Transformers Negatron: Discussion Thread for those that hate the way this movie is heading

I want to know where the designers got their inspiration from. The original Transformer series is Japanese inspired by robot shows such as Mazinger Z. Optimus's Samurai type helmet and face mask are also indicators. The robots in Bay's movie look too convoluted to be inspired by anything like that.

And like I've said before...wouldn't an advanced race of alien robots who millions (perhaps billions) of years old evolve to a more streamlined form?
 
I want to know where the designers got their inspiration from. The original Transformer series is Japanese inspired by robot shows such as Mazinger Z. Optimus's Samurai type helmet and face mask are also indicators. The robots in Bay's movie look too convoluted to be inspired by anything like that.

And like I've said before...wouldn't an advanced race of alien robots who millions (perhaps billions) of years old evolve to a more streamlined form?

In all fairness, the bots in the movie are supposed to be more streamlined in their Cybertonion forms. Its the reformatting to Earth vehicles that causes them to be putrid looking.

Actually, that's not true either since Megatron IS in his Cybertonian form and he's all H.R. Giger looking.

Hey, I tried.
 
Hmmm. You might be right. I don't know.

My main point here obviously should be: Spielberg doesn't care if this Transformers movie is not "Transformers enough" because he will make money no matter what.

I think we can all agree with that.

The thing is, he is an executive producer, i.e. the money guy, so he is just acting accordingly to his position.

Now, apparently, the first paragraph applies to Michael Bay also... and that's something the fans have all the right to be pissed about.

Alls I know is that I'll often watch a movie and I'll say... "did Steven Spielberg direct that?" Only to find out he didnt... he only exec produced it. "Batteries not Included," "Arachnaphobia"... and one of my personal favorite movies of All Time: "Joe vs the Volcano."

You have to remember that in the eighties, after The Jaws and The Close Encounters and The E.T. and The etc, Spielberg was the f***ing s**t. Every Hollywood director wanted to be him. Not only he made tons of money and had tons of fans, he made really good movies, and was respected by the critics and the industry, etc.

So, obviously a lot of people tried to develop a "Spielberg formula", a "Spielberg style" to help them make big despite lack of talent. And that includes not only directors, but writers and producers too.

Now, It's pretty obvious Spielberg did not direct any of these movies you mention, and if you honestly thought for a moment he could have, maybe you don't really understand why he is a great director.

-Batteries not Included is not very cinematic -- it actually feels like a TV movie sometimes, which is understandable (this movie was supposed to be a story in an episode of "Amazing Stories"). It has a community approach that's not common to Spielberg's work of the time -- Spielberg's movies in the 80s' were usually a few people going on an adventure. BNI is like a lot of people stuck in the same place (kinda like Lady in the Water, of "Friends"). Now, I don't remember much of the script, but from what I do remember the overall sensibility seemed kinda corny for early Spielberg too. Even The Terminally Sappy seems more sophisticated in my memory (I could be wrong though).

-I also don't remember much of Arachnophobia, but I remember it being kinda bleh. Nothing special, directon-wise. And nothing that struck me as particularly Spielbergian.

-Joe versus the Volcano is a good movie (very interesting script), but the style is soooo far from Spielberg. Come on, just look at it. Just listen to it.

The closest you can get to a Steven Spielberg Film Not Directed By Steven Spielberg is Poltergeist, for reasons previously stated.

And of course, Animaniacs! One of the best cartoons ever IMO. :woot:

Lol, I think that doesn't count as a movie.

And, yeah, Poltergeist is the prime example... ppossibly for the reasons you noted... but also possibly because he directed several scenes in it (he has admitted to directing at least one scene I think).

See? As I said, this is a Spielberg movie. It's a completely different thing.

I even watched Balto several months ago (my daughter looovvves that movie) and I swore it was Steven Spielberg (it wasn't... he just exec produced it).

Come on dude, you’re kinda reaching here.:whatever:

And, I don't think the "screenplay" for Wild Wild West was bad (in terms of story). I just think it was badly directed and badly made.

The script was by far the worst thing in that movie (though Branagh's deep-fried Southern accent is a tough contender). Tottally unfunny, filled with lame puns and unimaginative, boring sequences. The staging was pretty bad too, but that's mostly a consequence.

At its heart it was no worse than Raiders of the Lost Ark. It just wasn't *made* well. i.e. Barry Sonnenfeld isn't as talented as Steven Spielberg.

Are you kidding? The script for ROTLA is brilliant. Of course it's completely formulaic (exposition, action scene, exposition, action scene, etc) and Indy doesn't do anything that makes any kind of difference whatsoever (take him out of the movie and the Nazis still find the Ark, still open it, still die), but here is a script that puts it's hero in a completely different kind of imaginative danger in awesome exotic locations at each scene. In the first ten minutes of the movie he's already fought giant spiders, jumped a bottomless pit, claimed an ancient relic, escaped various traps, traitors and hostile natives. It’s FUN, you know.

Barry Sonnenfeld isn't a particularly talented director, but with a good script and a good cast he can make good movies (I already mentioned Adams Family Values, which Spielberg had nothing to do with and it's better than most of what was mentioned here -- I don’t care much for the first one, though).
 
^ ^ ^
Boy, and I thought I watched movies critically! Well, HK, I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said. Except to say that by "Spielberg-ish" I didn't mean there is ONE formula. The guy is brilliant enough that he switches styles (Munich, for instance, where he used a 1970's drama style of directing). But your points are well taken.

I also think ROTLA could have EASILY been a bad, corny, dumb movie were it not for Spielberg's talents. Yes, George Lucas had the great "ideas"... but Spielberg executed them with brilliance. You say "completely different kind of imaginative danger" and ALL the example you gave have been done MANY times before: Cinema History is filled with movies JUST LIKE ROTLA (like Jason and the Argonauts and those types of films).
(P.S. I'm not dissin ROTLA... it's one my favorite movies of all time).
 
^ ^ ^
Boy, and I thought I watched movies critically!

Lol, when people get me started on movies it's kinda hard to stop.

I also think ROTLA could have EASILY been a bad, corny, dumb movie were it not for Spielberg's talents. Yes, George Lucas had the great "ideas"... but Spielberg executed them with brilliance.

Even moreso considering Lucas has proven again and again over the years he hasn't much talent of his own... But it wasn't just Lucas' script, right? I mean, he wrote the story with Philip Kaufman, and then Laurence Kasdan scripted it. That's why the dialogue doesn't suck like in the Star Wars prequels. So, Spielberg had a lot to do with the result, obviously, but it wasn't a bad, corny, dumb script to start with (like the Wild Wild West script).

You say "completely different kind of imaginative danger" and ALL the example you gave have been done MANY times before: Cinema History is filled with movies JUST LIKE ROTLA (like Jason and the Argonauts and those types of films).

They were usually bad movies, though. Jason and the Argonauts? As a kid I thought it was cool (it had monsters) but I'm guessing if I watch it today it could be at most an (extremely) guilty pleasure.

It's not just the situations the movie puts Indy in, is the way it sets them up. It's a tight script.
 
^ ^ ^

I also think ROTLA could have EASILY been a bad, corny, dumb movie were it not for Spielberg's talents. Yes, George Lucas had the great "ideas"... but Spielberg executed them with brilliance. You say "completely different kind of imaginative danger" and ALL the example you gave have been done MANY times before: Cinema History is filled with movies JUST LIKE ROTLA (like Jason and the Argonauts and those types of films).
(P.S. I'm not dissin ROTLA... it's one my favorite movies of all time).

Which is why, Speilburg should have directed himself. I've said it once, i'll say it a thousand times, why force Bay to do a movie he didn't want to do? Speilburg, i'm sure, is up to his eyeballs in projects from the next several years. I would have preferred if we got a TF movie in the year 2015-directed by Speilburg, than one now directed by a man 'who didn't want to make a movie based on an 80's cartoon'......

It's like given a woman a baby she doesn't want, then expecting her to be a great mother..your asking for problems.:down
 
Even moreso considering Lucas has proven again and again over the years he hasn't much talent of his own... But it wasn't just Lucas' script, right? I mean, he wrote the story with Philip Kaufman, and then Laurence Kasdan scripted it. That's why the dialogue doesn't suck like in the Star Wars prequels. So, Spielberg had a lot to do with the result, obviously, but it wasn't a bad, corny, dumb script to start with (like the Wild Wild West script).

I just happen to think that there is wide gulf between SCRIPT and what actually ends up being put on screen... and the final result can make a lame script seem extraordinary (and vice versa). Scott's Alien? Corny monster in space? How stupid is that as a CONCEPT? But, Ridley Scott turned it into a masterpiece. How many times have we seen others try the same thing and fail?

Imagine Michael Bay having directed Cameron's Aliens? Same James Cameron script... but with Bay at the helm. You know it would have been a much different movie (and if you tell me it would have been better I'm throwing a virtual tomato at you! :woot: ).
 
Speaking of Scott's Alien.. it was written by Dan O'Bannon, who reinvented his student film DARK STAR as a horror sci-fi film.

Coincidentally, his partner on DARK STAR was John Carpenter. It was a comedy sci-fi film.
 
It's like given a woman a baby she doesn't want, then expecting her to be a great mother..your asking for problems.:down

Well, I guess as long as they pay the woman a whole lot of money she'd do it eh? Or as long as the woman's name is Michael Bay she'd do it for money. Wait...um...I dunno...bad visual images all around. :csad:
 
BREAKING NEWS!

Bay will direct GI Joe. He plans to put Snake Eyes in a clown costume. Bay supporters are happy with the changes. They suggest Snake Eyes was "just a dumb cartoon ninja" and needed to be updated for todays audiences who appearantly LOVE clowns.
 
I don't think I can sit through the "dog pissing on a Transformer" scene in crowded theatre knowing it's Bay's "f--k you" to the fans.

I'm bootleging this movie. Eat s--t Paramount.
 
I'm putting blind_fury on ignore.

You are worse than Tad :)
 
I just happen to think that there is wide gulf between SCRIPT and what actually ends up being put on screen... and the final result can make a lame script seem extraordinary (and vice versa). Scott's Alien? Corny monster in space? How stupid is that as a CONCEPT? But, Ridley Scott turned it into a masterpiece. How many times have we seen others try the same thing and fail?

Imagine Michael Bay having directed Cameron's Aliens? Same James Cameron script... but with Bay at the helm. You know it would have been a much different movie (and if you tell me it would have been better I'm throwing a virtual tomato at you! :woot: ).
i agree. SR :csad:
 
You are taking it a bit far Blind_fury arent you? I understand your frustration (believe me!)... but how can you not love the "Leaking lubricants!" line. That's gold, man!

In any case, it's no different than Arnold saying "F* Yuu Ahh-hold" or "I'll be back" in Terminator. The dog scene is the LEAST of this movie's problems.
 
you think guys spielber would let a movie to be realesed with hes name on only to bomb? i touhhgt about today. you think he can aford this?

they are already promoting this movie with spielbergs name on. so i think that if this movie will suck very bad spielberg will jump in and try to save it.
 
you think guys spielber would let a movie to be realesed with hes name on only to bomb? i touhhgt about today. you think he can aford this?

they are already promoting this movie with spielbergs name on. so i think that if this movie will suck very bad spielberg will jump in and try to save it.


He's not a good gauge on whether it will suck or not. He's bias. He's part of the project. I'm sure with all the projects Speilburg has going on, especially Indy 4, that he's truly had the time to step back and constructively critcize his own work. I'm an artist, and what my look great to me, may suck to everyone else, that is why you have others critique your work. Others' who have no stakes in the project one way, or another.

Indy 4 has way more riding on it that TF does, and i'd bet anyone on here, any amount of money, that if someone were to ask Mr.Speilburg behind closd doors, which one of those two projects would he would prefer fail and which one he would prefer succeed, if he had to pick one, he'd pick TF to fail and Indy to succeed....

..yeah, there's lot more money to be made, if TF suceeds because it's the start of a franchise that could spawn many more movies, and i'm sure there will be no more Indy movies after 4, but Indy is such an iconic American cinematic figure, that the backlash for spurring out a crappy Indy movie would be way more severe that spurring out a crappy TF movie.
 
but you think that spielberg doesnt care? i mean its hes name in the trailer.
i think that 3 months before hte premiere if the movie is not looking good spielberg will come to the rescue.
 
The movie may suck some ass, but it will NOT bomb. It already has started some serious momentum, starts on a holiday in the heart of summer, and has Megan Fox's boobies. 4,000 pissed fanboys won't slow it down much.
 
The movie may suck some ass, but it will NOT bomb. It already has started some serious momentum, starts on a holiday in the heart of summer, and has Megan Fox's boobies. 4,000 pissed fanboys won't slow it down much.
yeah i also think it wont bomb. i think that action is waht makes spidey numbers. and i guess TF will have a lot of action.

i dont expect no story. it must be a bad year for a TF fan since bay never has make a serious movie.
 
Hulk didn't necessaily bomb either but bad word of mouth has taken it's toll. It's only now, 4 years later, a sequel is underway, per say, and it's sopposedly not even in the same continuity as Ang Lee's.

So, just because it doesn't bomb doesn't mean it has a future.

Just because die hard fans won't make a big dent in the B.O numbers, negatively, doesn't mean that Bay's vision of Transfrormers has a future...
 
Well, no offense to Hulk fans, but the movie was a bit too "deep" for most people. I saw it with my nephew (HUGE Hulk fan) and he fell asleep about 3 times. Bad reviews, bad word of mouth, and many average people saying "Don't see it, it's long and boring. And the split screening made me dizzy" killed it. TF will be just one big ass explosion and people will eat it up. "It was OK. Lots of action. The robots were cool." As Bay said; "People hate my movies, but hey, they make MILLIONS worldwide!!"

Fast cars, explosions, Megan Fox, big ****ing robots, and explosions. What more could an average person ask for? ;)
 
Well, no offense to Hulk fans, but the movie was a bit too "deep" for most people. I saw it with my nephew (HUGE Hulk fan) and he fell asleep about 3 times. Bad reviews, bad word of mouth, and many average people saying "Don't see it, it's long and boring. And the split screening made me dizzy" killed it. TF will be just one big ass explosion and people will eat it up. "It was OK. Lots of action. The robots were cool." As Bay said; "People hate my movies, but hey, they make MILLIONS worldwide!!"

Fast cars, explosions, Megan Fox, big ****ing robots, and explosions. What more could an average person ask for? ;)

No offense taken. I'm a die hard Hulk fan, and that movie sucked!:cmad:

Hulk had great cgi..but that's about it. If great effects is all TF has going for it, i say it's destine to end up the way the Hulk franchise did.
 
I'm sure TF will at least earn enough for a sequel, though if it barely squeaks by I doubt Bay would direct. Films like Hulk and SR barely worked out a sequel, even if it's 3-4 years later. People are hoping the next Hulk will be a hell of a lot more "Hulk smash!!" and I see Tf fans hoping for less "Robot smash!". :oldrazz:
 
The movie may suck some ass, but it will NOT bomb. It already has started some serious momentum, starts on a holiday in the heart of summer, and has Megan Fox's boobies. 4,000 pissed fanboys won't slow it down much.
GINO didn't bomb either but it didn't resonate with fanboys or general audiences.

No buzz = no sequel = end of franchise
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"