Transformers The Reviews Thread

[Disclaimer]

Oh no....is this really part of the movie?

It is.

You know the funny thing? They've made such a big deal over the robots being photorealistic and having thousands of working parts... yet this 'spark' thing clearly shows that any piece of machinery can suddenly become a robot. I dunno... maybe I have my wires crossed... but doesn't this magical element to the robots' physical being render the realistic mechanism point totally moot?

Meanwhile, excuse my ignorance, but why do we hide spoilers in the 'Transformers (Spoilers)' thread?

 

[YÅ«gi's BM]

And feed them how?

They're Decepticons, won't they just steal the food?

 

[CFlash]

As I say, I'm not sure I don't want the magic angle removed. The Transformers have always had a strong magic/mythic element to their fiction. I suppose I'll have to see how this plays out. But to think that Transformers is akin to Terminator or the Matrix, with highly "unmagical" technology, is just plain wrong. When you're whole race is created by a God named Primus, that's pretty f***in' magical.

As a mythical reference in the early years, it's fine. We reference God all the time. As a Galactus vs King Triton stuff they came up with once they started running out of ideas or were pressured by Marvel or Hasbro to go MORE He-Man ethereal and less sci-fi grounded, it's stupid. I too thought this movie should be sci-fi.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

As a mythical reference in the early years, it's fine. We reference God all the time. As a Galactus vs King Triton stuff they came up with once they started running out of ideas or were pressured by Marvel or Hasbro to go MORE He-Man ethereal and less sci-fi grounded, it's stupid. I too thought this movie should be sci-fi.

Ummmm, that wasn't pressure from Hasbro. That was stuff Simon Furman had been writing into Transformers UK since he came onboard waaaaayyyyy back in issue 6 or so. There was never any indication that Primus was a passing reference, in fact quiet the opposite. Again you're confusing the comic with the cartoon.

 

[CFlash]

Ummmm, that wasn't pressure from Hasbro. That was stuff Simon Furman had been writing into Transformers UK since he came onboard waaaaayyyyy back in issue 6 or so. There was never any indication that Primus was a passing reference. Again you're confusing the comic with the cartoon.

Ah... because he had to add filler every week to spread the original Marvel stories out over a month to address the UK's "weekly" comics thing. Hence the Galactus Meets King Triton story arc. Nothing wrong with that. I never read them... nor could care less.

 

[Shmoil]

So, I've heard 2 things. That the 'bots seem silly, and that the decepticons don't talk much. I know this goes against the cartoon, but the more I think about it, the more I kind of like this. It seems to me that the less the decepticons are in it, the more menacing they will seem. Like, we never know when one will pop up, and when they do it will be devastating, that type of menacing. As for the autobots, I would prefer them not to be silly, but at the same time I'm glad that they do something, as opposed to being wallflowers. I guess I'm just trying to justify my reasons for wanting to like it.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Ah... because he had to add filler every week to spread the original Marvel stories out over a month to address the UK's "weekly" comics thing.

UK became it's own continuity in a fairly quick amount of time. In fact Simon Furman is pretty much responsible for that...it only ties back in when he came to write in the US. But there is a good 150+ issues of simply UK stuff that's it's own thing.

Hence the Galactus Meets King Triton story arc. Nothing wrong with that. I never read them.

It's apparent.

... nor could care less.

Then why do you keep talking about them as if you read them?

 

[CFlash]

UK became it's own continuity in a fairly quick amount of time. In fact Simon Furman is pretty much responsible for that...it only ties back in when he came to write in the US. But there is a good 150+ issues of simply UK stuff that's it's own thing.

It's apparent.

Then why do you keep talking about them as if you read them?

I don't. You do. I haven't referred to them not once. I couldn't give s**t about the Legend of Zelda-esque continuity. Nor do I know anybody that really does cept for Comic Book Guy push-up-the-glasses "Worst Episode Ever" geeks of who I've only ever known one person- wait, two, I guess... now.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I don't. You do. I haven't referred to them not once. I couldn't give s**t about the Legend of Zelda-esque continuity. Nor do I know anybody that really does cept for Comic Book Guy push-up-the-glasses "Worst Episode Ever" geeks of who I've only ever known one person- wait, two, I guess... now.

But you claim to love the show and comic, and keep decrying Bay for not using them as a basis for his films...neither of which were Sci-Fi based shows because no "scientific" reason was ever given for the Transformers or their existence. They were fantasy based, like Star Wars. The Sci-fi element only tries to the shows elements (such as space, aliens, lasers) but the show was always magic and fantasy based mythology.

Part of this is simply Hasbro's fault. The toy commercial aspect of the show forced gimmicky plot devices with little or no explanation to be intorduced to "explain" the creation of characters or mass changing and things of that nature. Also the show was severely inconsistent which make some event seem "magical". However most of this comes directly from the fact that the comic introduced religious elements and mythical objects very early on...in addition to Primus and Unicron who were Gods.

 

[CFlash]

But you claim to love the show and comic, and keep decrying Bay for not using them as a basis for his films...neither of which were Sci-Fi based shows because no "scientific" reason was ever given for the Transformers or their existence. They were fantasy based, like Star Wars. The Sci-fi element only tries to the shows elements (such as space, aliens, lasers) but the show was always magic and fantasy based mythology.

Part of this is simply Hasbro's fault. The toy commercial aspect of the show forced gimmicky plot devices with little or no explanation to be intorduced to "explain" the creation of characters or mass changing and things of that nature. Also the show was severely inconsistent which make some event seem "magical". However most of this comes directly from the fact that the comic introduced religious elements and mythical objects very early on...in addition to Primus and Unicron who were Gods.

You're confusing the terms "Fantasy" with "Fiction." Transformers was not fantasy by virtue of being a kid's show and undeveloped. Transformers was as much "fantasy" as G.I. Joe was (meaning it's not). Yes, it's not real... but that's called "fiction." Transformers was as much "sci-fi" as a kid's afterschool cartoon could have been.

It's also funny that when Transformers was going the Legend of Zelda route (that you love), so was Hasbro's other property, G.I. Joe, with the ridiculous Cobra-La thing.

 

[Disclaimer]

So, I've heard 2 things. That the 'bots seem silly, and that the decepticons don't talk much. I know this goes against the cartoon, but the more I think about it, the more I kind of like this. It seems to me that the less the decepticons are in it, the more menacing they will seem. Like, we never know when one will pop up, and when they do it will be devastating, that type of menacing. As for the autobots, I would prefer them not to be silly, but at the same time I'm glad that they do something, as opposed to being wallflowers. I guess I'm just trying to justify my reasons for wanting to like it.

Had I not seen the film, I'd be on the same page as you...

Thing is, I'd want the Decepticons to be 'menacing' in that T-1000 kind of way, where the editing and music sounds ominous and you just know something's about to go wrong. You just don't know what yet.

Instead, the Decepticons just kind of come and go... appear in a shot right there in your face... disappear again... then you see a whole heap of random metal... then an explosion... yada, yada, yada. I mean, even most them's introduction - very late in the film - is done in a quick montage, with their names coming up in subtitles. There's nothing menacing or ominous about it. They're just kind of there all of a sudden.

If they wanted to go that route, they should at least have shown them standing strong... together... preparing for war... but there's really no interaction.

Oh, and one is called 'Devastator'! I was furious when I saw that! Why call it that when you can keep Bonecrusher for the second film to team up with the other Constructicons and form the 'real' Devastator? Talk about pointless missed opportunities (again). Ugh.

As for the 'silly' Autobots, just wait and see. There's very little about them that appears regal, awe-inspiring or noble. Why that 'true' nature of the Autobots wouldn't be loved by mainstream audiences, I have no idea... but it's really sad that Optimus Prime has oodles more 'presence' in the cartoon.

 

[nosebleed.]

As for the 'silly' Autobots, just wait and see. There's very little about them that appears regal, awe-inspiring or noble. Why that 'true' nature of the Autobots wouldn't be loved by mainstream audiences, I have no idea... but it's really sad that Optimus Prime has oodles more 'presence' in the cartoon.

Dammit, now that just pisses me off. Damn. This damn movie...sheez. Why'd they have to miss the mark so bad?

****

 

[CFlash]

Damn Nosebleed, Disclaimer. You guys are bumming me out.

 

[spideyo]

Hey guy's don't worry what Disclaimer and the other Negatrons say about the movie. We all should see it and judge it for ourselves. So far from all reviews I have seen there has been a very high majority of positive reviews. Some people like Disclaimer are very picky and only look for the most negative things to say. So guy's don't worry at all. Judge it yourself.

 

[CFlash]

Hey guy's don't worry what Disclaimer and the other Negatrons say about the movie. We all should see it and judge it for ourselves. So far from all reviews I have seen there has been a very high majority of positive reviews. Some people like Disclaimer are very picky and only look for the most negative things to say. So guy's don't worry at all. Judge it yourself.

Actually he said pretty much the same exact thing that the positive reviews have said. It seems to me he just thinks the problems with the movie (that the positive ones also cite) outweigh the popcorn/dumb-fun factor.

But, I think you're right. We'll all know for sure soon.

 

[Raiden]

Oh, and one is called 'Devastator'! I was furious when I saw that! Why call it that when you can keep Bonecrusher for the second film to team up with the other Constructicons and form the 'real' Devastator? Talk about pointless missed opportunities (again). Ugh.

It would piss me off if they introduced Davastator in the sequel and called it some other name. However, as a G1 fan, I'm not happy that they'd give some random 'bot the name Davastator. Geez, doesn't anyone there know Transformers?

 

[nosebleed.]

The bad reviews hit the nail on the head about what we've been fearing all along. So that could mean;

1. They are severely misjudging the movie
2. They are absolutely correct
3. They are being waay too picky
4. All the positive reviews are coming out too soon and too good to be true

Those explanations could be individual or in addition to each other...but I'm really pissed off that Optimus Prime is said to be made into a goofball. I can understand one or two lines like, "My bad"...but playing the whole ET role with Optimus frikking Prime is not necessary at all. That's what damn Bumblebee is for. Sheez.

 

[Grant]

Oh, and one is called 'Devastator'! I was furious when I saw that! Why call it that when you can keep Bonecrusher for the second film to team up with the other Constructicons and form the 'real' Devastator? Talk about pointless missed opportunities (again). Ugh.

Why can't they do that now? I heard the Devastator thing might be fixed. Even if they don't I don't see why they can't have the Constructicons appear in Transformers 2 to form a giant robot. I mean once that happens they don't have to say "Oh that's Devastator."

 

[The Kid]

good lawd. Look what the internet has brought us. Pre-movie dissmissal.

This is what was great about the 80s, wasn't it. Not much internet. You were on your own, bich. Buy a bad videogame? Oh well, struggle through those levels, no reviews to help you out, lol!!!

I'm still seeing this movie

 

[nosebleed.]

Nobody told you not to see the movie. Your outside views of what's going on in these threads are getting tired. How bout you contribute to the conversation more instead of constantly complaining about complainers.

 

[CFlash]

good lawd. Look what the internet has brought us. Pre-movie dissmissal.

This is what was great about the 80s, wasn't it. Not much internet. You were on your own, bich. Buy a bad videogame? Oh well, struggle through those levels, no reviews to help you out, lol!!!

I'm still seeing this movie

This is where you show your young age... and ignorance. We had stuff like public access channels (ever seen Wayne's World) that showed the Batman "teaser" almost a year before it was released and before Entertainment Tonight got a hold of it. And also underground fanzines for all topics (The Village Voice started as one). People called in and wrote in arguing the same exact stuff we do here.

Not just that, but the geekier of us did have the "internet"... in the form of BBS's (look them up-- they were extraordinarily popular) and Compuserve, where stuff EXACTLY like these boards went on.

From my POV... not much has changed.

 

[Disclaimer]

Hey guy's don't worry what Disclaimer and the other Negatrons say about the movie. We all should see it and judge it for ourselves. So far from all reviews I have seen there has been a very high majority of positive reviews. Some people like Disclaimer are very picky and only look for the most negative things to say. So guy's don't worry at all. Judge it yourself.

I'm a 'Negatron' and only look for negative things to say?

Well, actually, I was among the few people who never took issue with things like flames on Prime or the change in origin. I appreciated change, just like in the original 'X-Men', and went in so hyped over this film. Trust me - I had an extremely open mind.

The only things on my wish list were that what we'd been told about the Transformer characters and their so-called 'essence' remained intact and that the story was modernised to make more logical sense. We were told this many a time during production of this film.

That's where my disappointment came from and I've made that clear.

As for not stating what I liked... you wanna know why? Because I was really quite enjoying the film for the first half - bar a few questionable bits - but then it started to fall apart for me to such an extent that I can't really remember the good. It's been outweighed in my memory of the film... for the time being.

That's not to say - nor has it ever been - that people shouldn't go see it or that you'll all agree with me. Unlike most people, I don't think my opinion has to be everyone's and I certainly see a vast difference between debating something and forcing an opinion upon people.

By all means, go see the film! Love it! Come online and tell us how wrong I was! I'll envy you. Honest.

I... personally... me... the guy typing... simply thought the film wasn't all that great.

I might go again tomorrow when it opens here in Australia and - hopefully - my so-called negative attitude will leave me pleasantly surprised and I can list the good stuff.

I just think all the over-the-top praise this film's getting has the potential to leave people highly disappointed.

 

[nogster]

i read a few reviews today in the local weekly entertainment papers etc and they all say the same thing pretty much...
to sum them up....
the special effects are the best commited to celluloid.. mindblowing action and effects that have truly raised the bar....very entertaining over the top testosterone fuelled movie.....a poor script [i agree having read it] poor and cheesey dialogue, shia lebouf is good but the overall human element is weak.....
basically the consensus is that its a typical michael bay film.....awesome visual spectacle, with little substance....but the spectacle is so spectacular and the robots action so awesome that the films clear weaknesses can be generally overlooked.
i will be seeing it tomorrow and will give my report.

 

[nogster]

one of the reviewers said its a movie that is hard to rate as it has a whole generation of people just pumped to see it and no matter what he said, even if it was a pile of poop, people would still be compelled to see it...he said fortunatley its not a pile of poop due to the incredible action/effects.
he gave it 2 grades..
4.5/5 for the robot action.
2 for the rest.

 

[Nivek]

good lawd. Look what the internet has brought us. Pre-movie dissmissal.

This is what was great about the 80s, wasn't it. Not much internet. You were on your own, bich. Buy a bad videogame? Oh well, struggle through those levels, no reviews to help you out, lol!!!

I'm still seeing this movie

can you Imagine Internet nit-pickyness with any of those 80's classics from our youth? Raiders of the Lost Ark, Back to the Future, Jedi? They would've gotten ripped up.

All these reviews should do is see someone elses opinion, and possibly warn you about dissapointment (X3, Ghost Rider, FF2, Snakes on a Plane). I knew not everyone would dig it, but regardless, I'm seeing it next Monday at 8pm.