characters many were designed "hand in hand", meaning character models were designed with input from the toy designing team.

the list of characters they can use in the movies and alt modes comes from Hasbro not the writers or Bay

True, but Bay has proven he's willing to disregard what Hasbro wants/tells him.

Just look at the tank from the first film.

 

[roach]

what about the tank?

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

what about the tank?

Its name in the film.

Devestator.

Not Brawl like Hasbro,the writers or the producers claimed/wanted.

And it was no mistake.

 

[roach]

Hasbro and the screenwriters said it was a mistake

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Hasbro and the screenwriters said it was a mistake

They also said , at the same time I might add, that it would be corrected for the DVD release.

Was it???

No.

It was a cover story they tried to make Bay go along with, and he refused.

M.Bay has openly admited to thinking the name Devestator was "kool" and choosing to go with that name because he liked it better then Brawl.

He admitted it both on his message boards and in an Australian tv interview covering the opening of the first film.

 

[roach]

I dont pretend to know what happened behind the scenes...if they said it was a mistake it was a mistake

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I dont pretend to know what happened behind the scenes...if they said it was a mistake it was a mistake

I dont pretend to know what happens either, I just dont believe everything I read/hear.

I do the research.

Hasbro/screanwriters said it was a mistake and it would be corrected for the DVD.
M.Bay said it wasnt a mistake and there was no need for a correction on the DVD.

It wasnt corrected.

The film went trew several test screenings in several markets, with Hasbro and the writers pointing out the name issue, yet the final version still ended up with the name Bay wanted.

Bay openly admitted [more then once] he wanted to use the name Devestator for the tank despite what Hasbro wanted and the writers said.

Theres no evidence to support it being a mistake, but plenty of evidence to support it was deliberate.

 

[Marvin]

And its not a very apt one.

Not to show any disrespect , but the exsistence of films with no stort is proof positive that presence of a story is absolutely nessesary for it to be called art.

That is simply a narrow way to look at the art form. No different than saying songs need hooks and bridges or even stories to be complete.
Story is nothing more than an aspect when applied to this art from. Like an oil painting, it can have a narrative composition like most of the work done during the renaissance period or it can be impressionistic or "modern"

Case in point [YT]PirH8PADDgQ[/YT]
great (award winning) "film" but more like a moving photograph with a great score and a thematic consistency. And there are many films like it.

Presence of story is not the determining factor of weather the piece is art or not. It just categorizes it....or "makes it good or not" as some would apparently argue.

This is exactly why I say theres no validity to your argument.

No one is suggesting that Bay tell a story as good as "A wrinkle in Time" or "To kill a conking bird" but he should be able to tell a story with more substance then "Greeen eggs and Ham" T To Kill a

My point is why?

Why is there no room for green eggs and ham?
Is there or is isn't there an audience for that particular story.
Are there people that walk around telling Dr. Zeus to add more substance and character study to his stories? Ofcourse not but with bay, there is no audienc....sorry, there is no place for that type of product amoung our more learned crowed.

I like my buddy cop movies silly and I like my cop dramas full of drama. to say otherwise would be to criticize Heat for not having any good comedy.

Because, the films could have been so much better.

The franchise, the long term fans, and even the general audiance deserved better then we got.

And who is the authority on what that is exactly. According to you those films would be better if they had such and such but really this being a genre forum it's going to be full of people screaming at each other that Spider man needs more heart and Star Trek needs more thinking. Fantasia needs more story and Pixar films need more musical numbers.

Instead of saying the films would have been better, it should be more like you would have enjoyed them more.
It's as silly as walking in to an art gallery and looking at a piece and saying it would be better if it had more such and such...weather your right or wrong(impossible to say) the fact of the matter is that your insight is based on your own likes,

maybe everyone else like their photos black and white.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Even if that was what I was implying, you still havent approached common sense in my argument.You just havent cited anything in my argument that has questionable common sense/logic.

On the other hand, you claimed the G1 TF's looked "alien enough", and I'm sorry, but they never looked alien at all.

Just being 40ft robots doesnt make them look alien.

Thats why I said your letting nostalgia over ride common sense and logic.

They just never looked like alien life forms.
.

For someone with so much common sense you have a hard time telling the difference between opinion and fact.

You feel you've used superior common sense in this debate. Without a scientific measurement for this it can be nothing more than your opinion.

Giving a robot claws, fangs or insect parts to make it "more alien" has to be the laziest and dumbest way to indicate a robot is from another planet. If you don't think a giant robot that is alive and has superior technology is enough to indicate an alien species then maybe Transformers isn't for you. Go watch sci-fi with bugs like Starship Troopers or Alien. That way you can tell what characters are aliens.

Also an organic robot could be an interesting idea but it doesn't fit Transformers who do not breed and are not born. That's like saying the Terminator gives birth to little, metal terminator children. Yes it's that stupid.

 

[nogap87]

http://www.gamespot.com/users/tryfe_lyn/video_player?id=I3ZgwTL45b4PuTfW

Thanks for posting Hotwire.

So instead of shooting for this:

They do this:

I like how they angled the camera just right so you don't see his ******** hand transformations.

 

[Marvin]

For someone with so much common sense you have a hard time telling the difference between opinion and fact.

You feel you've used superior common sense in this debate. Without a scientific measurement for this it can be nothing more than your opinion.

Giving a robot claws, fangs or insect parts to make it "more alien" has to be the laziest and dumbest way to indicate a robot is from another planet. If you don't think a giant robot that is alive and has superior technology is enough to indicate an alien species then maybe Transformers isn't for you. Go watch sci-fi with bugs like Starship Troopers or Alien. That way you can tell what characters are aliens.

Also an organic robot could be an interesting idea but it doesn't fit Transformers who do not breed and are not born. That's like saying the Terminator gives birth to little, metal terminator children. Yes it's that stupid.

Whats interesting is that beast machines explored that idea of technological vs organic as it's running theme. Which would imply that the G1 characters were to be more robotic and less like life forms as seen when comparing the many forms of Optimus Prime. In the end there was a balance found between technological and organic.

I can see bay's "team" wanting to explore more of the balance techno-alien life form angle as opposed to the more sentient robot Iron Giant angle.

to me the former just seems like it's more self perpetuating whereas the latter seems like it was built by higher beings (that lost a weapon). But like you implied, it does that say about humans and life considering many believe there is a designer.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

That is simply a narrow way to look at the art form. No different than saying songs need hooks and bridges or even stories to be complete.
Story is nothing more than an aspect when applied to this art from. Like an oil painting, it can have a narrative composition like most of the work done during the renaissance period or it can be impressionistic or "modern"

Case in point [YT]PirH8PADDgQ[/YT]
great "film" but more like a moving photograph with a great score and a theme. And there are many films like it.

I'll admit you made a good point here, but ultimately it only serves to help my case not yours.

While this is a "film" in the sense of how its distributed and created, its not a "movie" in the traditional use of the word.

This film is more a cross between poetry and photography as in the way its presented.

Bays TF movies are attempts to tell a story, stories that failed because of the poor characterizations.

Why is there no room for green eggs and ham?

Because, even at its commercial worst , TF stories have always been more sophisticated then Green eggs and ham.

Is there or is isn't there an audience for that particular story.

I'm sure there is, unfortunately. but thre existing audience of the TF franchise should not have been sidelined in favor of catering to that kind of audience.

Are there people that walk around telling Dr. Zeus to add more substance and character study to his stories?

The man is dead, cant tell him anything anymore.

But funny you bring it up since more substance and character was written into his characters for the movie adaptations of The Grinch, the Cat in the Hat, Horrendous hears a hoot.

And who is the authority on what that is exactly. According to you those films would be better if they had such and such but really this being a genre forum it's going to be full of people screaming at each other that Spider man needs more heart and Star Trek needs more thinking. Fantasia needs more story and Pixar films need more musical numbers.

Instead of saying the films would have been better, it should be more like you would have enjoyed them more.
It's as silly as walking in to an art gallery and looking at a piece and saying it would be better if it had more such and such...weather your right or wrong(impossible to say) the fact of the matter is that your insight is based on your own likes,

maybe everyone else like their photos black and white.

I really dont think thats the case here.

True, there will always be those that complain, but complaining about small dislikes and little details hardly compares to the basic complasints in this case.

Every film that attempts to tell a story needs good characterization, its just a plain and simple fact..

For someone with so much common sense you have a hard time telling the difference between opinion and fact.

You feel you've used superior common sense in this debate. Without a scientific measurement for this it can be nothing more than your opinion.

Because its not an opinion.

Its common practice for film makers to look to insects, and sea life, for inspiration on alien looks.

Giving a robot claws, fangs or insect parts to make it "more alien" has to be the laziest and dumbest way to indicate a robot is from another planet.

Call it "lazy" if you want, but its effective.

If you don't think a giant robot that is alive and has superior technology is enough to indicate an alien species then maybe Transformers isn't for you.

Now who thinks his opinion is superior??

"superior technology" and life like robots dont really indicate anything.

Just looking at the Autobots, even the character of "Sam" thought they were Japanese not alien

Also an organic robot could be an interesting idea but it doesn't fit Transformers who do not breed and are not born.

Thats just it, these Trasnsformers are born, and they may very well breed.

And even the G1 TF's of the comics reproduced by a form of cell division.

That's like saying the Terminator gives birth to little, metal terminator children. Yes it's that stupid.

Such a poor example.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I can see bay's "team" wanting to explore more of the balance techno-alien life form angle as opposed to the more sentient robot Iron Giant angle.

It just doesn't fit with the entire universe. There are one of a kind Transformers that are the size of a city. Are you telling me they were born? That doesn't make any sense.

If your going to do the robo-organic thing, that fine, but go somewhere with it. The only time they even eluded to it in the Bay films was a couple of cyber-embryo sacs behind the Fallen in one scene.

For the most part they've left the concept completely unexplored.