Age of Extinction Transformers 4 is going to be AWESOME. - Part 1

[P Supreme]

Lockdown was a real surprise here. His introduction scene and speech about the Autobots and Decepticons pretty much defines him perfectly.

can't wait for this been waiting for a good villian in these films
and excited to hear the theme

 

[DA_Champion]

Another fun plus of this movie.

I just watched the first season of the HBO show "Silicon Valley", I loved it. One of its leading actors, T.J. Miller, is also an actor in Age of Extinction where he has a nice secondary role. He plays a similar character, it was fun to watch.

 

[Lord]

Interesting to see so much positive feedback, but i'm afraid of seeing the "It's the best TF movie since the first one", since that one was not exactly all that great, i would have expected that by the 4th instalment, they would have given something better than that one.

 

[def28]

For me Transformers 1 is a great film by the fact it's extremely entertaining throughout. Which is why I go to these. So if this flick is closer to that, I'll be stoked.

I did not expect them to bounce back that strong from the previous 2.

 

[CEREBRAL....]

That's been my point for a while, it's insane and face palming stupid outright, yet when similar or even the same level of things(or same jokes) are in another movie, it's not face palming(see list of recent comedies that get decent to great reviews).

Maybe it's the context. Set up, expectations. Cause I swear coming out of 2008 I heard countless people suggest that the mere mention of 'pot' in a film was offensive.

I never understood where is the disconnect with you on this. Those "similar and same level things(same jokes)" in other movies aka adult content are meant to be in those movies and are geared toward adults, so when you go to a movie that is gear toward kids or the expectation of kids seeing the movie, those similar jokes should not be present, hence "the face palm reaction".

also a comedy is a comedy, action sci-fi / blockbuster is not comedy (some comedy is expected, SOME comedy)

@DA_Champion thank you for your honest review.

 

[DA_Champion]

Interesting to see so much positive feedback, but i'm afraid of seeing the "It's the best TF movie since the first one", since that one was not exactly all that great, i would have expected that by the 4th instalment, they would have given something better than that one.

I was six years younger when the first one came out, knew much less about movies, and the novelty was high.

********

Another plus: this movie has multiple self aware jokes where it self deprecates, some people claim to love that so here goes.

 

[Lord]

I was six years younger when the first one came out, knew much less about movies, and the novelty was high.

********

Another plus: this movie has multiple self aware jokes where it self deprecates, some people claim to love that so here goes.

Impressive review either way. Though i don't think i was blown away when it came out myself, i was interested in the franchise and didn't know much of the cartoons but at the time i guess i was more into Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean and Spider-man.

Years later before the 2nd one came out i rewatched it and found it a little more boring than before.

 

[Marvin]

I never understood where is the disconnect with you on this. Those "similar and same level things(same jokes)" in other movies aka adult content are meant to be in those movies and are geared toward adults, so when you go to a movie that is gear toward kids or the expectation of kids seeing the movie, those similar jokes should not be present, hence "the face palm reaction".

also a comedy is a comedy, action sci-fi / blockbuster is not comedy (some comedy is expected, SOME comedy)

Firstly, I very much don't agree with that last part. It enters into a realm where people start picking and choosing as they see fit. Next thing you know, the comedy quotient in avengers/thor 2 is now too high for a so called action movie, cause action movies are supposed to have the comedy quotient of TDKR and not one bit more. Picking and choosing.

The truth is, that there are no 'rules' to such things, and anyone that pretends there are is copping out of critical analysis. Did ID4 have 'too much comedy' for an 'action sci fi movie', did any of the indy or Pirates movies or is it different with adventure? Did that first ninja turtles? Who made these rules? Ghost busters is a sci fi movie so it better not have too much comedy, no wait, it's a comedy movie because it declared itself as one on the entry ballot. The fact is that this (tf)movie is based on a source material that is silly. I'd say the same thing about Heman. In that simple truth, the films are expected to be anything they want. Genre Blending happens, the quotients and percentages that work as rule are determined by no one. The films coming out of asian cinema are a master class on this.
Next someone will be saying the same thing about how much romance a 'non romance' film can have(given around 90% of films have some kinda romance), this someone might define a pure romance as a love story with no action(so no gone with the wind or war time stuff)..it's a messy thing to try and get into is the point.

I really just can't stand when people or critical establishments(a larger group of people) try to control artistic mediums in this way. Some artist is going to experiment and maybe do something outside of the convention, in this scenario, let's just say it's adding alot of comedic elements to an 'action/sci fi' film. Then like Jackson Pollack who's worse was shat on during the time, these people and their rules 'shun' it not given the product a fair or proper chance to shine and find it's audience. It really disturbs me. It's no doubt why Kubricks early films didn't get the praise they did till later, cause some 'group' and their dated line of thinking. Art can only grow when this stuff is given no power.
What's more, I'm very curious how this so called theory is going to apply to Guardians of the Galaxy, or has that film already filled out the proper ballots I wonder.

Secondly, as to your first point. I actually meant all the comedy in these tf films. Not simply the 'adult' gags. It's all the comedy that people claim is dumb and face palm inducing, are shia's parents being dumb and annoying again? face palm.
Speaking specifically towards the adult pot jokes and 'college girls trying to get in good with the prof' and sexuality. The film is pg13. Ignoring what that automatically dictates about expectations for people with brains that walk in. The jokes aren't actually too adult for kids as deemed by gov't associations based on that reason alone. Moreover, this isn't a close up on a male penis that has been bit by a spider, this isn't james franco ranting to mcbride about jerking off, it's parents having an awkward talk in innuendo. Beast wars and shows like that(including Reboot) had it's share of sexuality and substance abuse...kids aren't as young as we like to think.

What really loses me:
When people say they are 'offended' by the 'offensive' humor but then cop out. Like Simmons butt cheeks exposed causing this particular individual in the audience to tune out and 'be offended'. When ken jeuon runs around naked in hangover, this same individual that was offended by the former is now what exactly? I thought he hated this kinda comedy, it's low, and unnecessary, unbecoming of an intelligent and clever filmmaker. Who knew all along that all this rants and ravings were all this time on behalf of "the innocent children" and not his own reaction to the film. Who knew.
What else has this person done this with? When he said he couldn't tell what was going on with the action, did he actually mean to speak for the old people in the theater that need glasses, or himself? Point being, speak for yourself when it comes to this stuff, not 'for the children' if something offends you then speak to that. Doing that other thing is fickle to no end.

I mean has that been the scape goat this entire time? The children and rating? A movie like horrible bosses with all it's racial jokes and stereotypes is fine but here african americans/asians acting silly, or the robots talking 'jive' it's officially offensive based on the fact that that one is an R movie and this one is 'for kids'? This is my argument about double standard. If people just spoke to the truth of the experience instead of trying to disguise things in talks of children and Ratings. If something is offensively racist or homophobic, have the guts to be consistent in that accusation. I say this to all the pundits and critics with what seems to be a double standard. It was when avengers had a close up all the way up paltrows back side(as an introduction) with not one mention of overt sexuality that I tuned out. It was one thing when every single bond movie did it but at this point, it's kinda clear what's happening. To me anyways.

Ironically, you would think this being 'for children' that these same people would be even more open to it being less intelligent and silly in story telling. But that's another matter.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

So for people that have seen this I have two questions that maybe spoilers.

1. How much time has passed since the end of Dark Of The Moon and the start of Age of Extinction?

2. Does the movie explain what happened to Shia's character and his departure from Bumbleebee and Optimus etc?

 

[CEREBRAL....]

Firstly, I very much don't agree with that last part. It enters into a realm where people start picking and choosing as they see fit. Next thing you know, the comedy quotient in avengers/thor 2 is now too high for a so called action movie, cause action movies are supposed to have the comedy quotient of TDKR and not one bit more. Picking and choosing....

But this is your perceptual problem of other people and us the fans who don't like the perceive work of the films. You judge other people/fans/critics comments from your own perception or what you believe as to say "no, the reason you(the fans, person, critic) not liking this film is not from your own personal view/and taste (which we all have that right to do) but to say, you are looking at this from "this type of scope" as pose to looking at it from "this type of scope" you become more of a human physiologist judging other fans taste in entertainment other than just a fan like the rest of us.

That's not fair and who are you to tell someone they are "looking/judging" something incorrectly??? You put too much thought into how a viewer if you will, watches the same thing you are watching.


You are always gonna run into a problem with anyone who doesn't see it the way you do, or judges it different from you. It's not as analytical as you are making it, and i can see that with you, when someone types just a sentence, you turn it into 8/9 paragraph long post?

Like that is not really needed (maybe.maybe i'm wrong..idk). You're claiming people could start viewing all superhero films comedic parts in a certain way, and that's is not true and does not give you the right think that.

That's what I see from you anyways since the first movie came out, I know it's not gonna change the way you approach this (i'm not trying to ), nor are you gonna change my view, maybe i just did the same thing to you as i accuse you of doing to other people; I dont know, I just seen the pattern with you consistently since the first movie came out. I guess, oh well. It is what it is.

 

[Marvin]

But this is your perceptual problem of other people and us the fans who don't like the perceive work of the films. You judge other people/fans/critics comments from your own perception or what you believe as to say "no, the reason you(the fans, person, critic) not liking this film is not from your own personal view/and taste (which we all have that right to do) but to say, you are looking at this from "this type of scope" as pose to looking at it from "this type of scope" you become more of a human physiologist judging other fans taste in entertainment other than just a fan like the rest of us.

That's not fair and who are you to tell someone they are "looking/judging" something incorrectly??? You put too much thought into how a viewer if you will, watches the same thing you are watching.

I get where you are coming from but it's very much a response to something greater than just a matter of opinion. I don't have to look or read into anything because it's so often presented in the criticism anyways. It's what is then presented that I then engage with. For example; if people simply said they don't like the humor, or it didn't work(for them), at that point I'd say nothing and I wouldn't really have ground to read into anything. But as is so often the trend with these films in particular, so many people have to enter into commentary and punditry, and usually to make their argument sound more righteous. It's not 'I don't like this humor/it falls flat' that would be one thing, but instead it's; 'the humor is offensive'. I don't have to read into anything when someones says it's offensive, I just debate if it is or isn't. It's really that simple.

That's the majority of my qualms with the discourse on these types of films and anything bay is involved with. It always goes beyond opinion(personal or otherwise) and into this other thing. "Long movies are bad"(because that's a rule), "Too much humans means weaker film"(who knew). "A minority being silly means racism"(only here though). It would be so much clearer if the artistic merit politics were left behind and people just discussed how effective things were. Of course I can't tell anyone what to do, but I most certainly can...make posts on forums.

Like that is not really needed (maybe.maybe i'm wrong..idk). You're claiming people could start viewing all superhero films comedic parts in a certain way, and that's is not true and does not give you the right think that.

Not sure what you are meaning here.
My actual claim was that you(and people like you) don't have the 'right' to dictate just how much comedy an action film has before it stops being a good action film. Just like you don't have the right to dictate how much action a comedy film has before it stops being a 'good' comedy. You do have all the 'right' to claim if you like it or not, if it's effective(for you)...but not that other stuff imo.

As for the length of my posts. If you think I could have made this very post in half as many words, you are a more concise person than I am. I try to be as thorough as I can.

 

[dark_b]

thank you Bay

Spoiler

-thank you Bay for having again Megatron as the main villain. its all about him. 4 movies about Megatron.
-thank you Bay for having 5 different stories in one 165min movie.
-thank you Bay for having people have the same confused and shocked faces when they see robots. we get no shots how people reacted after the chicago battle. were they afraid or happy? its made very clear in the movie that the White House doesnt know that Frasier is hunting down and killing all robots. even autobots.
-thank you Bay for having a story where humans found the ultimate power. a matter that humans can telepathically change in to everything they think of. from a radio to a gun. they are more powerfull than 5 billion robots together. they literally can create everything.
-thank you Bay for reapeting the same action scenes 3 times. the movie is not only long, scenes are extended for no reason. this movie could have been cut 20 minutes and nothing would be missing.
-thank you Bay for having Prime in the beginning be so destroyed that Marky Mark had to fix him to be able to walk. he was still in very bad condition but after 10 minutes he is fine and is able to take a new look and repair himself. no explanation.
-thank you Bay for having a scene where Lockdown shots and damages Prime so much that he is not able to move and stand up. Lockdown takes him to his ship and hangs him up with chains. when Prime's friends save him he out of nowhere is 100% back at his full power with no explanation.
-thank you Bay for giving the new OP the ability to fly without wings. he has rocket engines under his boots. he only fly's at the end. during the movie when Lockdown and Galvatron attack him he doesnt fly away. he is on a spaceship in the air and he doesnt jump down and fly. he also needs a trex robot to go into battle. he doesnt fly. it makes no sense.
-thank you Bay for having yet another movie change the transformers history. Megatron is not the first robot on this planet. Fallen's were not the first to come here. robots on the moon were not the first to come here. no. they came here 65 million years ago and destroyed the dinosaurs. on Lockdown's ship we see different aliens which means that there are different worlds with life. but no they all land on our planet. cybertronians are obssesed with our tiny planet.

Lockdown is the best villain in this franchise. best design,best voice,best characterization.
TF4 has more robot dialoge than all first 3 movies together. autobots are entertaining when they have conversations

this is a 100% Bay movie. nothing makes sense . and i liked it

 

[CEREBRAL....]

I get where you are coming from but it's very much a response to something greater than just a matter of opinion. I don't have to look or read into anything because it's so often presented in the criticism anyways. It's what is then presented that I then engage with. For example; if people simply said they don't like the humor, or it didn't work(for them), at that point I'd say nothing and I wouldn't really have ground to read into anything. But as is so often the trend with these films in particular, so many people have to enter into commentary and punditry, and usually to make their argument sound more righteous. It's not 'I don't like this humor/it falls flat' that would be one thing, but instead it's; 'the humor is offensive'. I don't have to read into anything when someones says it's offensive, I just debate if it is or isn't. It's really that simple.

You are making my point in this paragraph here. Just because they chose to describe their opinion in a certain way, doesn't give you the right to sit there and feel they are incorrect in their views, or think if they said anything in a certain way, would be enough for you not to respond. They are words in the english language, they are(the words) at free will to be used however the person sees fit. Their opinion does not need to be over analyzed by you or anyone else on here. i mean you obviously will post however you choose to.

That's the majority of my qualms with the discourse on these types of films and anything bay is involved with. It always goes beyond opinion(personal or otherwise) and into this other thing. "Long movies are bad"(because that's a rule), "Too much humans means weaker film"(who knew). "A minority being silly means racism"(only here though). It would be so much clearer if the artistic merit politics were left behind and people just discussed how effective things were. Of course I can't tell anyone what to do, but I most certainly can...make posts on forums.

it's all a matter of opinion, no? Is yours not a matter of opinion? Not everyone views your beliefs on stuff the same way you do, and nor will they. That's what makes us all individuals. This is a public and free forum, and at no given time are we suppose to post to everyone's liking. That is not the rules, as long as we are not being offensive toward anyone, my understanding is we are cool to post.

There is no right and wrong way to say what you choose to say about these films, and you dont have that right again to tell people or should have a major problem with how people choose to express their opinions on these flims...it would be much clearer to YOU...that is your perception and opinion. It's not the end all or be all, and it doesnt make anyone else perception or opinion any less correct or incorrect.

Not sure what you are meaning here.
My actual claim was that you(and people like you) don't have the 'right' to dictate just how much comedy an action film has before it stops being a good action film. Just like you don't have the right to dictate how much action a comedy film has before it stops being a 'good' comedy. You do have all the 'right' to claim if you like it or not, if it's effective(for you)...but not that other stuff imo.

As for the length of my posts. If you think I could have made this very post in half as many words, you are a more concise person than I am. I try to be as thorough as I can.

and you are right, i dont have the right, therefore i have never asked or post as though i do, i said "some" comedy, i never defend my sentence by a number. "some" is a very broad definition to describe a quantity, and I would expect if a film which is suppose to an action/sci-fi blockbuster was to have a tremendous amount of comedy, then therefore the "powers that be" would label it a "action comedy" (ala "22 jumpstreet") and not a action/sci-fi blockbuster...so i would expect the filmmakers to be able to limit how much comedy a movie should have in it if they are not intending their film to be perceived as a comedy, and for the most part, people were more "upset" (for a lack of better term) at the tasteless comedy that had been in pervious films and reasons why were already given in which you insist on bring up "the hangover" and 29 other films to try to get people to see your vision on the matter. when clearly the "hangover" and "TF" are two totally diff. films and should be discussed or judged in different manners....


and the length of your posts. I'm just gonna cop it up as that is how you post, as i said before somethings do not need to be over analyzed, but you are entitle to post however you please.

 

[Marvin]

nothing makes sense . and i liked it

After your Pacific Rim endorsement, can't say that's surprising.

 

[terry78]

dark_b, you were always going to succumb to Bay's juice. You just tilt your head back and take it, like the rest of us are going to.

 

[dark_b]

dark_b, you were always going to succumb to Bay's juice. You just tilt your head back and take it, like the rest of us are going to.

there is a nasty joke in the movie.full theater and i think only 5 people got the joke haha. its about the bomb.

 

[Marvin]

You are making my point in this paragraph here. Just because they chose to describe their opinion in a certain way, doesn't give you the right to sit there and feel they are incorrect in their views, or think if they said anything in a certain way, would be enough for you not to respond. They are words in the english language, they are(the words) at free will to be used however the person sees fit. Their opinion does not need to be over analyzed by you or anyone else on here. i mean you obviously will post however you choose to.

You are missing the point again, they can describe their opinion all they want and I still really won't have any issue. Anyone is free to like or not like whatever they want. I am choosing to debate their presented reasoning with 'my opinion' . Again, "I don't like cats" Great. "I don't like cats cause(and this is the describing part) I don't like black" Good times. "I don't like black cats because black cats are cursed and bad luck and hexed..etc" Sorry but you're gonna here from me(I own one). That's great that, that's all an opinion but that very last part is what I feel is incorrect and I'm going to debate that. I didn't have to read into anything or make an assumption about why you hate black cats, you told me what the reason was and I am proceeding to debunk that misconception. I care little if it's in english or any other language. Telling me not to, then saying I'm over analyzing isn't going to stop me unfortunately. Not in that situation anyways.
As for the next part, you're right, it is all a matter opinion. However I can't debate people on whether they really liked something or not, that's entirely intrinsic and wholly their opinion. I can however debate the the things that take a step outside of that, like if someone said they don't think a certain actor can act because good actors don't do disney films. I not going to sit here and ignorantly nod in acceptance when that sort of poor rhetoric occurs...and do so because well, "everyone is entitled to voice their opinion." Well, I'm then gonna voice mine. You wrote it in your very post
"This is a public and free forum, and at no given time are we suppose to post to everyone's liking. That is not the rules, as long as we are not being offensive toward anyone, my understanding is we are cool to post."
precisely.

and you are right, i dont have the right, therefore i have never asked or post as though i do, i said "some" comedy, i never defend my sentence by a number. "some" is a very broad definition to describe a quantity, and I would expect if a film which is suppose to an action/sci-fi blockbuster was to have a tremendous amount of comedy, then therefore the "powers that be" would label it a "action comedy" (ala "22 jumpstreet") and not a action/sci-fi blockbuster...so i would expect the filmmakers to be able to limit how much comedy a movie should have in it if they are not intending their film to be perceived as a comedy, and for the most part, people were more "upset" (for a lack of better term) at the tasteless comedy that had been in pervious films and reasons why were already given in which you insist on bring up "the hangover" and 29 other films to try to get people to see your vision on the matter. when clearly the "hangover" and "TF" are two totally diff. films and should be discussed or judged in different manners....

That's great that some comedy is 'expected'(even after 3 films of the same thing) but we aren't actually discussing what's expected but rather what is 'acceptable' according to you. Seeing as this is after the fact. You are talking about what is the acceptable level of comedy you can tolerate in a film of this nature. Whether you give a number or not you are stating the quantity as; some vs alot. Not sure how else there is to interpret that. Nor is there any other way for me to express my opinion(again) on why I have a major problems with that line of thinking. Next someone will say that 'warm paintings are only allowed to have a little black based on the expectation that they are called warm' Sorry again I don't agree, not with 'rules' like that.

As for how the powers that be title their film genres(not even sure where they do that), that would be wholly motivated by what they think will sell it to the largest crowd. That's not a technical thing like 'running time' where no discretion is allowed. It has no bearing on what is allowed for the film to still be judged as 'quality'. Especially when it comes to a review after the fact. Should Tarantino or the powers that be go back and re-label all his movies, Pulp Fiction in particular, with the title comedy given just how many jokes and how much humor they all contain? Would that increase the perceived quality? Again, you are labeling what the acceptable amount based on these so called genres and claiming it justified because the studio never told you how much comedy to expect. I don't agree with that line of thinking. I say this because you are very much suggesting that if the TF films came with the label(still not sure where you find these official labels) of 'action/sci fi comedy' than all would be forgiven and received very differently. All these tasteless and non funny jokes would all of a sudden be 'tasteful and funny', as they are in films that are labeled differently, no one would be 'offended'.
Lastly, I said just because one film is supposedly an out and out comedy and one film isn't, that has nothing to do with if a joke is tasteless or not. That has nothing to do with if a joke is racist or not. It's the joke itself that determines/defines that. Anything else is what I personally call hypocrisy. You really don't agree?

 

[CEREBRAL....]

I am choosing to debate their presented reasoning with 'my opinion' . Again, "I don't like cats" Great. "I don't like cats cause(and this is the describing part) I don't like black" Good times. "I don't like black cats because black cats are cursed and bad luck and hexed..etc" Sorry but you're gonna here from me(I own one). Telling me not to, then saying I'm over analyzing isn't going to stop me unfortunately. Not in that situation anyways.

are you the moderator here? Are you some type of teacher, or movie overseer??..as i said before, you are not the end all be all, and you are free to post as you will as well..but do not expect "that line of presented reasoning" to change..so i expect you to be in a constant battle here, so good luck to you, as i stated before, i never said you weren't free to post or reply how you want. I just feel you are searching for an answer or answers you will never find and think you are judging others opinions unfairly.

I can however debate the the things that take a step outside of that, like [b[if someone said they don't think a certain actor can act because good actors don't do disney films.[/b] I not going to sit here and ignorantly nod in acceptance when that sort of poor rhetoric occurs...and do so because well, "everyone is entitled to voice their opinion." Well, I'm then gonna voice mine. You wrote it in your very post
"This is a public and free forum, and at no given time are we suppose to post to everyone's liking. That is not the rules, as long as we are not being offensive toward anyone, my understanding is we are cool to post."
precisely.

anyway you slice it, it's still opinionated, and again...in the end of replying to you I stated you are going to and you are free to reply and post as you will, so i'm unclear to why the long dialogue from you.

That's great that some comedy is 'expected'(even after 3 films of the same thing) but we aren't actually discussing what's expected but rather what is 'acceptable' according to you. Seeing as this is after the fact. You are talking about what is the acceptable level of comedy you can tolerate in a film of this nature. Whether you give a number or not you are stating the quantity as; some vs alot. Not sure how else there is to interpret that. Nor is there any other way for me to express my opinion(again) on why I have a major problems with that line of thinking. Next someone will say that 'warm paintings are only allowed to have a little black based on the expectation that they are called warm' Sorry again I don't agree, not with 'rules' like that.

excuse me? "According to me"??. 1. nothing is primarily or solely on my taste in movies at all. I think i share the same views as many, and like i have said before..i'm sure no ones mother wants to explain to their 6 year old child, what he or she seen in reference to robot balls. (for example)

and 2 "what i can accept for comedy" is not the issue, ( even though there's a placement for everything )but knowing you are doing a film that children are gonna watching..you might wanna hold off on having "robot balls" in the film (for ex.) ..i dont know...that is just me..

and for my "some vs alot" debate. like i said...quite clearly; a tremendous amount of comedy could take the filmmakers intent to what the film should be incorrectly, why you don't understand that, i guess will be your issue and i will not go on any further to explain or feel the need to further point that out.

As for how the powers that be title their film genres(not even sure where they do that)that would be wholly motivated by what they think will sell it to the largest crowd. That's not a technical thing like 'running time' where no discretion is allowed. It has no bearing on what is allowed for the film to still be judged as 'quality'

my explanation or statements are pretty clear; For you to not understand like i already said i will let that be your issue. I'm sure these movies get looked at by whomever to be rated and i'm sure whether it's the filmmakers or whomever has to explain the movie to the studio so they would know how to advertise the film to the masses, explain the genre or type of movie -the film is targeting to be.

. Especially when it comes to a review after the fact. Should Tarantino or the powers that be go back and re-label all his movies, Pulp Fiction in particular, with the title comedy given just how many jokes and how much humor they all contain? Would that increase the perceived quality?

seems like you are stuck on arguing semantics ALOT; i'm not saying that has to be the approach.......if what i said is hard to comprehend....i can not do nothing for those who either choose to or can not comprehend what i meant or said.

also..."action/sci-fi"; however i posed the statement again...is not hard to understand the description...sorry the terminology is not clear enough or (some how) not universally recognized for you, so you could understand...but i'm sure plenty of people could describe TFs to be action, sci-fi, blockbuster type of film...if you need a more precise description, i'm gonna decline to do so, because it seems to be pretty clear.

 

[SuperJediHero]

Ok ONE MORE DAY


LET'S PARTY!!!!!

 

[def28]

That remix track is so awesome. Was just listening to that earlier this week.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

I know some people have seen this already. My question is do they give an explanation as to what happened to Shia's character Sam and his split with the autobots?

 

[SamualDude]

I know some people have seen this already. My question is do they give an explanation as to what happened to Shia's character Sam and his split with the autobots?

Nope, No mention of Sam, Carly or any of the characters for the last movie. They don't really give an explanation for Brains surviving the last movie but they do explain what he had been up to since surviving. They do a reasonably good job at getting Galvatron to make sense for the general audience. Galvatron was better than I expected, Frank definitely channelled Prime Megatron for the role.

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

I'm slowly getting more and more excited about this?



?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

[BLACKOUT]Galvatron doesn't have a big role at all. Lockdown is the main villain. Drift, Hound and Crosshairs are like Jazz, Ironhide and Ratchet in the first movie. They all have some really good moments. Very distinctive personalities, too. [/BLACKOUT]

Thanks Jake, if this is as good as the 1st movie I am excited. The 1st movie is still great in my eyes and I can still watch it and enjoy it now. Its just been tainted by the sequels. I hope I enjoy this one as much as the 1st .

 

[Jake Cassidy]

Thanks Jake, if this is as good as the 1st movie I am excited. The 1st movie is still great in my eyes and I can still watch it and enjoy it now. Its just been tainted by the sequels. I hope I enjoy this one as much as the 1st .

I think you will.