Transformers The User Review Thread [SPOILERS IN ABUNDANCE!]

[zwesell]

Like I said before, don't ask how I got the DVD. If I told you how I got it, I'd have to eliminate you...

 

[UltimateMagneto]

So I re-watched Transformers yesterday with my bud. He loved it the first time around... but we had gone in a big group (6 people) and 4 of us, including my fiance, hated it. There was lots of negativity. Plus I think I was a little too drunk....

This time around I think I was able to appreciate the movie for what it is. Just pure fun. It won't win any awards for sci-fi, but it was loads of fun. And beyond that... I was surprised at this sense of pure love the movie exuded for the bots and the original Transformers cartoon. Soooo many lines that harkened to the cartoon (Ironhide's cannon line, Megatron's "No, it's just me, Prime," etc.).... I was just taken aback.

Reading Michael Bay's recent interview it's apparent the movie had to make due with its budget. Which is why a lot of the battle at end seems... I dunno.... cut short (especially Megs v Prime). Still, the movie is beautiful... and impressive.

I have to give it up. Michael Bay outdid himself. Made a beautiful movie... and pretty much hit the nail on the head with the characters (obviously, especially the Autobots)... and really what else can you ask for? I still think it could have been a much better serious sci-fi-action movie (think Terminator, Aliens, Close Encounters but with giant robots etc)... but the movie is what it is... and I felt the love.

I raise my score to 7.5. Had they actually shown the Prime v Megs fight it would be an 8.

So do you still have the same problems with the movie as you did before, but now the good you noticed this time around outweighs that, or, did you actually change your opinion on certain things which you considered negative before?

 

[CFlash]

So do you still have the same problems with the movie as you did before, but now the good you noticed this time around outweighs that, or, did you actually change your opinion on certain things which you considered negative before?

Still have a lot of the same problems, but good outweighed it. I did change my mind slightly about the ethnic stereotyping because of the surfer kid (Sam's friend) in the beginning.... all bases were covered making it fair. I also caught Mikaela's little diss on Sam that knocked sense into him (something along the lines of "when have you ever had to sacrifice anything in your perfect little life").

There is definately a lot to love in this movie. I still wish it had a little more gravity and wasn't so glossy about death and destruction... and I wish the movie actually had more to say about our world... and I wish the plot was a little more mature and believable. But none of those things take away from the fact that it is a beautiful (yes, I said beautiful) movie.

I put it in the same league with Batman 89 (which I love). Visual and iconic wonderfulness, but not so good plot. Hopefully, like Spidey 2 the sequel kicks it up a notch.

P.S. One thing I will say is: I dunno if it's Spielberg's influence or just Michael Bay maturing (after 13 years), but if there's anything this movie lacks it's NOT the bad direction lots of these "adaptation" movies suffer from (Daredevil, FF, Ghost Rider, etc). The movie is brilliantly shot and the actors completely believable. Bay has talent.... I wish he'd be brave enough to kick the intellectual level of his movies up a few notches.

 

[millennium movies]

Like I said before, don't ask how I got the DVD. If I told you how I got it, I'd have to eliminate you...

Brag much?

 

[UltimateMagneto]

Still have a lot of the same problems, but good outweighed it. I did change my mind slightly about the ethnic stereotyping because of the surfer kid (Sam's friend) in the beginning.... all bases were covered making it fair. I also caught Mikaela's little diss on Sam that knocked sense into him (something along the lines of "when have you ever had to sacrifice anything in your perfect little life").

There is definately a lot to love in this movie. I still wish it had a little more gravity and wasn't so glossy about death and destruction... and I wish the movie actually had more to say about our world... and I wish the plot was a little more mature and believable. But none of those things take away from the fact that it is a beautiful (yes, I said beautiful) movie.

I put it in the same league with Batman 89 (which I love). Visual and iconic wonderfulness, but not so good plot. Hopefully, like Spidey 2 the sequel kicks it up a notch.

P.S. One thing I will say is: I dunno if it's Spielberg's influence or just Michael Bay maturing (after 13 years), but if there's anything this movie lacks it's NOT the bad direction lots of these "adaptation" movies suffer from (Daredevil, FF, Ghost Rider, etc). The movie is brilliantly shot and the actors completely believable. Bay has talent.... I wish he'd be brave enough to kick the intellectual level of his movies up a few notches.

Yeah, Bay did a great job. Hopefully, the areas lacking will be improved upon. I have high hopes for the sequel, as a bigger budget will atleast mean more time with the Transformers, and that alone will kick it up a notch.

 

[Apollo]

I give it a 10!

my review: F'ing amazing!!!

 

[nogster]

totally agree cflash....bays direction has incredible style, if he could just raise the substance up a notch, hopefully for the sequel, man, can u imagine the potential?!!

 

[nogster]

i dont get how people can give this film a perfect 10? i mean, it has faults, inconsistencies, these people that dole out 10s, are u saying that there is NOTHING that can be improved apon, nothing? cause thats what a 10 is..perfection...i dont buy it...show some objectivity....i realise apon initial viewing of a film u loved, enthusiasm is so high, thats its easy to ignore the flaws, but as always, in time, that will change...i dont get it.......

 

[pickleweed]

ppl could call it product placements yea...

on the other hand..the film has cars as protagonists..these real cars(like most real cars) have the maker(logo) on the front of the car somewhere...

I suppose the director could simply opt to shoot the car from somewhere other than the front for the whole film...

curious..is there a big fat GMC logo on optimus' chest?

my friend said the same thing about the Panasonic flash card..
i asked him if he that scene needed a close up of the card(for story telling purposes...the ones bay doesn't have) he said YES...then i asked if it's maybe possible that she could have been using one of the best flash cards...which would tend to be one like Panasonic...he said yes....and finally i asked if the Panasonic cards say Panasonic...he just nodded...
(note the product placement in that past paragraph lol)

cell phone with missles?
-the energy giving all spark gives the creaturs a spark, where there was none...
don't be so sure those are normal missles it's firing
but rather nrg weapons maybe even encased in shells

apart from star screams and the other military vehicles....cybertronians were using cybertronian weapons(note BB)

The camero upgrade was a story telling device...and the fact that it came right before the autobots did their scanning thing...was actually really key story telling...
my pal came out saying, how the hell did optimus and the others copy the cars...that made no sense..
I said, did u remember how BB did it...
and he said, i thought BB just stole the guys car..
NOW IT MAKES SENSE
(i suppose it could have been clearer)

if u think the designs were unclear..take a look at the house scene again
everyone reads as who their supposed to read as...
if ur gonna complain about the crazy action scene...go take a look at any war film for example (cept pearl titanic harbour), when the fighting starts soldiers get jumbled...it's the way of things

if u think these characters were "similar" looking?
go take a look at the ninja turtles

first off, yeah, cars ARE the protagonists. thats a given. but when bumblebee changes from an old busted camero to a shiny, new, complete with glamour shots, 2k8 camero what else is it? why not a nicer classic camero? oh thats right, chevy isn't selling 68's anymore. things were shot to where we blatantly noticed them. the panasonic card for instance. did they need to turn the card towards the camera for that extra second? was it important that i knew it was a 2 gig card? or a panasonic card? it certainly struck me when watching it, as it did you and your friend based on your conversation. sure, realistically cards are labeled, but artistically it was gratuitous and conspicuous.

the whole making new bots thing is problematic for me, so we can talk hypotheticals in circles if you want, but it just screams bs to me.

saying battle scenes get jumbled, and thats that is an excuse for piss poor filmmaking. trying to mimic the feel of chaos within a battle is entirely different than showing a blundered mess you call character design. i should be able to read the difference between the heads and feet of what im looking at, regardless of action. i shouldnt struggle with the question of "is that ironhide or starscream?" there should be a clarity in the choas. and that came down to a design issue.

 

[pickleweed]

tell me again about the product placement....

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/2007-07-02-851084127_x.htm

 

[Marvin]

Still have a lot of the same problems, but good outweighed it. I did change my mind slightly about the ethnic stereotyping because of the surfer kid (Sam's friend) in the beginning.... all bases were covered making it fair. I also caught Mikaela's little diss on Sam that knocked sense into him (something along the lines of "when have you ever had to sacrifice anything in your perfect little life").

There is definately a lot to love in this movie. I still wish it had a little more gravity and wasn't so glossy about death and destruction... and I wish the movie actually had more to say about our world... and I wish the plot was a little more mature and believable. But none of those things take away from the fact that it is a beautiful (yes, I said beautiful) movie.

I put it in the same league with Batman 89 (which I love). Visual and iconic wonderfulness, but not so good plot. Hopefully, like Spidey 2 the sequel kicks it up a notch.

P.S. One thing I will say is: I dunno if it's Spielberg's influence or just Michael Bay maturing (after 13 years), but if there's anything this movie lacks it's NOT the bad direction lots of these "adaptation" movies suffer from (Daredevil, FF, Ghost Rider, etc). The movie is brilliantly shot and the actors completely believable. Bay has talent.... I wish he'd be brave enough to kick the intellectual level of his movies up a few notches.

wow..someone noticed

he is an award winning photographer
and u can see it in the colours and compositions in alot of the shots (ie iron hide and the lady in blue)
plus he knows the secret to realistic lighting

the man does need to choose a script that isn't all flash for once tho

i mean i enjoy badboys over that miami vice anyday...and he does do that bruckheimer stuff better than anyone (note tim story)...

but i can't wait for the day he get a script that backs itself it up substance wise...

directors tell other ppl's stories
weather they be good stories or bad
not sure how hard it actually it to put a camera in front of two good actors in a room and have them win an academy for you
but i can tell u it's not easy deliver the artistic shots bay has on his resume

 

[Marvin]

tell me again about the product placement....

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/2007-07-02-851084127_x.htm

like i said

it's circumstance

by that logic

Superman returns is just one big product placement
same with Batman begins

seeing as how DC comics frenzied to get all their tie ins in order and hoped to grab the younger readers attention...oh and yes..
let's not forget the long lingering close ups on the characters logos/symbols(which happen to be on their chests)

at the end of Batman 89...(check out the sig if u forget) we get a longer than it should have been shot of what?

double standard anyone?

 

[Marvin]

first off, yeah, cars ARE the protagonists. thats a given. but when bumblebee changes from an old busted camero to a shiny, new, complete with glamour shots, 2k8 camero what else is it? why not a nicer classic camero? oh thats right, chevy isn't selling 68's anymore.

I'm assuming u seen the movie...

every other character in the movie is the current model of their model right(don't see how anyone even u could have a problem with that)
consider how and where it is sam acquired his car...and "old beat down used car lot"
any idea how sam and bb would have hooked up(within a rational story) if bb was already supped up?

oh but ur saying why didn't he just turn into a cleaner version of the 68?
considering what the female character said...plus the make of the model. How would that be any god damn different than say

him being a vintage bi plane

and turning into a cleaner one

why not him going for old and dated and becoming like a current concept F22 type fighter?

oh right cause that would make this a pointless commercial
and the army isn't selling old planes anymore

define glamor shot?

(sorry but his isn't a singer movie..things tend to look good)

things were shot to where we blatantly noticed them. the panasonic card for instance. did they need to turn the card towards the camera for that extra second? was it important that i knew it was a 2 gig card? or a panasonic card? it certainly struck me when watching it, as it did you and your friend based on your conversation. sure, realistically cards are labeled, but artistically it was gratuitous and conspicuous.

if it didn't say panasonic u wouldn't be saying anything...(i assume)
which means this is more subjective reasoning and can't really be argued

the whole making new bots thing is problematic for me, so we can talk hypotheticals in circles if you want, but it just screams bs to me.

not sure what ur referring to

saying battle scenes get jumbled, and thats that is an excuse for piss poor filmmaking. trying to mimic the feel of chaos within a battle is entirely different than showing a blundered mess you call character design.

actually it's him sticking to his artistic goals for one
he said numerous times that this is a story told through sams eyes...i'm sorry but if 30 foot robots are going to war 10 feet away from you...it would look a hell of a lot more shaky than even bay gave us...
same with his bad boys 2 highway chase...

blundered mess...i'm sure we all wanted a clearer picture of what was going on but honestly...at the end of the day it was clear enough to see what was what..
blundered mess is actually Batman Begins...decided or otherwise

i should be able to read the difference between the heads and feet of what im looking at, regardless of action. i shouldnt struggle with the question of "is that ironhide or starscream?" there should be a clarity in the choas. and that came down to a design issue.

um
if character design is the issue u need to take an objective look at say Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
their all the same height...same skin, same eyes, same everything but hints of coloured band here and there...and weapons

TF..different height, colours weapons, movements, poses.....etc

sorry but ur wrong
and thats not just coming from an animation degree student...

here's a question
when megatron was fighting jazz...did u ever wonder if it was jazz doing the stomping and then the tearing apart??

if u struggled at times i understand...but that's u

that may be due to the engaging shaky cam...but as far as design...i say nah...
why?
cause u can't make anything close to the same points at the house scene

if tmnt had shaky cams in their fights(in the dark..) u'd not doubt pull ur eyes out.

 

[pickleweed]

I'm assuming u seen the movie...

every other character in the movie is the current model of their model right(don't see how anyone even u could have a problem with that)
consider how and where it is sam acquired his car...and "old beat down used car lot"
any idea how sam and bb would have hooked up(within a rational story) if bb was already supped up?

oh but ur saying why didn't he just turn into a cleaner version of the 68?
considering what the female character said...plus the make of the model. How would that be any god damn different than say

him being a vintage bi plane

and turning into a cleaner one

why not him going for old and dated and becoming like a current concept F22 type fighter?

oh right cause that would make this a pointless commercial
and the army isn't selling old planes anymore

define glamor shot?

(sorry but his isn't a singer movie..things tend to look good)



if it didn't say panasonic u wouldn't be saying anything...(i assume)
which means this is more subjective reasoning and can't really be argued



not sure what ur referring to



actually it's him sticking to his artistic goals for one
he said numerous times that this is a story told through sams eyes...i'm sorry but if 30 foot robots are going to war 10 feet away from you...it would look a hell of a lot more shaky than even bay gave us...
same with his bad boys 2 highway chase...

blundered mess...i'm sure we all wanted a clearer picture of what was going on but honestly...at the end of the day it was clear enough to see what was what..
blundered mess is actually Batman Begins...decided or otherwise



um
if character design is the issue u need to take an objective look at say Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
their all the same height...same skin, same eyes, same everything but hints of coloured band here and there...and weapons

TF..different height, colours weapons, movements, poses.....etc

sorry but ur wrong
and thats not just coming from an animation degree student...

here's a question
when megatron was fighting jazz...did u ever wonder if it was jazz doing the stomping and then the tearing apart??

if u struggled at times i understand...but that's u

that may be due to the engaging shaky cam...but as far as design...i say nah...
why?
cause u can't make anything close to the same points at the house scene

if tmnt had shaky cams in their fights(in the dark..) u'd not doubt pull ur eyes out.

the point of the bumblebee transformation had nothing to do with the plot. the movie would have gone on exactly as it would have had bumblebee still been an older camero. justifying the switch because its questioned in the script is circular logic. they wanted him to become a new camero, and they gave him a reason to become one. the end. no other reason to make the switch save the millions chevy paid to have it in there. the reason i compared it to the older model is because they could have had the switch but made him a nicer older car (all she asked was why he was a piece of crap), but it was a reason to showcase the new, on sale model. are denying the product placement or do you just not think it was as blatant as i did?

youre superman/batman analogy is outright rediculous. they're title characters. case closed. the ticket stub says batman on it, he's what you want to see, his is the story being told, and he is the reason you're in the theater. had they sold the movie as the GMC/chevy showcase then you would have an argument.

glamour shot are a judgement call on my part. it simply felt like i was watching a car commercial at times. whether or not this is necessarily intentional sales pitch is up in the air, but my gut says yeah.

you keep bringing up tmnt. yeah, those are really bad designs. they all look alike. and in certain mediums, they have the same bandana. but guess what? thats the problem you take on with that franchise (hence the nametags). this is an entirely different animal. you had a chance to have characters that looked different, different scale colors etc... but they didnt. outside of jazz, who was really that different in size? what were the main color differences? gray and darker gray vacuum hoses? plus the onslaught of moving pieces and lack of actual masses leave your eye wandering. you must have gone to a poor animation school or something, because that wouldnt fly where i went. and whereas tmnt lacks in design, they make up for in development. mikey is different from raph from leo. in transformers they were all the same. they simply werent unique from one another.

i already said the jumbledness of it wasnt from the directing. it was from the designs. they just werent good. and i dont mean they werent good looking, or they didnt look enough like the cartoon. i mean they simply didnt lend to getting attatched to character. the had no desernable features and kept your eye wandering. alright animation major, tell me where im wrong. all the transformers were the same in proportion. all the transformers were the same general shape. all the transforemers were primarily the same color. all the transformers were generally the same size. all of which are cardinal sins of design.

 

[XXTBWCXX]

i dont get how people can give this film a perfect 10? i mean, it has faults, inconsistencies, these people that dole out 10s, are u saying that there is NOTHING that can be improved apon, nothing? cause thats what a 10 is..perfection...i dont buy it...show some objectivity....i realise apon initial viewing of a film u loved, enthusiasm is so high, thats its easy to ignore the flaws, but as always, in time, that will change...i dont get it.......

Every movie has flaws my friend.

But Transformers deserve a 10 just because it's a totally different movie than any movie that's been made.

No one would ever thought of a movie based on giant robots and even if the storyline is sort of mediocre, the story was all about the All Spark, nothing fancy, just to the point.

And I was never a fan of long character developments (that's why I liked Spider-Man, it went straight to the point, five minutes into the movie and Peter gets bitten); and what we got for each character was enough (only my one complaint is that the beginning, in Qatar, there should have been more scenes, such as Lennox and the kid unloading the cargo much like in the book).

But people could say otherwise and still say it doesn't deserve that ten, but to me, it does because it's still a movie on a grand scale and nothing can beat it until the sequel comes out.

 

[newmexneon]

10. The movie blew me away. I couldn't get the smile off my face from the opening scene til I fell asleep that night.

 

[Jager X]

Every movie has flaws my friend.

But Transformers deserve a 10 just because it's a totally different movie than any movie that's been made.

No one would ever thought of a movie based on giant robots and even if the storyline is sort of mediocre, the story was all about the All Spark, nothing fancy, just to the point.

And I was never a fan of long character developments (that's why I liked Spider-Man, it went straight to the point, five minutes into the movie and Peter gets bitten); and what we got for each character was enough (only my one complaint is that the beginning, in Qatar, there should have been more scenes, such as Lennox and the kid unloading the cargo much like in the book).

But people could say otherwise and still say it doesn't deserve that ten, but to me, it does because it's still a movie on a grand scale and nothing can beat it until the sequel comes out.

Transformers is no different from The Terminator or The Matrix. Both movies delivered something that has never been seen before or taken seriously. But there is no denying that they could be improved upon (no remakes!).

Transformers was an extremely entertaining movie. Michael Bay has surpassed himself once again in terms of action. Still, that doesn't warrant a 10/10. If you're gonna give this movie a perfect rating based solely on action then you may as well do the same with Street Fighter, Rambo 3, Spider-man 3, any action flick that stars Dennis Rodman, etc.

 

[GhostPoet]

I'll give it a 9.

 

[The Caped Knight]

I got the movie on DVD (don't ask how). Its great using quicktime to scrub thru the transformations in slo mo!

So can you post some screen caps please ?

 

[Super Kal]

I can guarantee that it's a bootleg.

 

[millennium movies]

Im pretty sure he has this:
http://www.vcdquality.com/index.php?page=sample&id=72717

 

[XXTBWCXX]

Transformers is no different from The Terminator or The Matrix. Both movies delivered something that has never been seen before or taken seriously. But there is no denying that they could be improved upon (no remakes!).

Transformers was an extremely entertaining movie. Michael Bay has surpassed himself once again in terms of action. Still, that doesn't warrant a 10/10. If you're gonna give this movie a perfect rating based solely on action then you may as well do the same with Street Fighter, Rambo 3, Spider-man 3, any action flick that stars Dennis Rodman, etc.

Simon Seyz?

I think that was the name of his movie with Dane Cook, lol.

But, what you're saying is far from where I'm coming at.

Transformers brings in a whole new territory of movies (G.I. Joe, Gundam(sp?)), and even with its great special effects, it also has a good story, great scenery/setting, and good characters too. And for all of this, that's why I say 10.

Street Fighter was terrible.

Rambo 3 was a hundred times worse than the first Rambo.

And Spider-Man 3 could've been better than Transformers, IF Sam Raimi kept all the scenes...sure, it had a lot of stuff packed in it, but he HAD the right amount of scenes for every characters, but Sony (I think) forced him to take numerous scenes out so it wouldn't come out as another Superman Returns...and, too bad for them, Superman Returns turned out to be a better movie than S-M 3.

 

[Marvin]

the point of the bumblebee transformation had nothing to do with the plot. the movie would have gone on exactly as it would have had bumblebee still been an older camero. justifying the switch because its questioned in the script is circular logic. they wanted him to become a new camero, and they gave him a reason to become one. the end. no other reason to make the switch save the millions chevy paid to have it in there. the reason i compared it to the older model is because they could have had the switch but made him a nicer older car (all she asked was why he was a piece of crap), but it was a reason to showcase the new, on sale model. are denying the product placement or do you just not think it was as blatant as i did?

I assume that just like all the other characters...BB was supposed to be a new modern and most powerful model
thing is story telling wise, he had to infiltrate his way into sams life and the only way to do that was to be an old used car...after that was said and done...he could then make the switch back to his more up to date self

General Motors didin't exactly "pay" millions to have their cars in the movie, they donated all the cars...

The 2009 Camero isn't exactly on sale...it's a concept car

like i said, theres no reason for BB to go from old beat up model to old beat up, clean model...
no matter how much ppl hate GMC...

youre superman/batman analogy is outright rediculous. they're title characters. case closed. the ticket stub says batman on it, he's what you want to see, his is the story being told, and he is the reason you're in the theater. had they sold the movie as the GMC/chevy showcase then you would have an argument

.

My analogy is actually quite wonderful..heres what's what

u say GMC cars in Transformers was blatant marketing due to the fact that we got glam shots of cars with gmc logos on the front...and that in turn helps sell a product that exists outside of the film(which pre exists the film)

I say how is that any different than glam shots of Superman and Batman?
I mean they have symbols
and if anything these "shots" are helping to sell a product that exists outside of the film...and pre exists the film to be specific...

I'm not saying that the film superman and batman are simple marketing by a long shot...i'm saying that if ur gonna Knock GMC for plugging their sh1t in this movie..than why are your knocking DC comics for plugging their goods(characters/batmobiles/comics) in the WB produced movies?
...because of the name on the ticket stub?
let's be honest here...

glamour shot are a judgement call on my part. it simply felt like i was watching a car commercial at times. whether or not this is necessarily intentional sales pitch is up in the air, but my gut says yeah.

I'm glad ur admitting it's subjectivity on your part....
thing is Michael Bay shoots Martin Lawrence in the same way...and he looks great!
for better or worse, every shot in his films are glam shots...i for one love it

you keep bringing up tmnt. yeah, those are really bad designs. they all look alike. and in certain mediums, they have the same bandana. but guess what? thats the problem you take on with that franchise (hence the nametags). this is an entirely different animal. you had a chance to have characters that looked different, different scale colors etc... but they didnt. outside of jazz, who was really that different in size? what were the main color differences? gray and darker gray vacuum hoses? plus the onslaught of moving pieces and lack of actual masses leave your eye wandering. you must have gone to a poor animation school or something, because that wouldnt fly where i went. and whereas tmnt lacks in design, they make up for in development. mikey is different from raph from leo. in transformers they were all the same. they simply werent unique from one another.

these are problematic designs...
http://eirtaku.com/upload/files/TMNT_1024x768_2.jpg
lest the colour coded bandanas their all the same thing

these are all different
http://www.michaelbay.com/blog/files/d58812e5a390e8b3a44162285e4ae054-74.html

and whats more is that theres no mass shifting so that means that the camero ends up being about 17feet tall...and the f22 about 30 and optimus about 35...the solstice about 15...
so yes theres a major height difference (note the house scene)

I wouldn't even mind if all the bad guys were the same grey colour eventhough their not...
but the black Helicopter guyhttp://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z310/kzupin/blackout5.jpg looks way different than the brownish construction bot...which looks different from the smaller police car...which all look different from the 40 foot megatron...
they look different

i already said the jumbledness of it wasnt from the directing. it was from the designs. they just werent good. and i dont mean they werent good looking, or they didnt look enough like the cartoon. i mean they simply didnt lend to getting attatched to character. the had no desernable features and kept your eye wandering. alright animation major, tell me where im wrong. all the transformers were the same in proportion. all the transformers were the same general shape. all the transforemers were primarily the same color. all the transformers were generally the same size. all of which are cardinal sins of design.

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/5008/optimuspuzzlemi4.jpg
I see knee joints, shoulders, elbows, wrists...
torsos..

if it wasn't for these more functional designs that motion capture stuff u saw in the movie wouldn't work(doesn't take an animation major to tell u that)
note optimus running on the tops of buildings...or starscreams bridge jump...or bumblebees shadow boxing...

same proportion?
almost none of the characters were the same size...
their mass and height was based entirely on their car forms

in a cartoon u get soldiers that all look special ie GI Joe
in a realistic movie u get...Saving Private Ryan...ppl of the same species tend to u know...kinda look the same

Transformers finds a middle ground with it's designs

 

[Jager X]

Simon Seyz?

I think that was the name of his movie with Dane Cook, lol.

But, what you're saying is far from where I'm coming at.

Transformers brings in a whole new territory of movies (G.I. Joe, Gundam(sp?)), and even with its great special effects, it also has a good story, great scenery/setting, and good characters too. And for all of this, that's why I say 10.

Street Fighter was terrible.

Rambo 3 was a hundred times worse than the first Rambo.

And Spider-Man 3 could've been better than Transformers, IF Sam Raimi kept all the scenes...sure, it had a lot of stuff packed in it, but he HAD the right amount of scenes for every characters, but Sony (I think) forced him to take numerous scenes out so it wouldn't come out as another Superman Returns...and, too bad for them, Superman Returns turned out to be a better movie than S-M 3.

I think...you misunderstood my post.

 

[zwesell]

So can you post some screen caps please ?

How do you post pics?