Transformers The Reviews Thread

[ShadowBoxing]

Go make a Bay cheerleader thread where you can circle jerk over the movie without critical analysis

I think the constant "teh explosion rulez!!!1!" summary of the movie is getting old.

As a someone who is satisfied by empty spectacle I'd prefer a more sophisticated examination of the movies strengths and weaknesses. Sue me.

But you continually spout being satisfied by Transformers the cartoon and Transformers the Movie (1986) which were both empty spectacles. And then when you're faced with this you start hamming and BSing a whole bunch of crap onto the cartoon to make it more than it was: mindless entertainment on the same level as G.I.Joe, Ninja Turtles or He-Man.

 

[Wolverini]

I agree with ShadowBoxing. Face it man , people just cant accept change. Somehow they want to see what THEY want but ... when they dont get it , they go cry to mommy

And WHY the hatred towards Megatron? Have you guys even SEEN the Protoform of Optimus Prime?

It looks ALMOST the same as Megatron!

And yet , you guys cant accept the fact that Megatron is in his PROTOFORM (which has been confirmed ). I mean , get over it already. Sure you can discuss stuff Transformers here. But things can get ugly when your repeating the same thing over and over again.

 

[CFlash]

Does Megatron in the movie really have fangs? Do the Decepticons roar and stuff too? Just curious.

 

[Octoberist]

But you continually spout being satisfied by Transformers the cartoon and Transformers the Movie (1986) which were both empty spectacles. And then when you're faced with this you start hamming and BSing a whole bunch of crap onto the cartoon to make it more than it was: mindless entertainment on the same level as G.I.Joe, Ninja Turtles or He-Man.

I'm going to agree on that, and I'm a fan of those cartoons.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

And it was contrived and pandering when they did it too. It put them squarely in simplistic craptitude with the rest of the cartoons at the time whereas the original stood apart. Luckily, when Transformers was doing this, TMNT blew em away.

Transformers switching to more distinctly defined heroes and villains didn't kill the show, certainly not when you're logic is that the show was blown away by a show with distinctly defined heroes and villains (you don't get much more "contrived" than TMNT was with that formula). And the fact is the toyline survived on that formula not for 1, not for 2, not for 3, but for 20 whole more years doing it that way...I'd say it's a strength not a weakness. In fact the whole reason for that show and comic and the Tech Specs in the first place was because the line couldn't sell without some sort of character designation. Other lines had the luxury of clearly defined characters, Transformers was trying to see Police Car repaint #2 versus Blue Jet repaint #6. You don't get much more contrived and cliche' than a line made primarily up of a bunch of repainted villains and heroes.

 

[hummerbee]

i'll back what Disclaimer has said a few pages back: the FX are mindblowing, but the story leaves a lot less to be desired. indeed, they could have done something to at least have an interesting/engaging plot... and unfortunately, that's not the case.

methinks our cinemas here cut some scenes here and there (IT'S EFFIN' GP HERE!!! ). during the final slugfest, i could hardly tell what was happening. the scenes cut back and forth too fast you'll only see glimpses of the robots fighting (then again, perhaps the blame could be on our local cinemas cutting some scenes).

i'm still recovering from the fact that what the negatrons have feared are on the movie. i've been lurking for a long time here, just waiting for the opportune moment to post (i.e. after i've seen the movie)... and now i'm finally getting CFlash's point.

*sorry for the disjointed post... i'm just disappointed with the movie and all.

 

[Bapman]

Interesting how the people who HASN'T seen the movie are arguing about how the Decepticons look and how can tell them apart.
For starters... I COULDN'T tell them apart... that's why I told the guy sit near the back so get a clearer view.
Secondly, only Megs and Frenzy have like fangs for obvious reasons.
Iron-Hide, Bonecrusher and Devastator looked equally scary.
Jazz does have his classic shade like visors.
In the movie during the combat the military actually had problem telling goods from the bads... they had to use laser tags to ark the friendlies.
So no I just dont give out "Blind Fury" unlike some just for the sake of it.
I said already that I hated the lips and I haven't backed away from that.
Just because I loved it doesn't mean I'm being overly supportive of Bay's stuff.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I'm going to agree on that, and I'm a fan of those cartoons.

"The Viper is coming"

 

[blind_fury]

They don't, simply put. The cartoon and comic constantly stretched and morphed the Transformers in ways that simply don't look believable in real life. Stretchy and bending metal don't work on screen. This should be obvious when you consider the fact that there wasn't any G1 toy that was accurate to it's show appearance design. In addition none of those designs offer the full range of motion the new ones do. Get your head out of your butt.

lolz. These are all assumptions you stubborn asshat. So save your childish insults for the 5th grade playground.

I'm not wrong in asking to see the failed G1 designs that ILM. Oh that's right, they didn't even attempt the G1 designs. Making Starscream look like a chicken was far more important.

Jazz actually has a human face in this movie, as does Prime. In fact I see this as an improvement because Jazz and Optimus are the most human of the Transformers. Jazz being a human, pop culture obsessed robot and Prime probably being the one with the most empathy and love of the humans. The Decepticons themselves would have no need for human faces, in fact they'd want to be as monsterous as possible. Furthermore Jazz and Optimus face (as well as everyone else) has to be more complex. If jaws and eyes are going to be able to move, cheaks form and mouths form words you'd have to have an abundance of moving parts. Humans have the luxury of skin, but are otherwise extremely complex underneath, robots wouldn't have this luxury because they are inorganic.

wow. that's a stretch. Jazz can have a humanoid simply because he's obsessed with pop culture and Optimus can because we need to relate to him but if the other Transformers had humanoid faces the movie would fail.

c'mon dude. Stop coming up with ridiculous excuses to not use G1 designs.

If Jazz has a humanoid face there's no reason other Transformers outside of Optimus Prime couldn't. The audience might have related to the Transformers more and noticed more humanistic parallels. Also, G1 fans would recognize most of the G1 characters beyond nomenclature.

Howso? Considering the original Jazz was based on a toy and this one wasn't. He doesn't look like a toy to me, certainly nothing I've ever owned. Alternators look like toys, G1 figures look like toys, but Jazz doesn't look like a toy...it's far to complex to be any toy.

He has more working parts and details. The same result would've happened if ILM used a G1 design and added more details. But Jazz has the basic anatomy of an alternator toy. But that's acceptable because Micheal Bay is beyond reproach for some ungodly reason around here.

 

[Wolverini]

I stopped reading after the "Starscream is a chicken" part.

We're coming up with excuses so you have more **** to ***** about. Does that sound reasonable?

 

[blind_fury]

I agree with ShadowBoxing. Face it man , people just cant accept change. Somehow they want to see what THEY want but ... when they dont get it , they go cry to mommy

Change can be good and change can be bad. Are you aware of this or does your dad still tie your shoe laces?

see, I can insult and marginalize people too.

Grow up.

And WHY the hatred towards Megatron? Have you guys even SEEN the Protoform of Optimus Prime?

It looks ALMOST the same as Megatron!

And yet , you guys cant accept the fact that Megatron is in his PROTOFORM (which has been confirmed ). I mean , get over it already. Sure you can discuss stuff Transformers here. But things can get ugly when your repeating the same thing over and over again.

Yeah and the "teh explosions rulez"/"the source material had nothing else to offer" isn't getting redundant. That only accounts for 90% of this thread.

 

[blind_fury]

I stopped reading after the "Starscream is a chicken" part.

We're coming up with excuses so you have more **** to ***** about. Does that sound reasonable?

Who cares if you stopped reading? You're going to continue to defend this movie without any critical analysis. You might as well get a lobotomy, buy a set of pom poms and cheer outside of the movie theater.

 

[blind_fury]

But you continually spout being satisfied by Transformers the cartoon and Transformers the Movie (1986) which were both empty spectacles. And then when you're faced with this you start hamming and BSing a whole bunch of crap onto the cartoon to make it more than it was: mindless entertainment on the same level as G.I.Joe, Ninja Turtles or He-Man.

He Man and Ninja Turtles?

lolz.

Even if you truly believe that the comics explored more that could've made the movie more than just flashy effects.

 

[Boiiinng]

They don't, simply put. The cartoon and comic constantly stretched and morphed the Transformers in ways that simply don't look believable in real life. Stretchy and bending metal don't work on screen. This should be obvious when you consider the fact that there wasn't any G1 toy that was accurate to it's show appearance design. In addition none of those designs offer the full range of motion the new ones do. Get your head out of your butt.

Ahhh, another statement from someone who doesn't understand the difference between balanced adaptation and disassociative design. I thought we were past this. Oh well, I'm bored, so here goes.

We never wanted direct cartoon-to-movie designs. We realize that those would not look realistic in a live-action setting. We don't need you or Bay to tell us that like you're smarter than us. The problem lies where boneheaded people like you and him cannot get past the "blocky" argument. As soon as you disregard a source without trying to balance it with an adaptation you allow yourself to go farther and farther away from it. This is disrespectful to the source material. We WANT the details we see in the movie, but we also wanted the vehicles AND the robots to at least resemble their G1 counterparts, more than just a visor or a chestplate here and there. We wanted the whole package. The only model who does this is Prime. Starscream to an extent, but that's it.

We LOVE the details, we've been wanting to see realistic live-action transformations for 20+ years. I don't know a Trans-fan who ISN'T absolutely psyched for what we're about to see on film......we just wanted them to better resemble what we grew up with, that's all. And it WAS possible, the designers/producers just didn't care to bother. The producers would rather get a big GMC deal than honor the source. That's why we still and probably will for a long time have an attitude about this. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy ourselves. We just get ticked off everytime someone comes on here and just dismisses the source because of its "blockiness" without recognizing the potential of true balanced design.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

lolz. These are all assumptions you stubborn asshat. So save your childish insults for the 5th grade playground.

I'm not wrong in asking to see the failed G1 designs that ILM. Oh that's right, they didn't even attempt the G1 designs. Making Starscream look like a chicken was far more important.

Making Starscream look believable was far more important. By the way every one of your posts being "Teh G1 designs, I want them...wahhhhh!" isn't helping your case either. G1 designs were blocky and unrealistic. Here you go, here is a fan video as good as you can find it.

And how campy does that look. How the hell would you even get in that car, there is a giant arm in the drivers seat. The truth is you can't. You need the car to be able to fold out into a car with all the parts is working and visible order and then back to a robot with all those parts still accounted for. The TV designs especially and toy designs never had to do that, and certainly didn't have to worry about preserving articulation in the process.

wow. that's a stretch. Jazz can have a humanoid simply because he's obsessed with pop culture and Optimus can because we need to relate to him but if the other Transformers had humanoid faces the movie would fail.

But not all the Transformers have humanoid faces anyways, so what's your problem.
Is this a humanoid face.

How about this

...and he was one of the more popular characters. So the point is, you don't need all of them to look the same. It's nice that they throw in a little variety for once I can tell them apart and they have personality not just blank stares. Oh wait....I'm sorry you'd prefer this.

Which one is the traitor, the tracker and the warrior again...because I can't tell.

c'mon dude. Stop coming up with ridiculous excuses to not use G1 designs.

Stop coming up with ridiculous "I need teh G1" crap every two minutes. You don't even know that much about the series to begin with.

If Jazz has a humanoid face there's no reason other Transformers outside of Optimus Prime couldn't. The audience might have related to the Transformers more and noticed more humanistic parallels. Also, G1 fans would recognize most of the G1 characters beyond nomenclature.

G1 fans will recognize the characters irregardless, because Transformers fans have been dealing with renames and reissues for about 20 years now. And frankly I really don't want a bunch of poorly articulated, cartoony, 1982 cars running around on a movie screen.

Remember Blind_Fury, I am a G1 fan and if you need any help verify that go to this thread.
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=275655

He has more working parts and details. The same result would've happened if ILM used a G1 design and added more details. But Jazz has the basic anatomy of an alternator toy. But that's acceptable because Micheal Bay is beyond reproach for some ungodly reason around here.

But a face still needs to work like a face and bendy, stretchy metal simply looks silly on screen, especially next to a live action environment. And to have more parts naturally you have to change.the.design. Where do Jazz's door go in robot mode, what about Prime's trailer...and don't give me that subspace crap that years of fanwanking came up with...hell Transformers fans don't even like that explanation.

 

[terry78]

How would a live action blocky looking Starscream look? Please, tell me.

They gave them all noses, mouths and cheeks back in the 80's because..that's what you did back in the 80's.

 

[YÅ«gi's BM]

Honestly, I don't see why you put yourself through the stress of complaining about the movie to people who obviously are open to change. You insult and antagonize them as if they insult you. Over a bloody kids franchise. Then, I might've done the same thing if this was Mobile Suit Gundam, but I doubt I'd take it as far you are doing so now.

Then again, I've not seen the movie, and until I do I cannot say whether or not I like it or not. It maybe a 'souless motion picture', but it's only an introduction film, and it's only one film.

 

[CFlash]

I don't think ShadowBoxing reads very well B_F. Give it up.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

The only model who does this is Prime. Starscream to an extent, but that's it.
.

Bumblebee's face resembles that of his original toy. Ratchet and Ironhide are a wee bit out of left field. Megatron certainly bears a resemblence to Galvatron and Megatron and RiD Megatron in spades. Most of them are brand new characters, not based in any, way, shape or form on the originals. And furthermore Ironhide has been a pick-up truck twice. Ratchet is about the only Transformer you might have an argument with...but remember this is not G1, nor is it a stated G1 movie. And Blind_Fury is not making an argument for more nods, he's is making an argument for G1 designs.

 

[blind_fury]

How would a live action blocky looking Starscream look? Please, tell me.

Post a pic of a Bay's Starscream toy since we're using toys to determine how it would look in the movie..

They gave them all noses, mouths and cheeks back in the 80's because..that's what you did back in the 80's.

apparently they do that in 2007 also since Optimus Prime and Jazz have humanoid facial features in the movie.

But let me guess. When Bay does it, it magically makes perfect sense to put mouths, noses, and cheeks on alien robots. right?

 

[ShadowBoxing]

How would a live action blocky looking Starscream look? Please, tell me.

They gave them all noses, mouths and cheeks back in the 80's because..that's what you did back in the 80's.

That toy would look on screen like a great.big.toy. It cannot move at the waste, it lacks proper movement in the shoulders and chest area. The legs are limited in their range of motion. The head would need more articulation in the neck. And lastly you couldn't move in plane mode, you'd have a giant head sticking out at the bottom end of the plane, with visible arms on the undercarrage...sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

 

[CFlash]

How would a live action blocky looking Starscream look? Please, tell me.

<snip pic of StarScream toy>

They gave them all noses, mouths and cheeks back in the 80's because..that's what you did back in the 80's.

First off, he didn't have to be a "monster." You say the original StarScream looks the way he did because it was some 80's thing. Actually, this (which is more like this movie) is also from the same exact time as the original Transformers.

Those were robots that transformed to (but, they weren't "Transformers"-- guess what they were). And you could easily tell the bad-guys from the good-guys.

In Transformers, I don't even think the Insecticons looked like that.

 

[Boiiinng]

Bumblebee's face resembles that of his original toy. Ratchet and Ironhide are a wee bit out of left field. Megatron certainly bears a resemblence to Galvatron and Megatron and RiD Megatron in spades. Most of them are brand new characters, not based in any, way, shape or form on the originals. And furthermore Ironhide has been a pick-up truck twice. Ratchet is about the only Transformer you might have an argument with...but remember this is not G1, nor is it a stated G1 movie. And Blind_Fury is not making an argument for more nods, he's is making an argument for G1 designs.

Actually it is a stated G1 movie, by one of the producers no less. If it wasn't why would they care to make Prime a semi and not a firetruck like so many other translations? Oh and thanks for not quoting the part of my post which states that pieces and parts an adaptation does not make. It makes your arguments seem so much more viable when you edit the quote. You'd make a good republican.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

In Transformers, I don't even think the Insecticons looked like that.

Bombshell had an inhumanoid face, as did everyone in the deluxe assortment.

 

[Red Mask]

The old Transformers were kids stuff, but at least they were the focus of the series and not a bunch of humans. There isn't enough screen time to even remember their names or give them more personality than the human stars. This movie wasn't about them. It was about us humans making sure they don't destroy our planet.