Who would You like to see re-boot the Transformers after Bay?

Posted by Marvin Lee 
I just want a Transformers movie that's actually about the Transformers, expand on their personilties and show that their not just one dimensional characters that either want to protect everybody or kill them. Make the designs cleaner and the faces less ass-like. Like it or not G1 is the standard so make them look like them, update the designs, add detail, but when Ironhide has been red for years make him red in the movie and not worry about fans confusing him with Prime, most people aren't that dumb. Same with Ratchet, he's white not piss yellow. Also just because Hasbro thinks the Dinobots are irelevent just means Hasbro has their heads up their ass. Make the concept work, same with combiners and city bots. Its still a sci-fi movie and if you can't come up with a plausible idea to make it work in a sci-fi movie then you should be writing commercials for tampons. One last things ditch the mass of human characters unless their hot girls in tank tops and even then limit the on-screen time to 20 minutes.
chen Wrote:
> Like it or not G1 is the standard so make them look
> like them, update the designs, add detail,

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a series that's grossed more than two and a half billion dollars need to hold itself up to standards that only matter to nostalgic fanboys?

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
repairtechjon Wrote:
> A nice article about the game company's fight to
> keep Dinobot awesomeness in "Fall of Cybertron"
> and try to have it make some sorta sense with
> continuity. psst: yes, wheeljack gets no credit..
> ;0p
> [www.theverge.com]

I like all the gameplay ideas they came up with to distinguish the Dinobots from regular Transformers, but I wish that for the design side of things they'd made them transform into some new concept of "prehistoric Cybertronian life", or some massive, dangerous animal from another planet... I never did like Grimlock as a tank in The War Within and such, and I'd love to see the pre-Dinobots be envisioned as transforming into simulacra of some extraterrestrial organic lifeform.

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
asterphage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> chen Wrote:
> > Like it or not G1 is the standard so make them
> look
> > like them, update the designs, add detail,
>
> That doesn't make any sense. Why would a series
> that's grossed more than two and a half billion
> dollars need to hold itself up to standards that
> only matter to nostalgic fanboys?

But why did it gross that much? Because of Oscar winning actrors? Incredible story telling? Amazing directing? Or because it was a smash up movie about sexy looking girls and robots that were used more as props than characters? My point is if you want to make a TRANSFORMERS movie and stay true to the roots then ultimately G1 is the standard, not Masterforce, or RID, or Prime. Titanic made over a billion dollars and besides the ship sinking it had nothing to do with the true story of Titanic for the most part and I doubt many will acclaimn that Titanic was a masterpiece in storytelling. Just because a movie grosses a shitload of money doesn't mean it can't use a re-boot, look at Batman, Spider-Man, Superman, the Bourn Trilogy etc. Why can't a movie stay true to it's roots AND be a blockbuster? It worked for LOTR and I think the main reason was that the creators had respect for the property. Just because Transformers is based on a cartoon based on toys doesn't mean the mythos can't be expanded or added or delved deeper into than the usual "Autobots good" "Decepticons bad" speal. Besides Optimus there really wasn't any character development and even then it was superficial. I think fans can relate to non-human characters that display human qualities just as much as they can't relate too Megan Fox or Shia Labouf, it works for Pixar.

Get a good base with good character development and a respect for the franchise then add on all the explosions and eye candy which will attract non-fans IMHO.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2012 06:15PM by chen.
The G1 cartoon was terribly written. The characters were almost universally cardboard stereotypes. The G1 comic is a bit better, but comparing it to The Lord of the Rings is absurd - at its best moments, maybe it was on the same level as classic Spider-Man stories. Making Ironhide red won't fix that.

The only reason I can see to hold fast to the "standards" of G1 is to appease fanboys. "Respect for the franchise" is just idealism - there's no creative benefit to that, and no commercial benefit. I'd rather see a future "reboot" do its best to produce something fresh that stands on its own merits. The prospect of a new Transformers movie compulsively imitating the "classic" stories that weren't that good to begin with is something of a nightmare.

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
Well I'm not saying to make big screen versions of the G1 cartoon which I agree was pretty simple. The comics as you said were a bit better but my point is the basic concept of Transformers is very solid. If you take the premise that these are aliens that have been at war for millions of years, that they have a religous/supernatural belief which you wouldn't expect from "robots", that their not mindless autonotoms but have a "soul" in the form of their spark. You have a pretty good start, not to mention comics from Dreamwave and IDW expanded on how G1 Transformers get battle weary, some get disillusioined, others become pacifists etc. You begin to see that this isn't about just robots who transform and fight but a society which like any other society at war is very complex with different layers. I don't see how this concept is any less relevant than four hobbits, a dwarf, a elf, a wizard and a couple humans going to a mountain to drop a ring in it. What made LOTR great? Was it the quest or how the characters dealt with it and how they reacted to various circumstances.

As for the G1 standard, that is in respect to the fact that it has by far the widest selection of characters shown. While characterization was limited it was there, no one would confuse the characteristics of Bumblebee with say Brawn or Grimlock with Perceptor. So what if they were cardboard stereotypes at least they had personality. Besides Prime and Megatron could you honestly say that any of the Transformers had any discernable character traits in the movies. Pretty much every series after has limited the cast to a handful each right up to Prime now, where's the variety? As for respecting the franchise why not? Nolan respected the true aspect of Batman and it has became a hit franchise, same with the first Burton Batman. Not respecting the franchise get's you a George Clooney Batman doing ass shots lol. Why is a toy franchise any less valuable then a book written over 50 years ago. Jackson respected the LOTR franchise and it became a hit, it was a success with both fans and non-fans of the books. As for making Ironhide red why not? He's been red for over 25 years and while he may not be a A-list character he has been there from the start and does have a fan following. If you want a black Autobot to add variety to the Autobot color pallet then name him Trailbreaker.
The problem with trying to define what Transformers is at its geeeeeeewuuuuuuuuuuun core is impossible because Transformers is a franchise with no creator.

It's a bunch of toys repackaged from Japanese toylines run through a couple of guys at various branches of Marvel (many of which hated each other) and some dudes at Hasbro who knew how to market toys to boys. There is no creative vision or driving force. Just look at the spinoff media like the current comics. It's just people trying to keep it going just because, taking things in whatever direction they think will sell.

G1 is comforting and it's something people grasp onto because it came first.

Almost every iteration of the franchise has had its ups and downs while building on the basic foundations of good storytelling and not necessarily finding success because of their geeewuuuuness



It's like Voltron in a way. Or it's like a Robotech that was actually successful :v
True Transformers was created by a comittee of toy execs but that's not to say there hasn't been visionaries or writers who haven't taken the Transformers reins and guided the franchise. In a way it's like Modern comics, Stan Lee or Bob Kane or any of the comic superheroes creators haven't written a story for the character they created decades ago in years but that doesn't mean other writers and artists haven't taken these characters and guided them in different directions. It's gotta be harder when it's a toy company who's in charge and is more concerned with sales then actually producing a piece of "art" that profitable. True there is a nastalgia factor with G1 just the same way as there is with Batman or Superman or Spider-Man. But the fact that G1 based stories are still the best selling Transformers comics also says that besides the nolstalgia factor the groundwork that was laid down 25+ years ago has stood the test of time. Is it just nolstalgia that keeps G1 going or are the characters that enduring that almost every re-boot/re-imagining is a variation on the same G1 characters? I don't know.
G1 based comics keep selling because comics are basically nerd comfort food. The fucking G2 comics sold better than any IDW bullshit.

Most of the other TF iterations are shitty tie-in comics with no effort put into them.

Comics are a godawful medium was churned out the way IDW does it. It's an install base of Stockholm syndrome suffering prats like Walky who want their fandom brains tickled by fanfics.

And now they're erasing the G2 comics in favor of more G1 comics just so everything can be exactly the same as it was IN THE UK because some nerds discovered that Simon Furman did stuff there that we never got until recently. It's so self serving I do not understand it.

The G1 comics ended in 1991. That was 21 years ago.
I have to disagree with the characterization that the G1 bots characters were "cardboard"...go watch GoBots for a few hours, and see how much hair is left on your scalp if you can last that long.

I can still watch G1 without wincing too much. Okay, maybe a Warpath (zing, pow, zoooom!) was a little clunky as a character, but put that up against a Bumblebee, Tracks, Cliffjumper, Powerglide, Jazz, Prowl, Mirage, Omega Supreme, Beachcomber, Huffer, Jetfire, and a host of other likeable, reasonably fleshed-out Autobots...let alone Optimus!

Given the effects, transforming gimmick, and big budget, Bay could have pooped out just about anything and it would have made movie. I like to believe that if an updated homage to the G1 characters and thier story was put to screen reverently, you'd have a whole generation sharing the franchise with thier kids, instead of the parents trying to gouge thier eyes and ears out while watching it.
Yeah I can't agree with Paul's assertion that the G1 cartoon was wholly awful. However despite having a number of episodes focused on character with somewhat weighty themes (the Golden Lagoon especially is so strangely morose in its ending and message) but I don't think those are things that defined the series. Jim Shooter did talk about how the show started to skew towards an older audience after the movie because of Gobots cutting into the younger child market, but I've found people only now started understanding what was going on with Season 3 because even today people still haven't gotten over Rodimus replacing Optimus :v

The whole franchise is pretty basic so the writers back then had some room to experiment with things, but as a whole that doesn't point to inherent appeal of Geewuun so much as just better writing which the Michael Bay films are sorely lacking.

And to be honest, most of the core Movie designs are just modern updates of the G1 characters. It's just their aesthetic and lack of characterization obscures any connection there may be.
Sanjeev (Admin)
chen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for respecting the franchise why not?
> Nolan respected the true aspect of Batman and it
> has became a hit franchise, same with the first
> Burton Batman.

Wut.

How can two WHOLLY AND COMPLETELY different movies both "respect the franchise"? The Burton movie was very much like contemporary Batman comics...just as the 60's television series mirrored the Batman comics of the time. The Nolan movies respected the "true aspect of"...Frank Miller's Batman.

...

But whatever. I think we're losing perspective. For me, this hits the nail on the head:

VF5SS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The whole franchise is pretty basic so the writers
> back then had some room to experiment with things,
> but as a whole that doesn't point to inherent
> appeal of Geewuun so much as just better writing
> which the Michael Bay films are sorely lacking.


I think I'm like most of you in that I'm an older guy (NOT a small child to whom this shit is marketed to) who grew up loving the early cartoons, toys, and comics. But I'm ALSO a discerning movie-goer. As such, I don't really NEED a movie to be yet another rehash of the G1 plot. Sure, that'd be nice to have...as would little easter eggs here and there with nods to those familiar with the original media. What I *do* need is a story that doesn't make my brain numb. Oh, and less racism would be nice.

> And to be honest, most of the core Movie designs
> are just modern updates of the G1 characters. It's
> just their aesthetic and lack of characterization
> obscures any connection there may be.

True. It's just a shame that the connection didn't have to be obscured at all. I think that's what chen was really trying to get at. It's not impossible to make a 2-hour screenplay that has a coherent and engaging plot, and 1) that respects the themes, values, character archetypes, etc., of the original source material, and 2) is commercially successful because of its accessibility to and ability to entertain new fans. Marvel Studios did it with their own characters where Hollywood failed (for the most part). Thus, again, it IS possible.

But at the end of the day, why bother? Bayformers grossed a few billion dollars. Our fanboy blithering ain't worth shit.
Well the problem with Michael Bay movies these days and to some extent the awful Prequel trilogy, it how they've inadvertently encouraged movie based anti-intellectualism where any story with enough pew pews and explosions gets a pass for being entertaining. A lot of the best action movies, past and present, knew that you must hang your action on good characters and some kind of meaningful story. Even as awful as a movie such as Independence Day is (WELCOME TO EARF) I think there's a shred of sincerity to the whole thing.

None of the TF movies feel that sincere. It's just Shia LeBeouf acting like a jackass in between robot fights while other people act like even bigger jackasses to compensate.

Although it helps most comic book movies that the main character is generally a human being who can be easily portrayed by a strong actor like Robert Downey Jr so that when the script it weak like Iron Man 2, the main character can carry the film through the bad parts.

The Transformers being wholly CGI constructs have to be shafted on screentime that isn't action because even with all the money these films make, no director is going to sink the thousands of man hours in post production to have robots stand around and talk. An all CGI movie doesn't have this problem, nor does a cartoon because it's all one medium with little mixing of animation techniques.
Its easy to respect the franchise, just take it seriously. Batman was always meant to be dark, hell when he first started he had a gun and shot bad guys. Burton film was influenced by the Dark knight returns while the Nolan films take after the Year one mini both by I believe was by Frank Miller who was in turn trying to get Batman back to his "roots". Anyways I'm not saying I didn't like the Bay movies I just thought they could be better that's all.
Batman was always meant to be dark!



-Ginrai
Golden Gate Riot on dead trees at: [www.destroyallcomics.com]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2012 01:15PM by Ginrai.
See batman dark and gritty and ready for a safari lol.

Okay we're all saying what we want changed but what would you keep from Bay movies? Maybe the cgi team?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2012 01:20PM by chen.
chen Wrote:
> Well I'm not saying to make big screen versions of
> the G1 cartoon which I agree was pretty simple.
> The comics as you said were a bit better but my
> point is the basic concept of Transformers is very
> solid. If you take the premise that these are
> aliens that have been at war for millions of
> years, that they have a religous/supernatural
> belief which you wouldn't expect from "robots",
> that their not mindless autonotoms but have a
> "soul" in the form of their spark. You have a
> pretty good start, not to mention comics from
> Dreamwave and IDW expanded on how G1 Transformers
> get battle weary, some get disillusioined, others
> become pacifists etc. You begin to see that this
> isn't about just robots who transform and fight
> but a society which like any other society at war
> is very complex with different layers.

About this we're mostly on the same page. Though I don't think the newer comics are that much better than the old Marvel ones.

I think it's very hard to make it FEEL like G1, though, without literally adapting the simplistic designs and cliche characters. Someone could write a brilliant movie about alien machines and their society and religion, how they differ from humans and how they interact with us, but what would make that Transformers? Is it really a red and blue truck that makes all the difference?

> What made LOTR great? Was it the quest or
> how the characters dealt with it and how they
> reacted to various circumstances.

Well, it doesn't hurt that everything in LotR, from the tone and dialogue style to the way Tolkein describes the little accoutrements of character and place, supports its characters and its story.

It's held up as the paramount example of epic fantasy - it feels right to fantasy fans. In that case, when a work defines a genre, slavish accuracy to the original is the majority of what's required for the work to be successful

> As for the G1 standard, that is in respect to the
> fact that it has by far the widest selection of
> characters shown. While characterization was
> limited it was there, no one would confuse the
> characteristics of Bumblebee with say Brawn or
> Grimlock with Perceptor.

Sure, but I can't tell you offhand what the difference was between Brawn and Ironhide.

> Besides Prime and Megatron could you
> honestly say that any of the Transformers had any
> discernable character traits in the movies.

Strangely, the characters with the most personality are the sidekicks. Particularly Frenzy in the first movie and Laserbeak in the third.

> Nolan respected the true aspect of Batman and it
> has became a hit franchise, same with the first
> Burton Batman.

I'd argue that Nolan remade the franchise in his own mold, telling stories constructed around specific themes which Nolan wants to explore. I don't think Nolan gets at a universal, fundamental aspect of Batman as much as he shows us what he is interested in about Batman.

The movies look and sound like the modern grim and dark comics Batman, but I don't think they particularly recall the "classic" Batman stories, which were often focused on deduction and on the gimmickry of their villains.

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
Supersentai Wrote:
> I have to disagree with the characterization that
> the G1 bots characters were "cardboard"...go watch
> GoBots for a few hours, and see how much hair is
> left on your scalp if you can last that long.
>
> I can still watch G1 without wincing too much.

That's a pretty low bar, dude. "Better than Gobots" and "minimal wincing" are not the standards I try to choose my entertainment by.

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
Sanjeev Wrote:
>
> True. It's just a shame that the connection didn't
> have to be obscured at all. I think that's what
> chen was really trying to get at. It's not
> impossible to make a 2-hour screenplay that has a
> coherent and engaging plot, and 1) that respects
> the themes, values, character archetypes, etc., of
> the original source material, and 2) is
> commercially successful because of its
> accessibility to and ability to entertain new
> fans. Marvel Studios did it with their own
> characters where Hollywood failed (for the most
> part). Thus, again, it IS possible.

But which Marvel Studios movies are going back to the original? Even in terms of their aesthetic? The Iron Man movie visuals are based on Adi Granov's art, the Captain America movie visuals are somewhere between Bryan Hitch's Ultimates art and Steve Epting's from Brubaker's Cap books... The Iron Man movie essentially reinvents Stark's character to fit Downey's talent for smartassery... and the Thor movie is just all over the place.

I really don't see those movies succeeding due to a devotion to the original work like Chen is suggesting that Transformers should pursue. I think their success is based on reinventing each character as something which appeals to contemporary audiences.

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
Sanjeev (Admin)
chen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Batman was always meant to be dark

Clearly, we grew up reading two COMPLETELY different "Batman" comic franchises. The above statement is so off base, I'm not even sure where to begin...

Anyway, Paul, my references to the Marvel movies is less about the aesthetics and more about the overall themes used in the movies. Like, Stark wasn't ALWAYS depicted as a snarky fuck in the books...but he WAS in a good number of them. See, those movies weren't just competently written, with accessible plots, they appealed to long-time fans. The spirit of the original books was carried through, if not necessarily the more superficial things. Of course, this is all anecdotal, but ALL my Marvel comic fan buddies enjoyed those movies, while almost no TF fans I know liked Bayformers.
Well Tony Stark was always a lady killer, they just needed to make him real with Downey Hunky Jr's portrayal :3

plus they totally did the origin story with the clunk gray first armor right
You know what would make the Transformers movies better? Better direction, better writing, robots that are actually distinguishable from one another. The problem is not that they aren't G1, the problem is THAT THEY SUCK.

-Ginrai
Golden Gate Riot on dead trees at: [www.destroyallcomics.com]
asterphage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's a pretty low bar, dude. "Better than Gobots" and "minimal wincing" are not the standards I try to choose my entertainment by.

RRRR! I guess you're going to make me say it...YES, I still do very much ENJOY watching a good share of G1 episodes. In my estimation, that is a testament to how much creativity and fun they invested in what otherwise could have been just another "toy commercial" show.

Even if there weren't Transformers or Joe toys, I would have still watched and appreciated both of these Hasbro shows. They did not have to invest nearly as much effort as they did in these shows, and characterizations, but I'm forever grateful that they did. And FUN, you can't escape the frenetic sense of joy that escapes from so many of the episodes, must have been a blast to work on compared to so many other comparable shows.

Don't even get me started on the movies either...I have to look for excuses NOT to pop them into the DVD playa' when the opportunity presents itself.

As to the overhead topic of the Bay films...if you take the use of Cullen's voice out of the mix, these movies would be all but worthless to me. No repeat viewing pleasure on my end. I nearly walked out of the second one.

Do I want to see more Bay-formers...NO. If Bay wants to "reboot" the series and maybe change up the designs and add some depth to the bots, maybe I'll consider seeing it. I skipped the third installment at the theatre and just watched it at home. Even as someone who works in Chicago and walked by the set props on a daily basis, the film didn't do a thing for me...and I'm a gangly toy nerd geek...if I ain't the proverbial fish in the barrel, then da-duh?
Sanjeev (Admin)
Well, let's be clear here: you're NOT the fish in the barrel. Little kids are. And we all know how little kids don't mind a big ol' plate of tripe. I loved Force Five like nothing else when I was little...but watching it now makes me facepalm hard. Or just fall asleep. Immediately.

And not to digress here--and no offense intended, Adam--but while you and I seem mostly on the same page about this stuff...what baffles the shit outta me is WHY you went to see the second Bayformers movie (and even the third, if at home).

Obviously, this confusion of mine doesn't apply to just you. Yesterday I was talking to my co-workers about the upcoming Bayturtles movie--y'know: the one where the TMNTs are NOT teenagers, mutants, ninjas, or turtles. Well, as these guys were cursing the womb that vomited forth Michael Bay upon this plane of existence, the subject naturally turned to how he "ruined" Transformers. But what really struck me were the comments about how "the second movie didn't even make any sense". Or "the third one was just as awful". I had to stop these guys and seriously ask them: okay, well, if you suffered agonizingly through the first movie...by all means, shame on Michael Bay. He stole your two hours and $10. BUT YOU WENT BACK FOR MORE???

I need someone to explain this latter phenomenon to me, please. Like, if you absolutely hated the first movie, why in fucking hell would you go see the gods damned sequels!? Personally, I'm hardly made of money--and we live in a deteriorating economy--and with the pressures of work, I barely have time to scratch my ass...so why fork over cash that should be going to utilities? Why blow five or so more hours of my life that I'll never get back? And more fucking importantly, why would I willfully torture myself...and then do it again!?

So, Bay-fuck me once: shame on him...Bay-fuck me twice--and even a third time--shame on me, right?
Sanjeev Wrote:
> Well, let's be clear here: you're NOT the fish in
> the barrel.

I agree on this. However...

> Little kids are.

For PG-13 movies? I think if they were aiming for a kid audience, they could've knocked it down to a PG.

The audience for the TF movies is the general action movie audience, I think. Clash of the Titans, the Marvel franchises, and Transformers are all aiming for the same market segment.

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
I only went to see the second movie because my brother had just gotten back from overseas and it seemed like an idea...not saying a good idea...but an idea that didn't have any real competition.

I thought there was hope it was going to head in a better direction...yeah...but I still love the idea of Cullen voicing the big guy...these days the closest I get it watching Curious George with Welker doing the voice of the monkey!

I am absolutely GEEKING OUT OF MY FREAKING HEAD waiting to see the Avengers...have not been this stoked about a movie coming out since Bat-Keaton in 89'. I took two cheerleaders in my 22 foot long turd brown Ford LTD II the FOURTH time I went to see that particular film.

Saw the new trailer for Dark Knight...meh...I'd still rather have Julie Newmar than Hath-Cat, and Bane still sounds like the unintelligible teacher from the Peanuts cartoons. And what the heck is with the flying kleenex box thing...it that supposed to be the Batwing? Ack! (off topic off topic)
Sanjeev Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And not to digress here--and no offense intended,
> Adam--but while you and I seem mostly on the same
> page about this stuff...what baffles the shit
> outta me is WHY you went to see the second
> Bayformers movie (and even the third, if at
> home).
>
> Obviously, this confusion of mine doesn't apply to
> just you. Yesterday I was talking to my co-workers
> about the upcoming Bayturtles movie--y'know: the
> one where the TMNTs are NOT teenagers, mutants,
> ninjas, or turtles. Well, as these guys were
> cursing the womb that vomited forth Michael Bay
> upon this plane of existence, the subject
> naturally turned to how he "ruined" Transformers.
> But what really struck me were the comments about
> how "the second movie didn't even make any sense".
> Or "the third one was just as awful". I had to
> stop these guys and seriously ask them: okay,
> well, if you suffered agonizingly through the
> first movie...by all means, shame on Michael Bay.
> He stole your two hours and $10. BUT YOU WENT BACK
> FOR MORE???

Scopedog said this on May 13, 2010 at 6:36PM:

[toyboxdx.com]

"Why do you guys pay exorbitant ticket prices to watch these movies? I could tell from the previews that Transformers 1 wasn't to my taste. I liked Iron Man 1. I've never seen Transformers 2, Avatar, or Iron Man 2 and probably never will. Definitely won't pay full ticket price. I'm not implying that I'd sneak into one of these or download any of them either because they seem like a total waste of my time. Some of you complain about gender and racial insensitivity in these films YET YOU PAID TO SEE THEM ON OPENING WEEKEND OR WHEN THEY WERE STILL NEW AND AT FULL PRICE. Does your customer satisfaction come from making them into objects of critique? Or do you feel dirty after watching them if they're so offensive to your sensibilities? All of the blockbusters I mentioned seem lame to me and it's probably got to do with the implication that I NEED to see them in Dolby Digital sound and with digital projection in order to enjoy them. If a movie is great it should still stimulate my imagination on a 32" CRT TV. The analytical diatribe seems totally wasted on these movies."

I watched Iron Man 2 a couple of times since then and I actually liked it (rented first, then bought the DVD). I've never seen any of the other movies I mentioned.

--------------------------
I want YOU for MoƩ Sucks Army



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2012 04:16PM by Scopedog.
Sanjeev (Admin)
Heh...Paul, my co-workers said the exact same thing when I went on my rant the other day: I guess Prime decapitates a bunch of robots throughout the series...and I seem to recall a Transformer taking a piss on a human. All elements perhaps not exactly geared towards "little kids"! So, yeah, maybe the intended audience is people who like splosions and dirty chicks...rather than geeks or little kids!


Supersentai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...not saying a good idea...but
> an idea that didn't have any real competition.


^^Hilarious! But I hear you.

I can't wait for Avengers. I'm tentatively hopeful about Dark Knight Rises...but Anne fucking Hathaway? Well, at least they're keeping with their tradition of horrendous casting for the female parts...

And I thought Bane was Mexican?

Whatever. The movie will likely be enjoyable.

And Scope, I think the thing with watching these terrible movies is that some of us are SO devoted (via nostalgia) to the source material, we feel like we have no choice but to see these modern incarnations (despite better judgement!). I went to see the first Bayformers not expecting anything remotely "good"...but it was even worse than that! And with virtually no connection to the source material I love, it was a no-brainer to say no to the sequels.

In another example, I saw the recent Clash of the Titans...because the Harryhausen film shaped me so much while growing up. There was pretty much no way I was NOT gonna see it...despite knowing it was gonna blow! And it sure delivered! :P

Oh...but there's no way I'm sticking around for Wrath of the Titans! ;)
I went to the first Transformers movie with a friend and totally hated it. I did NOT go see the sequels in the theatre and only watched them with Rifftrax at home later. Still painful, but the only way I could get through them.

-Ginrai
Golden Gate Riot on dead trees at: [www.destroyallcomics.com]
Sanjeev (Admin)
Heh...similarly, I simply refused to go see how Hollywood raped the Fantastic Four...but later, me and some friends downloaded the Rifftrax for both of them and watched them back to back. It was a blast!
Supersentai Wrote:
>
> have not been this stoked about a movie coming out
> since Bat-Keaton in 89'. I took two cheerleaders in
> my 22 foot long turd brown Ford LTD II the FOURTH
> time I went to see that particular film.



-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2012 05:55PM by asterphage.
Attachments:
open | download - tumblr_l0irzwVWYC1qzlowso1_400.jpg (32.7 KB)
Add a fine pair of vintage British Knights and you've completed the picture.

As far as why go to the theatre at all? I usually do the "early bird", so I'm paying seven bucks or so for a first run...that doesn't kill me. However, I have discovered, through trial and error, that the theatre is the only socially acceptable place to make an absolute pig of yourself on buttered, oily popcorn.

I am an unabashed popcorn FIEND, and typically go through two mega-sized soft drinks and THREE tubs of popcorn during a two and a half hour movie. Usually spend the first few seconds once the lights come back on plucking debris from my shirt, but otherwise it's transcendent bliss!
Sanjeev (Admin)
Smartfood used to be one of my drugs of choice...but in the past couple years, I've sworn off popcorn. I just can't stand the little shell-bits that get lodged in your gums. Pisses me off...
Yeah, I paid eight bucks to see Clash of the Titans in 3D, and I was reasonably satisfied.

On the other hand, I paid full price to see all of the Transformers movies in IMAX, and I wasn't THAT disappointed - honestly, I mostly just wished they just had a more even tone, with the fight scenes broken up throughout the movie, and something character-based to take a breather during the climactic battles. Oh, and a shred of intelligence in the comic relief. But really, I was pretty much pleased with the films just because of the robots hitting each other! Unlike most of y'all, I like the movie designs.

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
It's the fragmented facial designs which I despise the most...I understand that if you are going to animate the motion of a "real" metallic robot, that such a design is necessary. Otherwise you have just a flat, presumably rubbery-metal mouth moving as they did in the animated serieseses.

Of course, the designs were far from the only problem with these movies. When you're sitting back marvelling at the relative comic genius of John Turturro during a giant robot movie, something just ain't quite right.
I actually really hate Turturro's character. Starting with his insinuation that humans never could've invented any 20th century technology if they hadn't dug up Megatron. Jackass.

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
You might want to avoid Lebowski if he turns you off that much in his Transformers role...ha!
Sanjeev (Admin)
Really? THAT'S the bit that bothered you?

LOL
What about the open misogyny and racism? I feel like's that probably worse than John Turturro being unfunny.

-Ginrai
Golden Gate Riot on dead trees at: [www.destroyallcomics.com]
Are you talking Transformers or Lebowski?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

footer