Transformers Why all the hate?

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

Molecular compression. Why aren't 63' foot long jets 42' tall in robot mode? Molecular compression. The show was outstanding, the live-action film however, was not. Moreover, how true fans can attribute the above-average live-action to greatness is beyond me as well. The "logic" of Megatron is easy to explain, anything ranging from nanotechnology, molecular compression to subspace particle transference are more than sufficient explanations for the "plothole" that you mentioned.

But please explain why there was a size-changing cube but not size-changing robots?

I'll tell you the real reasons for the varirious sizes and transformations in the cartoon: they were trying to make them like the toys. The jet robots weren't much bigger than the car robots because the toys were the same. In fact, the idea of minibots is kind of dumb, as some of them, such as Brawn and Huffer, had vehicle modes larger than Jazz and Prowl.

There was no logic to these decisions- they were making a TV show for kids, so they got lazy with the writing and animation. MEgatron was a gun because Hasbro bought the rights to a toy robot that turned into a gun that was originally supposed to be an actual size representation. This toy was made into the leader because it was somewhat larger than the others, and thus, more expensive, so they had to give kids a reason to buy it.

That's it- same with Soundwave. I don't like coming up with reaching explanations after the fact to explain this, when Hasbro and the show's writers likely had none. I am fairly sure that their line of thought was more likely to be "It's a kid's show" than any explanation you have.

My problem with mass shifting- it's a great disguise! Why aren't more transformers using it? Why did Teletraan 1 randomly pick 2 tiny alt modes for 2 of the 30 robots lying in stasis lock aboard the ark? It makes no sense.

BTW- as for the robots themselves- I would have made the faces more recognizable, but the bodies were perfect for what they were trying to do. Here's what you should do- stretch. Take turns stretching every muscle in your body from your neck down to your toes. The majority of those muscles and your joints would be immobile if they looked exactly like the cartoon. You'd have to turn your entire torso like Batman in the 89 movie to look behind you. Personally, my solution would have been so simply have breaks in the joints- more folding parts to increase mobility, like chain mail. But that's just me.

A robot having wrists thicker than its hands can cause a lot of mobility problems. Not to mention that the animation was so poor it was hard to tell how their joints worked anyway.

The show as NOT outstanding. IT was a great idea that I am fond of that had a lot of potential, but it never tried to be more than it was and it showed. BW reached a little higher, and this showed as well. Batman: TAS is truly the pinnacle of a kid's cartoon actually being a great piece of art that appeals to more age groups. You'd never get an adult who's never seen TF into the cartoon.

I WISH that TF was the result of one guy's brilliant imagination. But its not. Hasbro bought toys that were suppoosed to b non-sentient robots, had someone slap a story around them, and created a show to sell them. Not to say that the writers involved didn't enjoy their work, but I doubt anyone saw it as anything more, at least until Simon Furman came along.

 

[Decoy Lad]

The show was a dumbed down children's cartoon that is only raised to "amazing" status due to nostalgia and purely nostalgia. Show anyone at the age of 40 the Transformers show when they knew nothing about it and they'll tell you exactly how dumbed down and silly the show is. The movie is no more or less silly than the show itself.

So we are in agreement that Micheal Bay's Transformers movie is dumbed down and silly, as pertaining to the subject of this thread.

 

[LordSimen]

So we are in agreement that Micheal Bay's Transformers movie is dumbed down and silly, as pertaining to the subject of this thread.

Yes. It was dumb and silly, and just like the show it was fun-dumb-and-silly. I really have no problem with people not liking the movie but some of the things people say to justify the show as something better makes no sense to me. The show wasn't shakespeare and it sure as hell wasn't perfect, it had it's flaws as well.

 

[portland2002]

The show was a dumbed down children's cartoon that is only raised to "amazing" status due to nostalgia and purely nostalgia. Show anyone at the age of 40 the Transformers show when they knew nothing about it and they'll tell you exactly how dumbed down and silly the show is. The movie is no more or less silly than the show itself.

The logic of megatron is impossible to explain because there are no explainations in the actual show. Fanboy explainations mean nothing because their explainations aren't cannon on the actual show, it's just speculation.

As for the cube, I'm more apt to believe that some "amazingly impossible god-like Cube made of pure energy from space" can change size than robots.

By the way, I'm a little tired of the impertinent remark "fanboy". I can deal with Transformers fan, transfan or simply just fan? But fanboy? The term that I'll apply to myself and anyone who rationally understands the logic of what I'm endeavoring to communicate, is simply this: true fan.

Uh, no. The Allspark as they called it in the movie is not anymore believable than size-changing robots. Fan explanations make more sense in attempting to justify how the sci-fi world of Transformers could be realized rather than unnecessarily jettisioning terrific aspects of the stupendous show. In terms of showing anyone who's not a fan of the show who's 40 and over and them not call it silly, is purely speculative as well. The logic of Megatron is NOT IMPOSSIBLE ; I just explained it. Notwithstanding, my speculative rationale is completely applicable to the aforementioned post. I would have like to have visually seen the 63' long jets downgrade to 20' robots and likewise a Walther P38 hangdun or Decepticon rifle enlarge into a 25' foot tall robot. Size-changing was part of the fascination and mystique of the Transformers.

The redesign of the Transformers was simply inexcusable: it would make as much sense as casting Sigourney Weaver as Professor X and Judi Dench as Magneto.

The show was amazing from the beginning. Of course the show had its flaws, nevertheless that is truly irrelevant. The show will always have four stars, while the above-average movie, the cesspool of an adaptation that it was, will for now be ranked 2 and a half stars, which may be demoted to one star over time.

 

[portland2002]

Yes. It was dumb and silly, and just like the show it was fun-dumb-and-silly. I really have no problem with people not liking the movie but some of the things people say to justify the show as something better makes no sense to me. The show wasn't shakespeare and it sure as hell wasn't perfect, it had it's flaws as well.

The show was intelligent and definitely better realized and executed than TINO. The show was better, flaws notwithstanding; Optimus Prime was likeable in both incarnations; Bumblebee was somewhat likeable (however, making him mute and having him urinate on the Sector Seven agent was vulgar). I won't even get into the Camaro/GM issue. I've made my feelings on that abundantly clear. Ironhide was a homicidal maniac in the movie; wanting to kill that dog Mojo and Sam's parents.

I can dissect for days, months, years and years why the live-action film was a poor attempt of adapting a classic animated and comic book series. The original animated series did not need to be Shakespeare; it was modern greatness, dare I say Tolkienesque in magnitude.

On the other hand, the live-action film did not need to be Citizen Kane, but aiming for the stars and striking the moon as opposed to aiming for garbage can and sinking lower, could have helped tremendously.

Look at the X-Men movies for instance. Unfaithfulness to be certain (i.e.e naked Mystique, leather costumes, 6'2" Wolverine, etc.) but it not only captured to a large degree, who the characters were, but did so by incorporating a lot of character depth. Magneto was a sympathetic villain in both the comics and the movies; Megatron was very likeable in both the animated series and comic books, but utterly repugnant in the 2007 adaptation, in both design and voice. Why did he sound like the Cookie Monster; Hugo Weaving could have at least used his Agent Smith voice; that would have been much better than sounding like the Cookie Monster.

 

[portland2002]

Here's something additional that all Transformers fans: true fans, casual fans, or semi-true fans might find interesting in addressing the whole mass-shifting/size-changing debate.

http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Size_changing

 

[Jake Cassidy]

^ That is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. It was a kids cartoon for Christ's sake. I loved it too, but you are ridiculously overexagerating (sp).

You are an insult to 'true fans' everywhere.

 

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

^ That is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. It was a kids cartoon for Christ's sake. I loved it too, but you are ridiculously overexagerating (sp).

You are an insult to 'true fans' everywhere.

I'd say he's a Transformers hater trying to make fans look stupid. that article actually hurts his position, as it points out there was no logic to mass displacement for a long time, and when it did (20 years after the fact), it explained that it uses huge amounts of energy- which is the last thing any sane Transformer would do in a war over resources.

Seriously, I looked at your profile, portland. You're 30 for crying out loud! If you make no attempt to make a cartoon appeal to a mature audience, it won't, at all.

I am a FIRM believer that what you watch has little to do with your maturity, mind you. You can listen to Chopin and watch the films of Ingmar Bergman, but the real test is whether you can manage adult responsibilites- that's my belief. Even so, you make me wonder about you.

BTW- that website is going to give me a seizure- the way the screen flashes about 10 times every time you go to a new page.

 

[Decoy Lad]

There is only one true reason there were no mass shifting transformers in the movie, the FX peolple couldn't come up with a way to make it look cool enough.

Any explanation would have been sufficient to the general movie crowd, Bay is no stranger to pseudoscience and technobabble.



Mass-shifting and the quality of the old cartoon aside, as a movie that should stand on its own merits of scripting, plotting, and even action, it fails.

 

[portland2002]

I'd say he's a Transformers hater trying to make fans look stupid. that article actually hurts his position, as it points out there was no logic to mass displacement for a long time, and when it did (20 years after the fact), it explained that it uses huge amounts of energy- which is the last thing any sane Transformer would do in a war over resources.

Seriously, I looked at your profile, portland. You're 30 for crying out loud! If you make no attempt to make a cartoon appeal to a mature audience, it won't, at all.

I am a FIRM believer that what you watch has little to do with your maturity, mind you. You can listen to Chopin and watch the films of Ingmar Bergman, but the real test is whether you can manage adult responsibilites- that's my belief. Even so, you make me wonder about you.

BTW- that website is going to give me a seizure- the way the screen flashes about 10 times every time you go to a new page.

Actually, I am definitely not a Transformers hater, as I have stated heretofore, I am a true fan of Transformers (specificially Generation 1). A cartoon/comic series-based can appeal to a mature audience, without at the same time, making a film inappropriate for children (for example: Spider-Man). With the exception of some of the violence and brief profanity, the film's innuedos weren't as direct as Transformers.

For instance, Aunt May asked Peter what was going on in his room and Uncle Ben later stated that Peter had weird experiments in his room; that's much more tactful in a film that a lot children will see rather than the direct question the Witwicky mom asked of Sam. Useless scenes like that, as well as a dog urinating on a robot and a robot urinating on a human could have been used for character development (like actually making the Decepticon into villains with some depth rather than mindless, growling thugs).

Having mass-displacement consume a lot of power would actually further magnify why there is a massive battle over energy.

And to be honest, in a lot of sci-fi/fantasy films, some things have to be taken with disbelief. for instance in Star Wars why is there sound in space? And why don't the light sabers, if they're energy, simply pass through each other or explode? This can go on and on.

Nevertheless, I was very familiar with some of the theories behind the massive size-changing and that's why i posted that article.

 

[portland2002]

There is only one true reason there were no mass shifting transformers in the movie, the FX peolple couldn't come up with a way to make it look cool enough.

Any explanation would have been sufficient to the general movie crowd, Bay is no stranger to pseudoscience and technobabble.



Mass-shifting and the quality of the old cartoon aside, as a movie that should stand on its own merits of scripting, plotting, and even action, it fails.

I agree with these last two paragraphs. For example, Spider-Man was different from the source material, yet it was an excellent adaptation. I felt Raimi was at least trying to respect the source material.

For instance, although the Goblin's armor was changed (I was able to deal with that), Norman Osborn's split personality and conflict with Harry was nicely adpated to the silver screen; the costume designer James Acheson and Sam Raimi worked extremely hard to make Spider-Man's costume work on-screen and they succeeded. The same can't be said for Bay & co, I mean design-wise, they couldn't even get Prime right.

Megatron was a charming villain in the comics and animated series; yet in this live-action film he's some overly detailed, scrap-metal looking growling villain who sounds like the Cookie Monster.

 

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

Having mass-displacement consume a lot of power would actually further magnify why there is a massive battle over energy.

Nevertheless, I was very familiar with some of the theories behind the massive size-changing and that's why i posted that article.

Can I say something about the whole"energy war" thing? To produce enough solar energy to power teh entire US, you would need a solar array 1/10 the size of Nevada. Some experts think it's feasible, both logically and economically. Transformers are immortal and have access to more resources than we do- why did they never do that?

To illustrate another way- I almost wrote a fanfic once about a TF Eden, which a bunch of separatists had formed on an=earth-like world, covering nearly the entire face of its deserts with solar panels, building hundreds of thousands of windmills to harness energy, excavating all of the fissionable materials they could find. In the end, they have enough Energon to powe Cybertron almost indefinitely.

I am concerned over the possibility of an Earthly energy crisis, so I knew a bit about this subject. I liked the idea, but I realized in the end it wouldn't work because it would make the other transformers look stupid. Fighting a war over energy when it's so easy to make your own? Please. We do have the means to completely power ourselves with renewable energy- it's just it would be exorbitantly expensive and time consuming to do so quickly. If us puny fleshlings can do it, why can't Transformers? Just keep building and building solar arrays on dead planets (or better yet, in outer space) until you finally have enough to meet the needs of all Transformers- they did establish that just about every form of energy can be converted to Energon.

I accept that we have to make some concessions to make an action SF movie fun, such as FTL< sound in space, etc. But predicating the entire plot on an easily solvable problem is going a little too far.

 

[LordSimen]

The show was intelligent and definitely better realized and executed than TINO. The show was better, flaws notwithstanding; Optimus Prime was likeable in both incarnations; Bumblebee was somewhat likeable (however, making him mute and having him urinate on the Sector Seven agent was vulgar). I won't even get into the Camaro/GM issue. I've made my feelings on that abundantly clear. Ironhide was a homicidal maniac in the movie; wanting to kill that dog Mojo and Sam's parents.

It was a dumb kid's show with with robots turning into cars and getting in lots of fights. The entire plot of the show was as imple "Good vs. evil" fight, where the line between good and evil is completely and utterly drawn right down the middle and practically made to be black and white. It was simple, it was dumb, it was corny, it was filled with gigantic plot holes to boot. It's entire purpose was to sell toys and nothing more. It just so happens that kids happened to like the show and happened to like the toys. The giant 30-minute toy commercial succeeded in that regard.

The movie followed the simple formula to a T and made it's own version of the Transformers in the process. Easy to read good vs. evil, dumb, silly, corny, plot-holes the size of the ocean and acted, just like the show, as a commercial for cars (since the damn movie needed cars in order to work it makes sense to get a little backing from the car companies so, you know, you could afford to make this extremely expensive film). The show wasn't genius, the movie wasn't genius. The show wasn't any better than the movie, in fact a direct translation of the show probably would have looked and felt dumber than the movie which at least took the courtesy to make the Transformers look like they could actually exist (the show made them all look like blocky and had them change sizes and shapes like nobody's business).

The show is no better. It's just nostalgia that makes it appear better. And this is coming form someone who loves both the show and the movie, and eve I can admit that it's all big and dumb and anyone who didn't grow up watching the shows would probably find them that way. This is why I use the term fanboy, because only an obsesssive fanboy would find the show somehow "great" and the movie somehow "terrible," when they are practically the same damn thing.

P.S. Oh, that Ironhide thing? Yeah. That was comic relief and was a joke. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Can I say something about the whole"energy war" thing? To produce enough solar energy to power teh entire US, you would need a solar array 1/10 the size of Nevada. Some experts think it's feasible, both logically and economically. Transformers are immortal and have access to more resources than we do- why did they never do that?

To illustrate another way- I almost wrote a fanfic once about a TF Eden, which a bunch of separatists had formed on an=earth-like world, covering nearly the entire face of its deserts with solar panels, building hundreds of thousands of windmills to harness energy, excavating all of the fissionable materials they could find. In the end, they have enough Energon to powe Cybertron almost indefinitely.

I am concerned over the possibility of an Earthly energy crisis, so I knew a bit about this subject. I liked the idea, but I realized in the end it wouldn't work because it would make the other transformers look stupid. Fighting a war over energy when it's so easy to make your own? Please. We do have the means to completely power ourselves with renewable energy- it's just it would be exorbitantly expensive and time consuming to do so quickly. If us puny fleshlings can do it, why can't Transformers? Just keep building and building solar arrays on dead planets (or better yet, in outer space) until you finally have enough to meet the needs of all Transformers- they did establish that just about every form of energy can be converted to Energon.

I accept that we have to make some concessions to make an action SF movie fun, such as FTL< sound in space, etc. But predicating the entire plot on an easily solvable problem is going a little too far.

Well if we're talking just about the G1 toon and comics [because the movie said nothing about a "energy war" or shortege of energy] producing enough solar energy to power Cybertron and its people would not be as eazy as you seem to think it is.

Cybertron had no sun in its system.To produce the levels of solar energy to power the planet they would have to at least be inside a solar system and they were not.

Now I guess that we can assume that with there space travel capablities they should be able to reach a star and collect what they need but I would assume that the war effert would have derailed such projects.

 

[Decoy Lad]

The show wasn't genius, the movie wasn't genius. The show wasn't any better than the movie, in fact a direct translation of the show probably would have looked and felt dumber than the movie which at least took the courtesy to make the Transformers look like they could actually exist (the show made them all look like blocky and had them change sizes and shapes like nobody's business).

Basing the movie models on the Transformers Alternators, would have been a better compromise then the final designs, which other then the faces I don't have hugh problem with.

The show is no better. It's just nostalgia that makes it appear better. And this is coming form someone who loves both the show and the movie, and eve I can admit that it's all big and dumb and anyone who didn't grow up watching the shows would probably find them that way. This is why I use the term fanboy, because only an obsesssive fanboy would find the show somehow "great" and the movie somehow "terrible," when they are practically the same damn thing.

Umm, my memory of the old cartoon may be off but I don't recall having to wade through a dozen boring and pointless human subplots, just to see a few minutes of shaky-cam Transformer action, nor were the Decepticons predominatly represented by an annoying Jar-Jar Binks wanna-be. The transformers were the stars of the show, not bit players who barely said or did anything important. The show may have had a clunker episode or two but it was far more entertainting then the movie.

 

[LordSimen]

Basing the movie models on the Transformers Alternators, would have been a better compromise then the final designs, which other then the faces I don't have hugh problem with.


Umm, my memory of the old cartoon may be off but I don't recall having to wade through a dozen boring and pointless human subplots, just to see a few minutes of shaky-cam Transformer action, nor were the Decepticons predominatly represented by an annoying Jar-Jar Binks wanna-be. The transformers were the stars of the show, not bit players who barely said or did anything important. The show may have had a clunker episode or two but it was far more entertainting then the movie.

There was no problem with the Transformer's design, they looked real unlike any of the actual comic book designs would could never work for the cars they were supposed to be coming from.

I had no problem seeing any of The Transformer action, and I had a cold and sat in the front row. You guys complaining about the shakey cam are pure wimps, it wasn't hard to see if you actually paid attention. And Frenzy was probably the best addition to the Decepticons in the movie, I loved him. The show had tons of clunker episodes and the show was pretty much "Hey look, bad guys. Let's start shooting." It was just as dumb as the movie, which is why I loved the movie.

As for no human subplots, wow. You Transformers fans do have a short-term memory, don't you?

What do you call this? A cyborg? No. It's a damn human, and he was practically the main character of the original Transformers show, just like Sam was in the movie. In fact, I loved Sam, I loved his family, and the fact there was human characters made the movie a whole lot better because we finally got to see how the human world as a whole reacts to these giant robots, unlike the show which (in one of the most gigantic plot holes ever conceived) never even touched the military or the human reaction outside of Spike and his family. The human characters acted as the audience, which I loved. I could relate to them. Which is the same reason Spike was in the original show.

 

[Decoy Lad]

There was no problem with the Transformer's design, they looked real unlike any of the actual comic book designs would could never work for the cars they were supposed to be coming from.

I say these look better, and the movie versions looked more like Bionicles.
http://www.transformerland.com/transformers-alternators.html

But to each his own.

I had no problem seeing any of The Transformer action, and I had a cold and sat in the front row. You guys complaining about the shakey cam are pure wimps, it wasn't hard to see if you actually paid attention.

I paid attention, and all I saw were the cheap visual tricks that so many directors in Hollywood resort to, shaky cam, extreme close ups, fast edits, and since this is a Micheal Bay movie you can expect the odd explosion thrown in to break up the monotony, all to mask the fact the actual action is about as exciting as two four year olds playing rock'em sock'em robots, you may be willing to settle for this type of lazy action choreography, but please sir do not ask me to.

And Frenzy was probably the best addition to the Decepticons in the movie, I loved him.

And now he's dead.

As for no human subplots, wow. You Transformers fans do have a short-term memory, don't you?

Well, I am getting older.

What do you call this? A cyborg? No. It's a damn human, and he was practically the main character of the original Transformers show, just like Sam was in the movie.

Spike was never the main character of the show nor did he or any other humans monopolize the the stories. The show was about the Autobots vs Decepticons, with the humans being nothing but support characters.

In fact, I loved Sam, I loved his family, and the fact there was human characters made the movie a whole lot better because we finally got to see how the human world as a whole reacts to these giant robots, unlike the show which (in one of the most gigantic plot holes ever conceived) never even touched the military or the human reaction outside of Spike and his family. The human characters acted as the audience, which I loved. I could relate to them. Which is the same reason Spike was in the original show.

I suggest you read my post more carefully, I wrote "boring and pointless human subplots", I am perfectly fine with human characters, just don't bore me with generic and cliched characters. And if the movie represented typical military and civilian reactions, then it was a good thing that old cartoon avoided them, I've seen more interesting and realistic military and civilian reactions from old Godzilla movies.

And if you are going to introduce human characters into the story, make sure there is an actual point in having them be there, you could have cut out the entire useless hacker subplot along with its characters from the movie and no one would have noticed.

 

[LordSimen]

I say these look better, and the movie versions looked more like Bionicles.
http://www.transformerland.com/transformers-alternators.html

Those designs look like ****. Clunky and fat. No, I'd take the much more alien and awesome designs from the movie over those clunk-fests.

I paid attention, and all I saw were the cheap visual tricks that so many directors in Hollywood resort to, shaky cam, extreme close ups, fast edits, and since this is a Micheal Bay movie you can expect the odd explosion thrown in to break up the monotony, all to mask the fact the actual action is about as exciting as two four year olds playing rock'em sock'em robots, you may be willing to settle for this type of lazy action choreography, but please sir do not ask me to.

As a filmmaker myself I take offense to the use of the word "cheap visual tricks." Those weren't cheap visual tricks, those are filmmaking techniques. Shakey-cam, as people like to call it, is simply handheld. It's one of the possible techniques to put you directly in the action and increase the tension. It makes it feel more real and less fake, less Hollywood. Fast edits also aren't a cheap trick, they're a choice. An action movie would naturally have lots of fast edits because it's action, it's fast paced. You could make an action movie with out lots of edits but it wouldn't nearly have the intensity of a movie like Transformers.

The action wasn't lazy nor was it unexciting. It was thrilling, probably one of my favorite parts of the movie. Part of the reason Bay was completely perfect for the show, he took the boring action from the show (hey let's shoot at each other from behind these rocks a lot) and made it thrilling, while still keeping the rest of the movie true to the Transformers themselves.

And now he's dead.

It's a war. People die in wars.

Spike was never the main character of the show nor did he or any other humans monopolize the the stories. The show was about the Autobots vs Decepticons, with the humans being nothing but support characters.

Spike was so the main character of the show. You saw everything through his eyes, he was the voice of the audience, just like in the movie. The show was about the Autobots vs. Decepticons, and so was the movie, but it was also about Spike's perception of the Autobots vs. Decepticons, just like the movie.

I suggest you read my post more carefully, I wrote "boring and pointless human subplots", I am perfectly fine with human characters, just don't bore me with generic and cliched characters. And if the movie represented typical military and civilian reactions, then it was a good thing that old cartoon avoided them, I've seen more interesting and realistic military and civilian reactions from old Godzilla movies.

You talk about generic and cliche when the entire Transformers concept is COMPLETELY generic and cliche. Two groups of aliens come from autospace, one good, one evil, and fight each other. That's COMPLETELY generic and cliche in and of itself. I have no idea how you can find the humans boring and generic and then turn around and praise the entire Transformer franchise when it's staple is it's generic plot in generic.

And I enjoyed the military parts of the movie, they were fun. They were pretty real, just about every type of response put in the movie was based on real factual types of responses. Hell, they even had the real military mixed in with their extras.

And if you are going to introduce human characters into the story, make sure there is an actual point in having them be there, you could have cut out the entire useless hacker subplot along with its characters from the movie and no one would have noticed.

There is. Sam's point is he's the voice of the audience, we're him. His family is there because Sam's not an orphan. And yes, I agree the hacker subplot could have easily been removed, but it was so fun, I didn't care.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

And now he's dead.

Frenzy killed him self when he fired those ninja star like things and one bounced off the wall and split his head in two.He then fell over and died.

 

[Decoy Lad]

Those designs look like ****. Clunky and fat. No, I'd take the much more alien and awesome designs from the movie over those clunk-fests.

To each his own.

As a filmmaker myself I take offense to the use of the word "cheap visual tricks." Those weren't cheap visual tricks, those are filmmaking techniques. Shakey-cam, as people like to call it, is simply handheld. It's one of the possible techniques to put you directly in the action and increase the tension. It makes it feel more real and less fake, less Hollywood. Fast edits also aren't a cheap trick, they're a choice. An action movie would naturally have lots of fast edits because it's action, it's fast paced. You could make an action movie with out lots of edits but it wouldn't nearly have the intensity of a movie like Transformers.

Perhaps "cheap visual tricks" was too harsh, let me restate my point, they were Overused filmmaking techniques, used in moderation these indeed can be effective techniques, but they shouldn't be used as a crutch in every scene, and yes you can have intense scenes without going overboard like this movie did.

It's a war. People die in wars.

Really, I thought he stupidly killed himself with his "CD of Doom", war is hell.

Spike was so the main character of the show. You saw everything through his eyes, he was the voice of the audience, just like in the movie.

You are far outstating Spikes role in the old series, the way you are putting it, it almost sounds like he was narrating the entire Transformers saga to his grandchildren.

You talk about generic and cliche when the entire Transformers concept is COMPLETELY generic and cliche. Two groups of aliens come from autospace, one good, one evil, and fight each other. That's COMPLETELY generic and cliche in and of itself. I have no idea how you can find the humans boring and generic and then turn around and praise the entire Transformer franchise when it's staple is it's generic plot in generic.

First, I'm not quite sure if you are referring to me about "praising the entire Transformer franchise", since I don't recall doing that in my previous post.

Secondly, if you are going boil every action movie down to good vs evil, then I guess you are saying there can never be a bad action movie, because all action movies by their nature are generic, so why bother caring.

And I enjoyed the military parts of the movie, they were fun. They were pretty real, just about every type of response put in the movie was based on real factual types of responses. Hell, they even had the real military mixed in with their extras.

All typical military stuff seen in all other military vs (fill-in-the-blank) movies, it added nothing new and was executed pretty much in paint by numbers fashion.

There is. Sam's point is he's the voice of the audience, we're him. His family is there because Sam's not an orphan. And yes, I agree the hacker subplot could have easily been removed, but it was so fun, I didn't care.

I never said Sam didn't have a point, although personally I didn't find him all that interesting and cared even less about his relationship with Mikeala
which had no chemistry whatsoever, his parents were annoying sitcom cliches, and the hacker subplot was not fun.

Frenzy killed him self when he fired those ninja star like things and one bounced off the wall and split his head in two.He then fell over and died.

If only he had taken a couple of the annoying humans with him.

 

[portland2002]

It was a dumb kid's show with with robots turning into cars and getting in lots of fights. The entire plot of the show was as imple "Good vs. evil" fight, where the line between good and evil is completely and utterly drawn right down the middle and practically made to be black and white. It was simple, it was dumb, it was corny, it was filled with gigantic plot holes to boot. It's entire purpose was to sell toys and nothing more. It just so happens that kids happened to like the show and happened to like the toys. The giant 30-minute toy commercial succeeded in that regard.

The movie followed the simple formula to a T and made it's own version of the Transformers in the process. Easy to read good vs. evil, dumb, silly, corny, plot-holes the size of the ocean and acted, just like the show, as a commercial for cars (since the damn movie needed cars in order to work it makes sense to get a little backing from the car companies so, you know, you could afford to make this extremely expensive film). The show wasn't genius, the movie wasn't genius. The show wasn't any better than the movie, in fact a direct translation of the show probably would have looked and felt dumber than the movie which at least took the courtesy to make the Transformers look like they could actually exist (the show made them all look like blocky and had them change sizes and shapes like nobody's business).

The show is no better. It's just nostalgia that makes it appear better. And this is coming form someone who loves both the show and the movie, and eve I can admit that it's all big and dumb and anyone who didn't grow up watching the shows would probably find them that way. This is why I use the term fanboy, because only an obsesssive fanboy would find the show somehow "great" and the movie somehow "terrible," when they are practically the same damn thing.

P.S. Oh, that Ironhide thing? Yeah. That was comic relief and was a joke. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

There are so many problems witht he above post; I'll have to invest a considerable amount of time to dissect the nonsequitars; hence illogical reasoning that you've assembled; nevertheless that will be handled later.

 

[Jake Cassidy]

^ Maybe you should get a life.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

^ Maybe you should get a life.

That was mean

 

[Jake Cassidy]

That was mean

He obviously has a lot time on his hands to waste it dissecting someone's opinion just to suit his.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

He obviously has a lot time on his hands to waste it dissecting someone's opinion just to suit his.

Maybe he's really lonely...and out of lube