The Pros & Cons of Michael Bay - discussion topic

[crankcase76]

Bay's films aren't awful, they have their moments and some of the character designs are nice. It is good to see that they'll be given a fresher perspective, since the whole Bayformers mood is losing its shine IMO. Not as special as the first film.

+1, the first movie was excellent! As it contained nothing but TF's kick'in butt. As they progressed it concentrated more on the human side, which lost it's perspective of the whole transformers purpose. In which i mean that they should have focused more on the transformers, but in all i have to agree that they are movies that have defined the whole transformers universe in which we should hopefully see a return to a more autobot and decepticon race for survival.

[Magnus]

I'll be waiting for confirmation from Bay himself.

If it's true, I'm hoping Transformers 5 isn't a reboot - AoE laid the groundwork for a fifth movie, so audiences probably won't like being left hanging by an unresolved storyline. Plus, I personally feel that not only is it far too soon for a reboot, but that reboots are an 'easy way out' for studios.

Yeah, there has been criticism of the plots, but really, I feel that it's misplaced; criticism should really be levelled at the writers, not Bay himself.



I don't get the Michael Bay hate, as much as his movies aren't Oscar winning dramas they are still entertaining films and they've made the transformers franchise so much bigger than it was before 2007.

+1. His movies are good escapism/entertainment, which is what you'd expect for a movie franchise based on a toy line. Ok, so his movies aren't exactly critically acclaimed, and he seems to be an easy target for haters, but I get the impression that as far as he's concerned, moviegoing audiences are his critics, and audiences like his work.

[MayzaPrime]

I enjoyed all of the TFbay movies, despite all of the flaws. :D

The only thing that annoyed me in the last movie was the blatant advertising, I know this has been happening through all other movies but in AOE it was just totally over the top, I didnt need to see some dude sitting in his car with a close up of his sunglasses or all of the beer all over the ground.

I am not sure what to expect until a new director is announced, but I am hoping for 5 - 6 to be filmed together.

[Ploughmans Lunch]

I don't get the Michael Bay hate, as much as his movies aren't Oscar winning dramas they are still entertaining films and they've made the transformers franchise so much bigger than it was before 2007.

The problem isn't that they're not-G1 enough, or not striving for some exceptional artistic recognition. it's that they're stupidly scripted, racist/sexist and downright bad. Sure, you can have giant alien robots fighting over mountain dew/xbox/whatever. Sure, go spend $150-300 mil doing CGI/good VFX. But for god's sake, don't make a film based on a first draft done by a scab and a 45-50 year old frat boy. The problem there is that since ROTF came off the success of a not too bad film (TF1), it was going to pretty much guaranteed to be a success anyway (powers that be, all that). Which means that since then it's actually potentially made other films dumber. I dunno.

(That being said, enjoy what you like :) It's just I know big budgeted action films have and can be both trashy, enjoyable AND not downright insulting, and we all know that Transformers can be better than other people expect/anticipate. So it'd just be nice to see the flagship of the franchise/whatever be something that isn't just dumb as heck (despite it's premise (bracket (small joke))))

[Trent]

Call me when a new director is announced. Then I'll party.

But yes, it is undeniable that Bay did great things for the franchise. But imagine what someone with actual directing talent could've achieved!

And I too haven't as yet seen TF4. It is sitting on my hard drive, I just haven't been that bored yet.

[FruitBuyer]

Call me when a new director is announced. Then I'll party.

But yes, it is undeniable that Bay did great things for the franchise. But imagine what someone with actual directing talent could've achieved!

And I too haven't as yet seen TF4. It is sitting on my hard drive, I just haven't been that bored yet.

Lockdown is really awesome, single best thing about the movie.

[reillyd]

I don't get the Michael Bay hate, as much as his movies aren't Oscar winning dramas they are still entertaining films and they've made the transformers franchise so much bigger than it was before 2007.


Plot. Continuity reboots. Essential plot elements cut/not explained.

[Fungal Infection]

Isn't the issue with the movies really with the story/plot rather than Michael Bay himself? I mean, I'm sure he has some input into the story but he's only working with what he's been given so shouldn't the writers take the blame for the supposed issues with the movies? I have no issues with the movies myself, granted they are not the most intellectually stimulating films but as a spectacle and as escapist entertainment, they succeed at what they do. Which for the studios, is what they want Michael Bay to do. So I dont see why there is so much hate for the man especially when he's doing exactly what he's been hired to do.

[griffin]

Isn't the issue with the movies really with the story/plot rather than Michael Bay himself? I mean, I'm sure he has some input into the story but he's only working with what he's been given so shouldn't the writers take the blame for the supposed issues with the movies? I have no issues with the movies myself, granted they are not the most intellectually stimulating films but as a spectacle and as escapist entertainment, they succeed at what they do. Which for the studios, is what they want Michael Bay to do. So I dont see why there is so much hate for the man especially when he's doing exactly what he's been hired to do.

We've had some of the best Hollywood writers on the Transformers movies, so scripting shouldn't be an issue. It's how the script is interpreted and modified when setting up individual scenes... particularly by a Director who focuses more on the "money shots" that you'd normally see featured on Trailers or to investors, and then later has to tie them together to make some sense out of why something suddenly happens just for a spectacular visual effect.
He's a great director for those intense action shots, and has been a pioneer in that field. But he seems to be stubborn about it, in that he doesn't like sacrificing an action shot from his imagination if doesn't fit easily within an existing coherent story. He'd rather sacrifice the logic of the story, to keep his exciting action shots that often appear and disappear without reason.

By the time Bay had his hands on the fourth movie, he had so much creative control... and we saw it from the generic looking robots (that don't have car kibble on them on screen anymore), to about an hour of Trailers released (of all his money shots) that didn't leave anything left unknown when watching the Movie.
He's so focused on the action of each scene rather than the "bigger picture" of the whole movie - he's like a gardener who focuses more on the individual trees that tickle his fancy instead of the whole forest or garden. Sure, each tree might look spectacular on its own, but the forest makes no sense as a whole, and some trees don't go well with others.

Like I said, he's a great director for action movies and draws in the money to prove it, but he's not a good story director... which is why he's never won any serious awards for his movies, like Oscars, Directors Guild or Emmys (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000881/awards).

[SharkyMcShark]

He's a great director for those intense action shots, and has been a pioneer in that field. But he seems to be stubborn about it, in that he doesn't like sacrificing an action shot from his imagination if doesn't fit easily within an existing coherent story. He'd rather sacrifice the logic of the story, to keep his exciting action shots that often appear and disappear without reason.


Look at the chase through the carpark where Marky Mark and Tess and the man with the underage girlfriend drive off the top of the complex and onto a perfectly positioned ramp.

Are we meant to assume he knew it was there? Did he set it up earlier? He mentioned that Tessa was a good team member - had they driven around that abandoned industrial complex before? What is happening? Why does Michael Bay get to keep making movies?

[xlojnr]

Look at the chase through the carpark where Marky Mark and Tess and the man with the underage girlfriend drive off the top of the complex and onto a perfectly positioned ramp.

Are we meant to assume he knew it was there? Did he set it up earlier? He mentioned that Tessa was a good team member - had they driven around that abandoned industrial complex before? What is happening? Why does Michael Bay get to keep making movies?

not saying that I love bay, I don't care what he does.

but in that scene, before the jump, don't they say something akin to "do the thing.." implying that they were indeed about to do something that they had done before. or was I dreaming it subconsciously to make sense of the scene?

[FruitBuyer]

not saying that I love bay, I don't care what he does.

but in that scene, before the jump, don't they say something akin to "do the thing.." implying that they were indeed about to do something that they had done before. or was I dreaming it subconsciously to make sense of the scene?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's implied that they've done that before. The problem is that it's incredibly easy to miss, which is a fault

[UltraMarginal]

not saying that I love bay, I don't care what he does.

but in that scene, before the jump, don't they say something akin to "do the thing.." implying that they were indeed about to do something that they had done before. or was I dreaming it subconsciously to make sense of the scene?

Yes, they did, which is something that isn't entirely that uncommon in a Michael Bay film, or a detail that helps something make sense is just on the screen and not specifically called out. I think its one of his strengths, not spelling out everything in minute detail. It means that if you don't pay attention to the film as your watching it, you will miss stuff. A movie/TV show that spells out absolutely everything is in my opinion extremely boring, especially if it spells out stuff twice or more, once for people paying attention and then a second /third time for those only half watching the film.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's implied that they've done that before. The problem is that it's incredibly easy to miss, which is a fault

I don't think it's a fault, it's a feature, see my comment above.

[griffin]

I don't think it is intentional on the part of Bay though, as he is known to be someone who does a lot of script changes to make sure his impulsive action shots take priority, and then add in throw-away lines to explain it... if he even bothers to explain something (as we've seen on those youtube videos that pick out dozens of plot and continuity flaws).

[GoktimusPrime]

I recently saw someone attempt to defend Age of Extinction by saying that it's art, and compared Michael Bay with Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Vincent Van Gogh. :eek:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/avatars/spitdrink-1.gif

[SuspectimusPrime]

I recently saw someone attempt to defend Age of Extinction by saying that it's art, and compared Michael Bay with Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Vincent Van Gogh. :eek:


A troll? ;)

[morg176]

I hope bay is not involved in any of the subsequent films/spinoffs
The first movie was good but every movie thereafter has been a considerable disappointment. They keep getting stuff wrong.
Hope they learn from their mistakes, doubt it though...sigh

[Demonac]

What mistakes?
The movies made a heap of money. Why would they change anything?
The fans might whinge, but they still buy the tickets, DVDs, Blu-Ray & toys.

[janda the red]

What mistakes?
The movies made a heap of money. Why would they change anything?
The fans might whinge, but they still buy the tickets, DVDs, Blu-Ray & toys.

I agree 100%....

[Magnus]

What mistakes?
The movies made a heap of money. Why would they change anything?
The fans might whinge, but they still buy the tickets, DVDs, Blu-Ray & toys.


I agree 100%....

Same here. For all that some people say the movies 'get wrong' - and I'm certainly not saying they're perfect - they're clearly doing something right.

It's great that the producers are trying to canvass ideas through this 'writer's room'. We really could see some great ideas coming out of these sessions.

[kup]

I'm pretty happy if bay does it. I want him to finish what he started. Would love to see shia again as well.

You got to be trolling right? :p

I would say he 'finished what he started' by the end of the 3rd movie.

[kup]

remind me to avoid the boards in 2017
I don't think i can handle another bout of "my childhood, ruined forever!" or "the franchise is down the toilet"

I don't think anyone really cares that much anymore.

[Mythirax]

Not everyone has to agree with my opinion. I can't help what i like :D

[UltimateGalvatron]

Not everyone has to agree with my opinion. I can't help what i like :D

I personally agree. I think Bay should at least do TF 5 and 6, but he doesn't need to do the spin-offs

[Sinnertwin]

I don't think anyone really cares that much anymore.

Give it time.
Give it time...
:p

[5FDP]

Gee, what a shock :rolleyes:

[BigTransformerTrev]

remind me to avoid the boards in 2017
I don't think i can handle another bout of "my childhood, ruined forever!" or "the franchise is down the toilet"

Totally agree! I like to walk out of the movies thinking of all the positives I saw. I even walked out of ROTF saying "Well Ravage and Long Haul looked pretty damn cool!"


I don't think anyone really cares that much anymore.


Give it time.
Give it time...
:p

Yeah, somehow I don't think that the chances of people not complaining about the negatives in the movies are good - espeically on a board populated by TF fanboys ;)


Personally I was hoping we had seen the last of bay in a Directors role, but I'll live with it if it turns out otherwise

[kup]

Totally agree! I like to walk out of the movies thinking of all the positives I saw. I even walked out of ROTF saying "Well Ravage and Long Haul looked pretty damn cool!"





Yeah, somehow I don't think that the chances of people not complaining about the negatives in the movies are good - espeically on a board populated by TF fanboys ;)


Personally I was hoping we had seen the last of bay in a Directors role, but I'll live with it if it turns out otherwise

I actually think Bay may have screwed up his career as a director with Transformers. It seems that the studios don't want him for anything else and whatever other movie he wants to do, is only under the condition he makes the next TF film. Since nobody really cares or likes anything else he has been doing, I think he has become a repeating one trick monkey.

His career as a director may have been cornered on the toilet end of the floor but that shouldn't affect him that badly. The money that TFs gained him has allowed him to buy a lot of horror franchises. Yes, he makes awful movies out of them but he still owns them.

[Tetsuwan Convoy]

Yeah, somehow I don't think that the chances of people not complaining about the negatives in the movies are good - espeically on a board populated by TF fanboys ;)

Personally I was hoping we had seen the last of bay in a Directors role, but I'll live with it if it turns out otherwise

I think people only focus on the negatives when they outweigh the positives. Like AOE.

I'll also live with it if Bay directs the next movie. I just won't bother seeing it. After the last three horrid movies (and I truly think they were trash), I'll just go and see something good instead.

[BigTransformerTrev]

I actually think Bay may have screwed up his career as a director with Transformers. It seems that the studios don't want him for anything else and whatever other movie he wants to do, is only under the condition he makes the next TF film. Since nobody really cares or likes anything else he has been doing, I think he has become a repeating one trick monkey.

His career as a director may have been cornered on the toilet end of the floor but that shouldn't affect him that badly. The money that TFs gained him has allowed him to buy a lot of horror franchises. Yes, he makes awful movies out of them but he still owns them.

Depends on the perspective. Considering what a massive money earner the TF franchise has been (the last 3 all in the top 50 grosing movies of all time with DOTM at 8 and AOE at 11) they could be considered by the studio to be a great success. Money speaks more loudly than plot-holes ;)

Yeah - that fragger is rich as! I wish I was earning that much money from a career going down the tubes :p

[kup]

Depends on the perspective. Considering what a massive money earner the TF franchise has been (the last 3 all in the top 50 grosing movies of all time with DOTM at 8 and AOE at 11) they could be considered by the studio to be a great success. Money speaks more loudly than plot-holes ;)

Yeah - that fragger is rich as! I wish I was earning that much money from a career going down the tubes :p

Do a show in which you just do fart, poo and piss jokes with some naked women and pyrotechnics and you may not need a day job anymore ;)

[GoktimusPrime]

I actually had a boy in a year 8 class this morning tell me that he's never seen a TF movie and asked me if I thought they were worth watching. I said, "Do you care about the story?" and he said, "No.", so I answered, "Yes.". Another boy asked me, "What if you do care?" and I recommended that he read the comics. ;)

It all depends on what you're expecting or what you like. If all you want is a really thrilling visual spectacle, then the movies do deliver that in spades. If you want a good story, then maybe not. But I just wish that they could make a Transformers movie that gives us a decent story and is a visual spectacle. These two things are not mutually exclusive (e.g. Star Wars Original Trilogy!).

[BigTransformerTrev]

Do a show in which you just do fart jokes with some naked women and pyrotechnics and you may not need a day job anymore ;)

I called that 'going out clubbing' when I was in London - noone paid me though :p

[Magnus]

I actually had a boy in a year 8 class this morning tell me that he's never seen a TF movie and asked me if I thought they were worth watching. I said, "Do you care about the story?" and he said, "No.", so I answered, "Yes.". Another boy asked me, "What if you do care?" and I recommended that he read the comics. ;)

It all depends on what you're expecting or what you like. If all you want is a really thrilling visual spectacle, then the movies do deliver that in spades. If you want a good story, then maybe not. But I just wish that they could make a Transformers movie that gives us a decent story and is a visual spectacle. These two things are not mutually exclusive (e.g. Star Wars Original Trilogy!).

I personally think the movies do deliver on decent (not great) story. They're not hard to follow, don't have complex subplots, and it's (usually) clear what characters are doing and why. I'm not really sure what constitutes 'good' or 'bad' in these instances, but at the same time, I'd think that story-based complaints should really be levelled at the writers, not Michael Bay.

[drifand]

I think people only focus on the negatives when they outweigh the positives. Like AOE.

I'll also live with it if Bay directs the next movie. I just won't bother seeing it. After the last three horrid movies (and I truly think they were trash), I'll just go and see something good instead.

Same here, And heres the thing, I actually like quite a few Bay movies, just not the last three TFs. Will I watch? yup, but not in the cinemas.

[Yongeltron]

I just saw the new Avengers movie. The whole time I'm thinking "why can't the Transformers movies be this good?".

Why can't we have characters with personality and identifiable traits that aren't just racial stereotypes? Why can't we have action scenes that are mapped out so that we can actually understand what the hell is happening and shot so that we can actually tell what we're looking at? Why can't we have a movie about heroic transforming robots where the stars of the movie are actually the robots instead of a bunch of human characters that seem specifically written to have absolutely no appeal?

Michael Bay is why we can't have nice things.

[Magnus]

I just saw the new Avengers movie. The whole time I'm thinking "why can't the Transformers movies be this good?".

Why can't we have characters with personality and identifiable traits that aren't just racial stereotypes? Why can't we have action scenes that are mapped out so that we can actually understand what the hell is happening and shot so that we can actually tell what we're looking at? Why can't we have a movie about heroic transforming robots where the stars of the movie are actually the robots instead of a bunch of human characters that seem specifically written to have absolutely no appeal?

Michael Bay is why we can't have nice things.

I recently saw Avengers: Age of Ultron as well. It was very well done, but I'm not sure a direct comparison is fair.

I'm not sure about your first point - I'd hesitate to call the robots' personality traits simply 'racial stereotypes', as this certainly doesn't hold true for most of the 'bots.

Since RotF, the action scenes have been easier to follow: this could have been a response to feedback, or simply having a different director of photography. Certainly for DotM and AoE, the dual camera rigs used for 3D filming have been more 'restrictive' than Bay would like, but the upside is that shots are easy to follow.

The humans aren't written to 'have absolutely no appeal'. They're there for the audience to relate to, since the movies' stories are told from a primarily human point of view. After all, as the first movie's tagline goes, it's "their war - our world (emphasis added)." That said, I would also like to see more 'bot screen time, but CGI environments and the characters themselves aren't cheap or easy to render to the photorealistic quality audiences expect.

Finally, I maintain that a lot of 'problems' are issues with the script, and such criticism should be levelled at the scriptwriters, not Bay.

[Demonac]

I'm not sure about your first point - I'd hesitate to call the robots' personality traits simply 'racial stereotypes', as this certainly doesn't hold true for most of the 'bots.

That is because most of the bots didn't have any personality at all.

[LordCyrusOmega]

Without reading every post ive heard this said about every sequel since RotF. I'm not going to become emotionally attached again

[GoktimusPrime]

Since RotF, the action scenes have been easier to follow: this could have been a response to feedback, or simply having a different director of photography. Certainly for DotM and AoE, the dual camera rigs used for 3D filming have been more 'restrictive' than Bay would like, but the upside is that shots are easy to follow.
I think it's because of the use of 3D and IMAX filming, which often calls of wider angle distance shots, thus making the action easier to see. But as you pointed out, I don't think it's necessarily Bay's personal preference though.


The humans aren't written to 'have absolutely no appeal'. They're there for the audience to relate to, since the movies' stories are told from a primarily human point of view. After all, as the first movie's tagline goes, it's "their war - our world (emphasis added)." That said, I would also like to see more 'bot screen time, but CGI environments and the characters themselves aren't cheap or easy to render to the photorealistic quality audiences expect.
Yeah, but it becomes a sore point when the humans become more of a focus for the story than the Transformers. As Demonac pointed out, none of the Transformers in the film have any personality (save Optimus Prime in Age of Extinction, and even then a lot of people didn't like that personality, including Peter Cullen (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/transformers-5-plot-optimus-primes-voice-peter-cullen-wants-movie-return-original-formula-1484384)) -- what limited characterisation that existed in the films was more focused on the humans. The first three movies felt like "The Adventure of Sam & the US Army vs Giant Robots." The Autobots felt more like high powered accessories for the human protagonists, much like say J.A.R.V.I.S. was to Tony Stark in the Iron Man and Avengers films.


Finally, I maintain that a lot of 'problems' are issues with the script, and such criticism should be levelled at the scriptwriters, not Bay.
The director is ultimately the captain of the ship when it comes to film making, and it is the director rather than the crew who accepts acclaim or blame for the strengths and weaknesses of the film. The director has the authority to make changes to the script during filming as s/he sees fit, as well as commanding the performers and crew in bringing the script to life as a film. Similarly a Prime Minister or Premier may be the head of a government which comprises many other ministers and senators, but ultimately it is the PM or Premier who accepts ultimate ownership of that government's performance. Such is the burden of leadership (http://tfwiki.net/wiki/The_Burden_Hardest_to_Bear). :)

[Bladestorm]

I actually think a better movie comparison to Transformers would be Fast and Furious 7. I'm not a fan of the F&F franchise but hubby dragged me along to the latest one and I was impressed with the balance between the action sequences and the flow of the storyline. With actors like Rock and Vin Diesel you don't get a lot of "expression" and yet somehow the story and the way it flowed did bring out the best of these guys while still providing fast cars, lots of explosions, action and even the odd bit of sexualisation. I was pleasantly surprised by the film actually having more to it than I expected.
I sat there thinking - why couldn't TF4 be like this? Why couldn't they have writers bring enough substance to the story... to the characters... to make you care like this movie does? Let's face it - there are a lot of scenes in F&F that could translate directly into a Transformers storyline and even some of the vehicles matched up with past and present TF characters.

As for Avengers. It's directed by Joss Whedon... who really does live for his characters... possibly a bit TOO much in the new film (did anyone else think they overdid the Hawkeye scenes?) but he makes a point of understanding the source material, the personalities, strengths and weaknesses and building on them (and he does this with every film/TV show he directs). You can tell he actually put thought into and cares about the storytelling aspect as well as the CGI and explosions. I always wonder what his take would be on a Transformers film as I think it would be a vastly different vision to that of Michael Bay.

In terms of Imax, visually Transformers 4 was far superior to Avengers:Age of Ultron but the storyline in Ultron despite its faults is still far more robust, in depth and entertaining than Transformers. As TF4 proved - you can have amazing Imax scenes, good CGI and incredible surround sound but that adds up to nothing if you don't have a story that engages your audience and treats them like sentient beings.

I think the blame for the storyline does lie with the writers, but ALSO with Bay who directs the story, the writers and the vision. I don't think he takes his main characters - his bots - seriously enough. That's really apparent when you don't even bring the actor behind the main character, Optimus Prime (ie Peter Cullen) to the world premiere despite using that character (Optimus) as the limelight piece for the media at the same event, yet you bring the actors who had no real purpose to the storyline other than to add rubbish romeo and juliet scenes (yeah - I'm talking about the waste of space who played Shane). I think Bay focusses too much on his real life actors and forgets about the real stars and the real story - his Autobots, Decepticons, and whatever you would consider those KSI bots to be. If he was taking these films seriously we would see an underlying storyline development of (as an example) Optimus Prime from Autobot leader through the struggles and trials of being on Earth, displaced and struggling with a new norm/leading his team/learning from hardship to ultimately his purpose/fate and inevitable sacrifice to save the universe and fulfil his destiny. Optimus hasn't had any consistent development or evolution through the movies in my opinion. He doesn't grow or learn or even really emote. We don't see the ramifications of his mentors betrayal on him in DoTM or AoE. We don't see the heartache and conflict of loosing arguably his best friend (Ironhide) or most trusted comrade (Ratchet) - just anger and vengeance (which doesn't fit with who Optimus is in my opinion). We don't even see him inspiring Bumblebee or any of his team. Autobots fight in front of him and he does nothing. NOTHING! A leader like Prime is supposed to be would not let that go unresolved. You can argue similar problems with all the characters (don't get me started about poor Galvatron!).
Even with the best CGI and best voice talent in the world, without a purposeful story to emote, your characters are going to remain 2 dimensional and I think that's the current problem the Transformers movies face.

[kup]

Finally, I maintain that a lot of 'problems' are issues with the script, and such criticism should be levelled at the scriptwriters, not Bay.

I disagree with this point - Look at most recent Bay or Bay affiliated movies - They all follow the same stupid trends regardless of who the writer is.

Bay's Turtles for example, they follow all the basic failings of the TF movies and clearly identifiable in style to most Bay movies. He makes the writers write a script that basically link his action scenes together, there is no room for plot or meaningful characters.

[Yongeltron]

I think the blame for the storyline does lie with the writers, but ALSO with Bay who directs the story, the writers and the vision...

...Even with the best CGI and best voice talent in the world, without a purposeful story to emote, your characters are going to remain 2 dimensional and I think that's the current problem the Transformers movies face.

I haven't seen any F&F movies, but I agree completely with everything Bladestorm is saying in her post.

[drifand]

BTW, yes I still watch it somehow, but its because I am a transformers fan.
But how I rate and view the movie as compared to the other action movies out their Transformers is going down hill and very badly.

[Yongeltron]

BTW, yes I still watch it somehow, but its because I am a transformers fan.
But how I rate and view the movie as compared to the other action movies out their Transformers is going down hill and very badly.

That's the thing, we all want to like the Transformers movies. The complaints that I mainly see aren't just "Ruined Forever!!!" from people who won't cut the studio any slack to re-invent their treasured childhood memories. They're about disappointment at the fact that we go in really wanting to give it a chance and wanting it to succeed. That's why we keep watching them, hoping.

We want to like the movies, but Bay just keeps making it so damned hard for us to do.

The most frustrating thing though, is that you watch these other action franchises and you see that it doesn't have to be this way.

[GoktimusPrime]

We want to like the movies, but Bay just keeps making it so damned hard for us to do.

The most frustrating thing though, is that you watch these other action franchises and you see that it doesn't have to be this way.
^Amen!

I watch these films out of fan obligation. When a few film comes out, I always watch it on the first day. I expect the film to suck, but desperately hope to be proven wrong. I dare them to prove us wrong on Transformers 5 and make it freakin' awesome. Go ahead... make us eat our words. DO EET!!

[kup]

^Amen!

I watch these films out of fan obligation. When a few film comes out, I always watch it on the first day. I expect the film to suck, but desperately hope to be proven wrong. I dare them to prove us wrong on Transformers 5 and make it freakin' awesome. Go ahead... make us eat our words. DO EET!!

We'll have Hoverboards by 2015...oh wait..

[Magnus]

Yeah, but it becomes a sore point when the humans become more of a focus for the story than the Transformers. As Demonac pointed out, none of the Transformers in the film have any personality (save Optimus Prime in Age of Extinction, and even then a lot of people didn't like that personality, including Peter Cullen (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/transformers-5-plot-optimus-primes-voice-peter-cullen-wants-movie-return-original-formula-1484384)) -- what limited characterisation that existed in the films was more focused on the humans. The first three movies felt like "The Adventure of Sam & the US Army vs Giant Robots." The Autobots felt more like high powered accessories for the human protagonists, much like say J.A.R.V.I.S. was to Tony Stark in the Iron Man and Avengers films.


I think the blame for the storyline does lie with the writers, but ALSO with Bay who directs the story, the writers and the vision. I don't think he takes his main characters - his bots - seriously enough. That's really apparent when you don't even bring the actor behind the main character, Optimus Prime (ie Peter Cullen) to the world premiere despite using that character (Optimus) as the limelight piece for the media at the same event, yet you bring the actors who had no real purpose to the storyline other than to add rubbish romeo and juliet scenes (yeah - I'm talking about the waste of space who played Shane). I think Bay focusses too much on his real life actors and forgets about the real stars and the real story - his Autobots, Decepticons, and whatever you would consider those KSI bots to be. If he was taking these films seriously we would see an underlying storyline development of (as an example) Optimus Prime from Autobot leader through the struggles and trials of being on Earth, displaced and struggling with a new norm/leading his team/learning from hardship to ultimately his purpose/fate and inevitable sacrifice to save the universe and fulfil his destiny.

Even with the best CGI and best voice talent in the world, without a purposeful story to emote, your characters are going to remain 2 dimensional and I think that's the current problem the Transformers movies face.

I'm not going to argue this point, because I agree, but I think the problem is twofold: there's a large cast of characters to manage, but also for humans, character development takes place during 'everyday'/between action scenes, whereas the robots are only seen up to, during and after action sequences, probably since the robots are time-consuming and expensive to put on screen. It's 'ok' for humans to stand around and talk, but apparently not for robots. Perhaps there's an expectation that the robots should be seen to be doing something when they're on screen (although this hasn't always been the case).

Also, as I posted before, humans are there to be relatable/audience surrogates, since our world is the backdrop for these battles.

After all, I did say I also wanted to see more robot screen time, and we have been getting it with each movie :)


The director is ultimately the captain of the ship when it comes to film making, and it is the director rather than the crew who accepts acclaim or blame for the strengths and weaknesses of the film. The director has the authority to make changes to the script during filming as s/he sees fit, as well as commanding the performers and crew in bringing the script to life as a film. Similarly a Prime Minister or Premier may be the head of a government which comprises many other ministers and senators, but ultimately it is the PM or Premier who accepts ultimate ownership of that government's performance. Such is the burden of leadership (http://tfwiki.net/wiki/The_Burden_Hardest_to_Bear). :)

Yeah, I agree that the director has final say, but their decisions are based on the script, which is the foundation of the movie. Remember, movies released in the months after the writer's strike in 2008 suffered, since they were rushed in the writing phase to meet production and release deadlines. Even so, I can't help but wonder if Michael Bay is a favourite target - people don't blame Ridley Scott for Prometheus, or Sam Mendes for Skyfall's failings.


I actually think a better movie comparison to Transformers would be Fast and Furious 7. I'm not a fan of the F&F franchise but hubby dragged me along to the latest one and I was impressed with the balance between the action sequences and the flow of the storyline. With actors like Rock and Vin Diesel you don't get a lot of "expression" and yet somehow the story and the way it flowed did bring out the best of these guys while still providing fast cars, lots of explosions, action and even the odd bit of sexualisation. I was pleasantly surprised by the film actually having more to it than I expected.
I sat there thinking - why couldn't TF4 be like this? Why couldn't they have writers bring enough substance to the story... to the characters... to make you care like this movie does? Let's face it - there are a lot of scenes in F&F that could translate directly into a Transformers storyline and even some of the vehicles matched up with past and present TF characters.

It's interesting that Fast and Furious has been brought up as a comparison - it's been noted that some aspects of the movie have been compared to Bay's style, yet F&F has been reviewed more favourably. Some suspect a double-standard which views Michael Bay more negatively for whatever reason. Perhaps, as has been opined, people in cars are more 'accessible' to audiences than large alien robots.


As for Avengers. It's directed by Joss Whedon... who really does live for his characters... possibly a bit TOO much in the new film (did anyone else think they overdid the Hawkeye scenes?) but he makes a point of understanding the source material, the personalities, strengths and weaknesses and building on them (and he does this with every film/TV show he directs). You can tell he actually put thought into and cares about the storytelling aspect as well as the CGI and explosions. I always wonder what his take would be on a Transformers film as I think it would be a vastly different vision to that of Michael Bay.

One opinion I've read is that because Bay isn't a 'fanboy,' he might not be as invested or as sentimental as, say, Whedon (this 'investment' could also be due to the fact that Whedon wrote the scripts for both Avengers movies).


I disagree with this point - Look at most recent Bay or Bay affiliated movies - They all follow the same stupid trends regardless of who the writer is.

Bay's Turtles for example, they follow all the basic failings of the TF movies and clearly identifiable in style to most Bay movies. He makes the writers write a script that basically link his action scenes together, there is no room for plot or meaningful characters.

Have you seen The Island or even Pain and Gain? No shortage of character moments there, and I have yet to come across a Michael Bay movie where the overarching plot isn't clear or present in some form. Maybe I'm taking things too literally, but I really don't get the 'no plot' criticism.

In Transformers, character interaction and development is taking place - just not with the robots. See above.

Ninja Turtles had a lot of turtle screen time, more so than the first Transformers did, so on that front, the Turtles were pushed as main characters more aggressively.



I watch these films out of fan obligation. When a few film comes out, I always watch it on the first day. I expect the film to suck, but desperately hope to be proven wrong. I dare them to prove us wrong on Transformers 5 and make it freakin' awesome. Go ahead... make us eat our words. DO EET!!

Um... doesn't that mentality kind of ensure you'll hate it, since you're expecting something to suck and therefore will look for aspects that suck to confirm your suspicion? I'm certainly guilty of this myself, mind you, but I'm just pointing it out.

[Sinnertwin]

lol
Don't enjoy the movies but still watch them for fear of missing out? Hasbro and Paramount Pictures would like to sincerely thank each and every one of you for fuelling the machine and funding future projects. See you all in 2017 ;)

[drifand]

lol
Don't enjoy the movies but still watch them for fear of missing out? Hasbro and Paramount Pictures would like to sincerely thank each and every one of you for fuelling the machine and funding future projects. See you all in 2017 ;)


We like to be confirmed that it is a bad/good movie. Not because of miss out as you per say. I don't think I watched DOTM more than twice as compared to say pacific rim.

I only watch on free rentals anyway. I enjoyed Battleship, which I actually thought it was going to be way worse than what I expected.

[Demonac]

^Amen!

I watch these films out of fan obligation.

You are part of the problem. The producers will never listen to what you say, because you are going to give your money regardless of quality.

[Lint]

You are part of the problem. The producers will never listen to what you say, because you are going to give your money regardless of quality.

Cut him some slack, its no worse than supporting your home football team even though the manager sucks, a lot of veteran players are way past their use by date and you know they're gonna lose.

[Yongeltron]

Cut him some slack, its no worse than supporting your home football team even though the manager sucks, a lot of veteran players are way past their use by date and you know they're gonna lose.

Besides, It's not as though the movies are tipped over into profitability by the hard core of TF fans who watch them all. Let's not kid ourselves about our monetary influence on the Hollywood machine or the brand. Given how much money they make from regular movie-goers, any TF movie could survive a complete boycott by the proper TF fans. No need to pick on poor old Gok.

[GoktimusPrime]

You are part of the problem. The producers will never listen to what you say, because you are going to give your money regardless of quality.
Actually, I used free movie vouchers to watch AoE twice in the cinema (and a discount voucher which was about to expire to watch it at IMAX). ;)

[Demonac]

Actually, I used free movie vouchers to watch AoE twice in the cinema (and a discount voucher which was about to expire to watch it at IMAX). ;)

That's (a bit) better. Now for penance, go and watch 6 hours of Kurosawa & Welles.

[Tetsuwan Convoy]

Um... doesn't that mentality kind of ensure you'll hate it, since you're expecting something to suck and therefore will look for aspects that suck to confirm your suspicion? I'm certainly guilty of this myself, mind you, but I'm just pointing it out.
Nope. When you expect a stinky turd, a not smelly turd is super nice. I often go in with low expectations, and if the movie is better than I though it'd be = Yay for me. Case inpoint, the live action Dragonball Zed movie. Of course tis is going to be a piece of crap. I knew this, went to watch it, quite enjoyed it. Unlike all he DBZ fans in the cinema with me at the time.

Sadly no matter how low my expectations for Transformers films are, they always seem to be worse than I expected. Considering how much of a grumpy guy I can be, that's quite an accomplishment!

That's (a bit) better. Now for penance, go and watch 6 hours of Kurosawa & Welles.
lol. Nicely said ;) :D

[UltimateGalvatron]

My local cinema had a 'pay for dinner and watch AoE' which was $20 to support our local cadets. It's what got me back into Transformers.

[drifand]

My local cinema had a 'pay for dinner and watch AoE' which was $20 to support our local cadets. It's what got me back into Transformers.

Guess that was minimum effort to get you back.

[UltimateGalvatron]

Guess that was minimum effort to get you back.

I like to think it was just the Dinobots, but damn, I'm starting to like Bays Movies :eek::eek::eek::eek:

[drifand]

I am okay with some Bay movies, just not a big fan for TFs after no.2
TMNT was like best of the lot (turtles movies) but still not the turtles I really know.

[UltimateGalvatron]

I am okay with some Bay movies, just not a big fan for TFs after no.2
TMNT was like best of the lot (turtles movies) but still not the turtles I really know.

Sorry to classify I meant his TF movies

[Trent]

Sorry to classify I meant his TF movies

Excluding TF1, Bay hasn't made a good movie since Bad Boys.

[UltimateGalvatron]

http://i1303.photobucket.com/albums/ag144/patrickgorgosaurus/Yeah-well-you-know-thats-just-like-your-opinion-man_zpshb4cwczm.jpg
Excluding TF1, Bay hasn't made a good movie since Bad Boys.

[griffin]

Can we have at least one Movie topic that doesn't go off-topic into a love/hate Michael Bay debate? ;)

Love him or hate him, please consider that there are people who have an opposing opinion when talking about Bay, and will take it personally against what they get enjoyment from, if they keep seeing people going on about it on every topic like a Mob mentality.

We might have to set up a discussion topic about Bay, just to keep these News topics from going off-topic all the time, and getting fans of his work upset over a vocal minority.

[Sinnertwin]

The Baypen?
Sounds like a plan, bossman

[Yongeltron]

Can we have at least one Movie topic that doesn't go off-topic into a love/hate Michael Bay debate? ;)

I belive history has shown that we cannot.

[Megatran]

The Baypen?

How about these suggested thread names for a separate topic on Michael Bay:
BayWatch
Bay of Pigs
Master Baytor

:o:p

[Yongeltron]

"The Baysement"? -Accurately describes the level of discourse:p

[Sinnertwin]

"The Baysement"? -Accurately describes the level of discourse:p

brilliant.
simply brilliant.

[VERT]

All good options

[AJ_Prime]

How about these suggested thread names for a separate topic on Michael Bay:

Master Baytor

Cheeky, I like it ;)

Personally I enjoyed the Bayfilms, including the ones where Spielberg also directed. The franchise is in good hands. Perhaps Bay will come back on as a "consultant".

[Mythirax]

My local cinema had a 'pay for dinner and watch AoE' which was $20 to support our local cadets. It's what got me back into Transformers.

^ Good Man!


The Baypen?
Sounds like a plan, bossman

Will you join me in the Baypen sinner? I saved you a seat :D

[Sinnertwin]

Front row all the way, Mythirax!

[Mythirax]

Front row all the way, Mythirax!

Excellent :D

[Smint]

I like the latest news piece about making the next TF movie with a shared universe in mind. They mentioned they have 30 years of TF stories to draw from and they're all very excited.

Hilarious that they said they have 30 years of stories because im wondering how we ended up with the 4 TF movies that we have now.

And a shared universe only works if people care about the characters. Besides Optimus not one TF had a personality. Not one.

Bay's directing is just awful. I can see how it could appeal to some people but to me its just unwatchable.

[GoktimusPrime]

And a shared universe only works if people care about the characters. Besides Optimus not one TF had a personality. Not one.
Well said. And Optimus Prime only got characterisation in the fourth film. He was basically a big walking caricature in the first 3 films, and an inconsistent one at that. Switching from:
* the fairly G1-accurate compassionate Optimus Prime in TF1. He only killed in the heat of combat defending humans and was willing to push the Cube into his own chest to sacrifice himself over killing Megatron (as Sam chose, and Optimus Prime cried, "No, Sam!"); to...
* the brutally merciless Optimus Prime in ROTF who executed defeated (http://www.collectiondx.com/gallery2/gallery/d/499555-5/019-+Demolishor_s+last+words-+_This+is+not+your+planet+to+rule_++The+fallen+sha ll+rise+again__.jpg) opponents (http://powet.tv/powetblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/powet_robots_the_disgraceful_optimus_prime_kills_s entinel_prime.jpg)! :eek:

[Sinnertwin]

to...
* the brutally merciless Optimus Prime in ROTF who executed defeated (http://www.collectiondx.com/gallery2/gallery/d/499555-5/019-+Demolishor_s+last+words-+_This+is+not+your+planet+to+rule_++The+fallen+sha ll+rise+again__.jpg) opponents (http://powet.tv/powetblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/powet_robots_the_disgraceful_optimus_prime_kills_s entinel_prime.jpg)! :eek:

I would've done the same & I'm glad we're seeing this side of Optimus, it's about time.
The days of letting the Decepticons retreat only to come back the following week with another Ultimate Weapon/Plot for World Domination are looooong gone ;)

[griffin]

I would've done the same & I'm glad we're seeing this side of Optimus, it's about time.
The days of letting the Decepticons retreat only to come back the following week with another Ultimate Weapon/Plot for World Domination are looooong gone ;)

They are a technologically advanced race... I'm sure there were humane methods at their disposal to put prisoners into stasis-lock or hybernation, and store their sparks until such time that they could be re-educated or re-programmed to be non-violent.

And what about Optimus enslaving the Dinobots in TF4? He only "frees" them from Lockdown's captivity when he needed them, not as soon as he was free... and then instead of pleading with his "fellow knights" for their help, he starts bashing up Grimlock and holding a sword to his throat stating, "help my friends or die".
That, and the execution of prisoners, is why I would really hope they decide a reboot before starting the "expanded Universe" series of movies, as the first four don't give a solid foundation for future movies to build on. There are just way too many contradictions between them, and character flaws, for a Marvel-style universe to be created.
At least for Marvel and DC, they set out a rough framework to follow BEFORE starting the series of movies... so that they don't have to retcon too much later or leave fans with glaringly obvious contradictions.... something that won't be possible if they look at other avenues of Transformers like prequels, when we have three different origins of Transformers and three different "first contact" scenarios in just four movies.

[GoktimusPrime]

But there's the inconsistency. It's not as if Optimus Prime had been a merciless take-no-prisoners bad-bot the whole time. The first movie showed him as being more merciful, especially in the way that he was willing to sacrifice himself over Megatron. But then in ROTF he suddenly changed to become a more cold-blooded character for no apparent reason whatsoever. :eek: It'd be different if he'd been like this from the first film, but he wasn't.

Dai Atlas has a long history of copping fan criticism in Japan for being a similarly merciless character who never took prisoners. Many Japanese fans criticise him for not being in the same spirit as other Autobot leaders who follow Convoy's example of compassion. But at least Dai Atlas is consistently merciless! It wasn't as if he didn't want to kill Devastator but was happy to kill Predaking -- Dai Atlas killed every Decepticon that he fought! Dai Atlas a ruthless sod, but at least he was a consistently ruthless sod!

The funny thing is... Star Sabre and Dai Atlas' moral positions in Japanese G1 are reversed in IDW. ;) JP G1; Star Sabre = compassionate & Dai Atlas = ruthless / IDW G1; Star Sabre = ruthless & Dai Atlas = compassionate

P.S.: Although IDW Star Sabre is much more ruthless than TF Zone Dai Atlas. G1 Dai Atlas was only ruthless towards the Decepticons but still compassionate towards Autobots and their protectorates (e.g. humans).

[Yongeltron]

...I would really hope they decide a reboot before starting the "expanded Universe" series of movies, as the first four don't give a solid foundation for future movies to build on. There are just way too many contradictions between them, and character flaws, for a Marvel-style universe to be created.

Given that consistency and coherence have been largely irrelevant to the franchise so far, it's hard to see why a reboot would be neccessary.

Just take whatever is working, make another movie and call it "TF5: Age of Galvatron". No need to throw the baby-bot out with the cyber-bathwater. There's good stuff here to build on. In fact, it would be nice to see them develop things rather than scrapping everything and starting over. How many characters and TF models have they gone to the effort of creating only to have them stand around in the background or do one scene before they're killed-off or never seen again? Jolt, Que, Mirage... Jazz? Even Ratchet didn't really get a decent spotlight until his demise in TF4. Megatron looked so cool in DoTM so it felt like he was under-utilized with almost all of his scenes just being him standing around being grumpy before getting his spine immediately ripped out as soon as he decides to get involved in the action. Shockwave? Now that was an anti-climax. We get a cool two-headed version of him in TF4 apparently only to further taunt us.

[griffin]

Given that consistency and coherence have been largely irrelevant to the franchise so far, it's hard to see why a reboot would be neccessary.


If Bay does is not a Director or Story Editor for the new Universe (to dictate the overall story arc), and the power goes back to Hasbro like it was for the 2007 movie (before they bribed Bay with overriding power to get him back for 2, 3 and 4), then I think a reboot would be very useful.
We could have Autobots and Optimus Prime being the Heroes that we can look up to and trust... something that Michael Bay sabotaged just to get a short good action shot or a Trailer scene, at the expense of the overall plot and consistent or believable characterisation. :(

I still enjoy watching the movies and often watch them when they are on TV, so I'm not one who finds things to complain about them or him, but I'd enjoy them a lot more if I could ignore the plot errors, embrace the characters and love to be inspired by the pure hero that "Optimus" has always been in the past. After all, if you can't trust your heroes, who is left to inspire you.

[GoktimusPrime]

I agree with Yongeltron. A reboot would be a cop out IMO. And as he said, it wouldn't really matter if a few things became inconsistent anyway. :rolleyes:

[Yongeltron]

What I'd actually like to see is for it to be scaled-down a bit. Focus on the core premise from the first movie of these strange mechanical alien beings existing among us as everyday vehicles, hiding in plain sight, robots... in disguise...if you will. Focus on a small cast of autobots (three or four) that we can actually get to know and a couple of humans who we don't hate.

Decepticons are menacing hunters that are lurking nearby, killing with purpose and stealth. Rather than huge big pitched battles alongside the US military, have the bots face off in more personal battles. A decepticon attacks, so the guardians are scrambling to protect their fleshy friends. Show off their individual capabilities and personalities in desperate, scrappy personal fights with their malevolent counterparts. Let us get to know the villains a bit too, so there's actually some motivation to their conflict.

If we are focused on characters that we actually get to know, then we're more invested in their conflict, so the action is more engaging without having to resort to grand-scale battles. Make more of the fact that these are aliens with an existence quite unlike our own, yet still like us in important ways.

Give us characters we can connect with, transformations where we can understand what we're looking at and a story that actually says something. That's not too much to ask for, is it?

Also, no more swirly KSI parts-forming. That was ridiculous.

[Bladestorm]

I think one of the things that annoys me is that movie Optimus has lost his weakness... compassion and self sacrifice. In the first movie you love Optimus because he still has that... he's the reluctant hero who will do anything to bring peace to his people and Earth and it reverberates our childhood memories of the cartoon. As the movies go on he becomes colder, his personality is drained from him and he barely has any emotion. He becomes nothing but a war machine and we don't see the "humanity" of the being underneath that flashy red and blue flame job nor do we see the true leader he actually should be. They gave him some great moments in AoE but the story and execution meant you never got to connect with him and some of his reactions were downright odd for his personality/character... if they actually put as much thought into a character like him as they did that darn Romeo and Juliet clause I think the movies would have more substance.

Not only are Transformers robots in disguise (which I think has been lost to luxury car advertising) but they are individuals with very human traits and emotions that could pique a viewers engagement and endearment if it was actually explored a bit.

The movies brought a massive focus to Bumblebee and the no voice in the first movie was cute and yet again offered a tether for viewers to sympathise and explore with him. But he's had absolutely no growth or progress since that first movie. He's still a voiceless scout. He hasn't grown or evolved or even really interacted with the other bots to convey the friendships or relationships. He hasn't tried to get his voice back properly so that he can better himself. AoE could have explored his challenges and frustrations the ragtag group he was "leading" but there was NOTHING there to provide a connection with the audience.

I know there isn't time to develop all the characters fully on screen, but key characters should get more story over the ancillary humans. Personally I think the first set of Transformers movies should have been about the rise and eventual sacrifice of Optimus. Let him be the great leader and (as much as I adore him) eventually have him make the ultimate sacrifice to save the universe from something like Unicron and allow the next "leader" to emerge. Keep him in flashbacks or as the voice of the matrix, or even do a G1 and eventually bring him back because civilisation as we know it collapses in the meantime but give him and the other bots of significance a defined storyline arc that allows us a viewers to engage, to feel for our bots and leave us wanting to see more.

[Sinnertwin]

They are a technologically advanced race... I'm sure there were humane methods at their disposal to put prisoners into stasis-lock or hybernation, and store their sparks until such time that they could be re-educated or re-programmed to be non-violent.

Considering that they couldn't even fix Bumblebee's voice box & their limited resources spark storage doesn't seem like a viable option to me.


And what about Optimus enslaving the Dinobots in TF4? He only "frees" them from Lockdown's captivity when he needed them, not as soon as he was free... and then instead of pleading with his "fellow knights" for their help, he starts bashing up Grimlock and holding a sword to his throat stating, "help my friends or die".

I may be wrong, but weren't the Dinobots on the ship they needed to travel across the world? Freeing them onboard may not have been the best course of action if they were

Prime does ask for their help first though "so, today you stand with us, or you stand against me."
Grimlock decided to stand against Prime and once Jungle Law was applied and Optimus Prime proved that he was the Alpha Male, Grimlock and the other Dinobots fell in line. Happens in nature every day of the week



But there's the inconsistency. It's not as if Optimus Prime had been a merciless take-no-prisoners bad-bot the whole time. The first movie showed him as being more merciful, especially in the way that he was willing to sacrifice himself over Megatron. But then in ROTF he suddenly changed to become a more cold-blooded character for no apparent reason whatsoever. :eek: It'd be different if he'd been like this from the first film, but he wasn't.

That's what we want though, isn't it? we want to see Prime develop as a character. we want to see how he feels and reacts. He's witnessed his family get torn apart, blown up, melted, betrayed by humans and we still expect him to do cartwheels?
If i see one more Prime sacrifice himself or die only to come back i'm going to headbutt something -it's cliche, it's tired, it's old. it loses it's edge when you've seen the same thing for the last 30 freaking years.

rule #1 you must die and come back to life
rule #2 you must sacrifice yourself at any given opportunity
yawn.

[Demonac]

Considering that they couldn't even fix Bumblebee's voice box & their limited resources spark storage doesn't seem like a viable option to me.

Didn't they fix Bumblebee's voice at the end of the first movie?
Or did audiences think him being a robot Lassie was too cute, so it was retconned?

[Yongeltron]

If i see one more Prime sacrifice himself or die only to come back i'm going to headbutt something -it's cliche, it's tired, it's old. it loses it's edge when you've seen the same thing for the last 30 freaking years.

rule #1 you must die and come back to life
rule #2 you must sacrifice yourself at any given opportunity
yawn. [/SIZE][/FONT]

Agreed. I can understand nostalgia, but what's the point of telling exactly the same story with exactly the same characters again and again for decades on end? Are the Autobots, Decepticons and their endless war really the towering literary and conceptual achievements that would justify such treatment? Even Luke and his pals only blew up the Death Star twice.

[UltraMarginal]

Just take whatever is working, make another movie and call it "TF5: Age of Galvatron".

I think it's time for a movie title with Rise in it, maybe Rise of Galvatron :D



Also, no more swirly KSI parts-forming. That was ridiculous.

Amen Brother!

I've enjoyed the movie we have got for what they are, sure there are issues with all of them but there are issues with every movie that's ever been released. I also don't see them as a part of G1 continuity or any other, they are their own haphazard continuity with their own albeit shallow characters.

I don't think the transformers universe is big enough for a MCU style tied together string of movies. we have 30 years of several different toy/show lines that revolve around pretty much the same topic with variations. the Marvel started in 1939 as Timely Publications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Comics) with Marvel as it's modern self dating back as far as 1961, nearly 60 years of stories ranging between everything from a guy in a flying metal suit, a dude made from rock and a talking raccoon. They have the depth to produce 10 movies that are nothing like each other. Transformers is always going to have giant robots.

For the moment Transformers movies are enjoyable popcorn flicks and they will probably stay that way while they're making as much money as they have been. I would hate to see them start to take themselves too seriously and actually lose profit and stop being made as a result. as soon as the brand starts to look unprofitable, we'll start getting less of the good stuff that we do get.

Maybe in ten or fifteen years we'll see it rebooted in a manner similar to batman. With G1 story and designs that work on the big screen, deep characterisation and less fart jokes.

When I was younger, I always felt that Pixar could do a good job of a Transformers movie.

[UltraMarginal]

I pretty much agree with everything Sinnertwin wrote while I was writing my post.

[griffin]

I kinda hate to respond to this as it makes me look like a Bay-hater, but the plot and character contradictions is the one element I have a problem with in his four TFs movies.
I like to watch the movies, but know that I would have loved them more if the contradictions and inconsistencies weren't there. :(


Considering that they couldn't even fix Bumblebee's voice box & their limited resources spark storage doesn't seem like a viable option to me.


But they did fix his voicebox... but Bay preferred the mute bot element of talking through his radio. So it was just one of the many retcons or contradictions in his four movies.



I may be wrong, but weren't the Dinobots on the ship they needed to travel across the world? Freeing them onboard may not have been the best course of action if they were

That's the main problem I was trying to point out with Bay's interpretation of the Dinobots.
Just because they had beast modes it doesn't mean that they have the minds of animals. And just because Michael Bay wanted an extra fight scene at the end of the movie and for the Trailers (instead of a quick liberation of the Dinobots who then volunteer to charge into battle with their fellow Autobots), it doesn't mean that their sentience has to be sacrificed to do that. (I know that the Movie and promos & Trailers needed a physical fight with Grimlock as he was face of this fourth movie, and since they only show up right at the end of the movie it prevented someone else like Galvatron being able to have time to do it... but this forced scene in the movie goes against what Optimus and the Dinobots should have been like.)
Optimus even referred to them as his fellow knights, which means they were his equals, so now if they appear in a later Movie as proper sentient Autobots, it will contradict their appearance in the fourth movie.
They should have been portrayed like the G1 comic Dinobots (regular Autobots) based on who Optimus said they were, not the G1 cartoon Dinobots (peanut brained animals who were built and provided comedic relief to the episodes they were in). They didn't even get any lines to at least give us an idea that they were anything more than pets.
It was just another of Bay's lazy 2-dimensional stereotypes... like his racial stereotypes of many of his other characters (like Skids, Mudflap, Shane, Leo, most of the Asians in TF4, Figueroa, Drift, etc, etc, etc).



Prime does ask for their help first though "so, today you stand with us, or you stand against me."
Grimlock decided to stand against Prime and once Jungle Law was applied and Optimus Prime proved that he was the Alpha Male, Grimlock and the other Dinobots fell in line. Happens in nature every day of the week
That would only make sense if they were just pets or animals like the Steeljaws on Lockdowns ship. These were supposed to be Autobot Knights who were equal to Optimus Prime... and yet it was deemed more important for Bay's action movie to have Optimus fight and enslav his equals to do his bidding, just to get an extra scene of fighting and explosions crammed into the movie. Why couldn't it have just been a charge of the heroes with the Dinobots being willing comrades to their fellow Autobots... and how does the ground explode when Grimlock's weapon hits it? :rolleyes:
It's like Bay tries to find a way to include explosions in every scene, even if it means re-writing the plot or characters to achieve it.


If i see one more Prime sacrifice himself or die only to come back i'm going to headbutt something -it's cliche, it's tired, it's old. it loses it's edge when you've seen the same thing for the last 30 freaking years. Cliched is when you have all these blockbuster action movies being required to have the same plot concepts just to appease the investors and pre-release movie reviewers...
- Someone important that isn't evil must die or be believed to be dead (the tragic element).
- The hero(es) must become targets or hunted as if they are the villains (to get sympathy from the audience to hope they regain their hero status).
- The main hero must do something that creates doubt or mistrust by others and the main villain needs to show themselves as justified in their actions (to have shades of grey to every character, so that there isn't any black or white heroes and villains).
- There must be a romance, but is difficult for the guy to get the girl.
- Something needs to be found.
- The villains should be defeated, but not entirely if there is potential for a sequel.

It would be less cliched if modern action movies could actually avoid conforming to those requirements just to appease the reviewers and critics that could make or break them.


That's probably the most fun I've had dissecting the Transformers movies... :)

[Yongeltron]

Woah there Griffin! Save all this vitriol for the Bay-hate thread mate!

Can we have at least one Movie topic that doesn't go off-topic into a love/hate Michael Bay debate?

Sheesh!

...:p

[GoktimusPrime]

That's what we want though, isn't it? we want to see Prime develop as a character. we want to see how he feels and reacts. He's witnessed his family get torn apart, blown up, melted, betrayed by humans and we still expect him to do cartwheels?
I don't personally object to that. As I've said before, Optimus Prime is the only Transformer who's undergone any characterisation, and it was in Age of Extinction. He went on a journey of rediscovering lost faith and hope. But it's a shame that we had to wait four movies before we ever saw any characterisation, and even then, it was frequently interrupted by other stuff. It didn't feel like the characterisation was driving the story, but rather, the story drove his characterisation. :o


I also don't see them as a part of G1 continuity or any other, they are their own haphazard continuity with their own albeit shallow characters.
That's fine, and I agree, but even if we look at Optimus Prime purely in the context of the movieverse, we can still find gross inconsistency in the first 3 movies. TF1 Optimus Prime avoided needless killing, but in ROTF and DOTM, for no reason that is apparent to the audience, Optimus Prime makes a dramatic shift in his moral principles and executes Demolishor and Sentinel Prime when they were utterly defeated and powerless to fight back. If a person did this, we would consider it to be an act of terror or a war crime.

Imagine if the films were a table-top role playing game (http://otca.com.au/boards/showpost.php?p=470965&postcount=113). In the first film, Optimus Prime was Lawful Good, but then in Revenge of the Fallen and Dark of the Moon, he's switched to - what may be best described as - Lawful Evil. If a player suddenly did that with his/her character, the Game Master would make him/her make a Save Roll against Insanity.

Optimus Prime: "I put my gun to Demolishor's head and shoot." <rolls.die>
GM: "Demolishor is dead."
Demolishor: "Whatever. I gotta go to the toilet."
GM: "Optimus Prime, show me your character sheet."
Optimus Prime: "Sure."
GM: "Now roll 1D20."
Optimus Prime: "Why?"
GM: "Because it says here that your character is Lawful Good, and you just executed a Decepticon prisoner of war."
Optimus Prime: "But he was a Decepticon! He was killing people in Shanghai!"
Demolishor: "Only 'cos I was trying to run away from you and your mob! I was hiding and minding my own business! Oh... hey Graham, you got any more toilet paper?"
GM: <shouting.over.his.shoulder> "LOOK IN THE CABINET UNDER THE SINK!" <turning.back.to.Optimus.Prime> "It doesn't matter, Pete. At the time that you shot him, Demolishor was a defeated and helpless opponent. He was a P.O.W. and you killed him. Now make that save roll!"
Optimus Prime: "That's bull-spit!" <rolls 9> "What?!"
GM: "You've failed your save roll. Your alignment is now Lawful Evil, and..." <rolls.die> "...you have a phobia towards untying knots."
Optimus Prime: "...oh... that's... not too bad an insanity. It's not like I'd ever end up being suspended upside down in the air by cables or something!"
<door.opens>
Shockwave: "Hey guys, I'm back with our pizza orders!"

[UltimateGalvatron]

Imagine if the films were a table-top role playing game (http://otca.com.au/boards/showpost.php?p=470965&postcount=113). In the first film, Optimus Prime was Lawful Good, but then in Revenge of the Fallen and Dark of the Moon, he's switched to - what may be best described as - Lawful Evil. If a player suddenly did that with his/her character, the Game Master would make him/her make a Save Roll against Insanity.

Optimus Prime: "I put my gun to Demolishor's head and shoot." <rolls.die>
GM: "Demolishor is dead."
Demolishor: "Whatever. I gotta go to the toilet."
GM: "Optimus Prime, show me your character sheet."
Optimus Prime: "Sure."
GM: "Now roll 1D20."
Optimus Prime: "Why?"
GM: "Because it says here that your character is Lawful Good, and you just executed a Decepticon prisoner of war."
Optimus Prime: "But he was a Decepticon! He was killing people in Shanghai!"
Demolishor: "Only 'cos I was trying to run away from you and your mob! I was hiding and minding my own business! Oh... hey Graham, you got any more toilet paper?"
GM: <shouting.over.his.shoulder> "LOOK IN THE CABINET UNDER THE SINK!" <turning.back.to.Optimus.Prime> "It doesn't matter, Pete. At the time that you shot him, Demolishor was a defeated and helpless opponent. He was a P.O.W. and you killed him. Now make that save roll!"
Optimus Prime: "That's bull-spit!" <rolls 9> "What?!"
GM: "You've failed your save roll. Your alignment is now Lawful Evil, and..." <rolls.die> "...you have a phobia towards untying knots."
Optimus Prime: "...oh... that's... not too bad an insanity. It's not like I'd ever end up being suspended upside down in the air by cables or something!"
<door.opens>
Shockwave: "Hey guys, I'm back with our pizza orders!"

I find that funny because I play D20 RPGS.

[Smint]

That's the main problem I was trying to point out with Bay's interpretation of the Dinobots.
Just because they had beast modes it doesn't mean that they have the minds of animals.

What's funny is that even if Bay let them speak would it have really made a difference? Had the Dinobots actually spoke Bay would have given them some kind of stereotypical ethnic "personality" with some throwaway lines. Whether they speak or not, in the Bay universe it's all the same to me.



For the moment Transformers movies are enjoyable popcorn flicks and they will probably stay that way while they're making as much money as they have been. I would hate to see them start to take themselves too seriously and actually lose profit and stop being made as a result. as soon as the brand starts to look unprofitable, we'll start getting less of the good stuff that we do get.

This is what i don't understand.

Terminator is about a time traveling robot.
Spiderman is about a guy in a spider costume.
Pirates of the Caribbean is a freaking Disneyland rollercoaster ride.

I think all those movies turned out pretty well despite the source material.

There's absolutely no reason why Transformers cant be the same. Especially when you have 30 years of inspiration to draw from.

Why do people not get that we can have awesome action AND great characters/story? Thinking back i think it's really strange that Ken Jeong and John Malkovich characters had more personality than 95% of the transformers. Clearly more time was spent on the script for them than the TF's themselves.

I love martial arts movies Jet Li, Jackie Chan etc. And Jet once said you have to create a good story with great characters otherwise the audience wont care about the fighting. And i agree - from a Jet Li movie to a giant spectacle the same principal applies. The action gets boring if you dont care about whos doing the fighting.

When the 20 year old G1 cartoons have better storylines and developed characters than the movie then you know there's a problem.

[GoktimusPrime]

If the Dinobots could speak, what would they say? Perhaps...
Grimlock: "Hey Crosshairs, none of us are called Spike."

I don't think that the Transformers movies need to be super-serious or uber-deep. The Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy films are more along the lines of what I think would work for Transformers. The stories aren't literary masterpieces by any stretch of the imagination, but they work as fun character-driven stories! We do care about the characters enough to be emotionally invested in the stories, but the stories are light enough on characterisation that it still keeps them as just fun action packed pop corn movies.

And Bumblebee's inability to speak shouldn't be a hindrance to being able to develop as a character. Look at WALL·E. Both he and EVE go on epic character journeys, changing and becoming different 'people' by the film's end compared to how they began, and they barely speak! Bumblebee dumps us with loads of audio diarrhoea, and yet utterly fails to develop as a character throughout four films. :rolleyes:

[Magnus]

They are a technologically advanced race... I'm sure there were humane methods at their disposal to put prisoners into stasis-lock or hybernation, and store their sparks until such time that they could be re-educated or re-programmed to be non-violent.


Not a bad idea, but then, wouldn't that be like sensory deprivation or solitary confinement or forced reprogramming/brainwashing? People would still complain that's a very un-Optimus thing to do, even if it's better than leaving Decepticons to potentially escape and run amok. It doesn't seem like they'd have the facilities to do so, anyway, so under the circumstances, execution would probably be more pragmatic, even, dare I say, merciful.


But there's the inconsistency. It's not as if Optimus Prime had been a merciless take-no-prisoners bad-bot the whole time. The first movie showed him as being more merciful, especially in the way that he was willing to sacrifice himself over Megatron. But then in ROTF he suddenly changed to become a more cold-blooded character for no apparent reason whatsoever. :eek: It'd be different if he'd been like this from the first film, but he wasn't.


Part of me thinks that the change in Optimus is that he's more 'pragmatic' in that he wants to eliminate a threat quickly to minimise collateral damage in the movies following the first. His cold "we will kill them all" in DotM could be interpreted as being a product of frustration/anger that Decepticons have occupied a city, being led by his former mentor, and having been deceived into leaving the planet only to be shot down (even if they did escape beforehand); or it could have been for the benefit of Sam, Epps and the other humans trying to infiltrate Chicago. His anger in AoE is pretty reasonable, in my opinion, since after fighting with humans to protect them for so long, they turned on them for seemingly no reason at all.

I also wonder if Optimus's change to being more ruthless was partly audience-driven - as I recall, people didn't like the fact that Optimus was being tossed around so easily by Megatron in the first movie, so maybe the change was a way of addressing that, to make him seem more formidable.


Given that consistency and coherence have been largely irrelevant to the franchise so far, it's hard to see why a reboot would be neccessary.

Just take whatever is working, make another movie and call it "TF5: Age of Galvatron". No need to throw the baby-bot out with the cyber-bathwater. There's good stuff here to build on. In fact, it would be nice to see them develop things rather than scrapping everything and starting over. How many characters and TF models have they gone to the effort of creating only to have them stand around in the background or do one scene before they're killed-off or never seen again? Jolt, Que, Mirage... Jazz? Even Ratchet didn't really get a decent spotlight until his demise in TF4. Megatron looked so cool in DoTM so it felt like he was under-utilized with almost all of his scenes just being him standing around being grumpy before getting his spine immediately ripped out as soon as he decides to get involved in the action. Shockwave? Now that was an anti-climax. We get a cool two-headed version of him in TF4 apparently only to further taunt us.


I agree with Yongeltron. A reboot would be a cop out IMO. And as he said, it wouldn't really matter if a few things became inconsistent anyway. :rolleyes:

I don't think things are too inconsistent between movies (ok, you have to do a fair bit of mental gymnastics to put things together), but I don't think there are elements in the movies that outright contradict each other.

That said, I agree with the rest of your comment - why is a reboot necessary? Reboot seems to have been the buzzword in cinema in the last decade (one of them, anyway, along with 'dark' and 'gritty'), and is in my opinion, a cheap, easy, even lazy way out. Surely a better test of writing prowess would be the ability to work with what you have?


I still enjoy watching the movies and often watch them when they are on TV, so I'm not one who finds things to complain about them or him, but I'd enjoy them a lot more if I could ignore the plot errors, embrace the characters and love to be inspired by the pure hero that "Optimus" has always been in the past. After all, if you can't trust your heroes, who is left to inspire you.

I thought that a 'trend' these days was to see the flawed/fallible/not-entirely-trustworthy/morally ambiguous heroes, but I see what you're getting at.


What I'd actually like to see is for it to be scaled-down a bit. Focus on the core premise from the first movie of these strange mechanical alien beings existing among us as everyday vehicles, hiding in plain sight, robots... in disguise...if you will. Focus on a small cast of autobots (three or four) that we can actually get to know and a couple of humans who we don't hate.

Decepticons are menacing hunters that are lurking nearby, killing with purpose and stealth. Rather than huge big pitched battles alongside the US military, have the bots face off in more personal battles. A decepticon attacks, so the guardians are scrambling to protect their fleshy friends. Show off their individual capabilities and personalities in desperate, scrappy personal fights with their malevolent counterparts. Let us get to know the villains a bit too, so there's actually some motivation to their conflict.

If we are focused on characters that we actually get to know, then we're more invested in their conflict, so the action is more engaging without having to resort to grand-scale battles. Make more of the fact that these are aliens with an existence quite unlike our own, yet still like us in important ways.

Give us characters we can connect with, transformations where we can understand what we're looking at and a story that actually says something. That's not too much to ask for, is it?

Also, no more swirly KSI parts-forming. That was ridiculous.

The scaling back/back to basics idea is an interesting one. I think there is an unspoken 'need' for sequels in general to go bigger/higher stakes. Perhaps there may be a perception that unless you do that, you become kind of repetitive.

The big, complex transformations showcase the fact that these are complex mechanical 'lifeforms'; it also allows for mobility in robot mode; how many times did we see joint 'cheating' or supposedly solid parts warping out of shape for a character to move in G1 or Beast Wars?

The KSI transformations were, I think an attempt to try something 'new' with transformations. They also add a weird dimension to Galvatron and the drones, in that you can't see where one part ends and another begins when they transform. I will admit, though, it's more 'satisfying' to see parts fold and rotate during a transformation.



I may be wrong, but weren't the Dinobots on the ship they needed to travel across the world? Freeing them onboard may not have been the best course of action if they were

Prime does ask for their help first though "so, today you stand with us, or you stand against me."
Grimlock decided to stand against Prime and once Jungle Law was applied and Optimus Prime proved that he was the Alpha Male, Grimlock and the other Dinobots fell in line. Happens in nature every day of the week

I've got nothing to back this up, but I thought it was possible the Dinobots went crazy/were barely stable/controlled from being locked up in the ship for who knows how long. Brains alludes to it when he implies he went crazy as a result of being forced to comply with Joyce and the KSI staff.


But they did fix his voicebox... but Bay preferred the mute bot element of talking through his radio. So it was just one of the many retcons or contradictions in his four movies.

Was that really Michael Bay's decision, or the writers? I thought Orci and Kurtzman wanted to run with the relationship that 'went beyond words' or something like that.



That's the main problem I was trying to point out with Bay's interpretation of the Dinobots. Just because they had beast modes it doesn't mean that they have the minds of animals.

You could argue that's pretty G1 cartoon-accurate :) which is what a lot of older fans are using as their mental reference point, although you did refer to the other characterisations of the Dinobots.


It was just another of Bay's lazy 2-dimensional stereotypes... like his racial stereotypes of many of his other characters (like Skids, Mudflap, Shane, Leo, most of the Asians in TF4, Figueroa, Drift, etc, etc, etc).


I agree that having characters act in a certain way (which may or may not involve racial characteristics/stereotypes) can be a sort of 'shortcut' for the audience to understand how a character thinks, but this is not always meant to be negative. In this case, it just seems like an excuse to show Michael Bay in a negative light. After all, this is the guy who had two black men as his protagonists in his debut movie, and again in the sequel.

I remember reading about Skids and Mudflap when RotF first came out. I was curious and wanted to see what the fuss was all about. When I did, I thought, "That's it? That's what everyone was making such a big deal about?" It seemed like making a mountain out of a molehill, and I was more inclined to agree with the idea that the twins were a parody of teenagers trying to act 'gangsta' than a negative 'black' stereotype. I certainly didn't get any racist vibes out of any of the humans' portrayals, or even Drift or 'the Doctor'.


Why couldn't it have just been a charge of the heroes with the Dinobots being willing comrades to their fellow Autobots... and how does the ground explode when Grimlock's weapon hits it? :rolleyes:
It's like Bay tries to find a way to include explosions in every scene, even if it means re-writing the plot or characters to achieve it.

Why couldn't it be some sort of invisible energy wave that Grimlock's weapon transmits whenever it hits something? :D


Cliched is when you have all these blockbuster action movies being required to have the same plot concepts just to appease the investors and pre-release movie reviewers...
- Someone important that isn't evil must die or be believed to be dead (the tragic element).
- The hero(es) must become targets or hunted as if they are the villains (to get sympathy from the audience to hope they regain their hero status).
- The main hero must do something that creates doubt or mistrust by others and the main villain needs to show themselves as justified in their actions (to have shades of grey to every character, so that there isn't any black or white heroes and villains).
- There must be a romance, but is difficult for the guy to get the girl.
- Something needs to be found.
- The villains should be defeated, but not entirely if there is potential for a sequel.

It would be less cliched if modern action movies could actually avoid conforming to those requirements just to appease the reviewers and critics that could make or break them.


This is a good point. As I understand it, and I am certainly no student of literature, stories throughout history follow the same basic ideas, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots) but still, for a movie, breaking the mould story-wise can be pretty risky, especially when millions of dollars of studios' money is on the line. Again, this is a writing issue, not a directing one.

[GoktimusPrime]

I don't think things are too inconsistent between movies (ok, you have to do a fair bit of mental gymnastics to put things together), but I don't think there are elements in the movies that outright contradict each other.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/Transformers/shortpacked/shortpacked_dotm.png

[Bladestorm]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/Transformers/shortpacked/shortpacked_dotm.png

That comic strip is simply awesome. :D

[UltraMarginal]

but if any one of those plans worked the others no longer mattered.


Point of contention, I didn't think Bumblebees voice was fixed, it was worked on at the end of the first movie but it was still patchy and I didn't think he used it to even form a full sentence. as such, for Ratchets field patchwork to not hold isn't much of a stretch.

Primes progression to angry killer in the movies hasn't seemed all that far fetched to me either. We are used to prime being extremely noble, but after millions of years of war, which has to be wearing, they are all on a planet that Optimus feels compelled to protect and at every turn the Decepticons are killing and maiming humans. In the third movie, the humans are even working with the Decepticons, such a low blow after all the sacrifices Prime and his team have made. And they've been keeping secrets from him.

We don't know between movie 1 and 2 just how many people the decepticons have killed, perhaps the termination of Demolisher is simply carrying out a judgement.

Sentinel Prime was their hope, his mentor of millions of years, the one who instilled his values and he has turned on it all killing humans and Autobots and trying to kill prime, he had it coming. Prime even gave him the opportunity in Washington to change his mind, and it nearly cost him his life. It's not like he just walked up to him and killed him in cold blood.

by AOE Prime has discovered that Humans have turned against him and his people, for all the help and sacrifices they've made. I'd be pissed too.

[GoktimusPrime]

Point of contention, I didn't think Bumblebees voice was fixed, it was worked on at the end of the first movie but it was still patchy and I didn't think he used it to even form a full sentence. as such, for Ratchets field patchwork to not hold isn't much of a stretch.
"Permission to speak, sir?"
"I wish to stay with the boy."
^Two fully complete sentences at the end of TF1.


Primes progression to angry killer in the movies hasn't seemed all that far fetched to me either. We are used to prime being extremely noble, but after millions of years of war, which has to be wearing, they are all on a planet that Optimus feels compelled to protect and at every turn the Decepticons are killing and maiming humans. In the third movie, the humans are even working with the Decepticons, such a low blow after all the sacrifices Prime and his team have made. And they've been keeping secrets from him.

We don't know between movie 1 and 2 just how many people the decepticons have killed, perhaps the termination of Demolisher is simply carrying out a judgement.

Sentinel Prime was their hope, his mentor of millions of years, the one who instilled his values and he has turned on it all killing humans and Autobots and trying to kill prime, he had it coming. Prime even gave him the opportunity in Washington to change his mind, and it nearly cost him his life. It's not like he just walked up to him and killed him in cold blood.

by AOE Prime has discovered that Humans have turned against him and his people, for all the help and sacrifices they've made. I'd be pissed too.
But that's just the thing, the films don't really provide exposition to tell the audience why Optimus Prime has suddenly changed his character alignment. The audience shouldn't need to have to invent reasons as to why the character has suddenly changed -- that's just poor story telling. Even the clunky Star Wars prequels provided Anakin Skywalker with a visible progression towards becoming Darth Vader. It wasn't great, but it mostly worked.

Optimus Prime is a seasoned veteran; he's been fighting this war for millenia and witnessed "whole generations lost" back on Cybertron. The films portray their war on Cybertron as being far more savage than that on Earth. The war on Cybertron destroyed their world (hence the Decepticons' plan to restore Cybertron with the Solar Harvester or the Space Bridge/human slaves). Optimus Prime was determined not to let the humans suffer for their mistakes and have history repeat itself on Earth. So while the continuing casualties would have been tragic, it's hardly anything that he's unused to. Optimus Primal had a moment of despair, but he is explicitly shown as mentally snapping after losing Tigerhawk... and even then, he was able to quickly pull himself together and get on with the job of attempting to win the Beast Wars. Because, as Spock would point out, a commanding officer who is emotionally compromised is no longer fit to command. If Optimus Prime cannot contain his anger to the point that he's executing P.O.W.s and even threatening to kill humans (rather than bringing them to justice), then his ability to command is in question. Only bad guys are shown as continuing to command in anger/hate -- good guys are supposed to be above that. That's what's supposed to separate the good guys from the bad guys. Without this moral divide, then what makes Optimus Prime any better than say Lockdown? Lockdown doesn't actually hold any personal animosity towards anyone. He's a mercenary much like Boba Fett or James Bond (or Han Solo in his initial appearance). He doesn't personally like or dislike Optimus Prime and the Autobots, he's just doing his job. Lockdown doesn't get emotionally compromised because he doesn't allow himself to become emotionally invested in his mission.

This is the Optimus Prime that we saw in the first movie. Noble and determined to hold the moral high ground (even if it meant sacrificing himself over Megatron). When Ironhide momentarily lamented, it was Optimus Prime who stood his ground and reaffirmed the Autobots' ethos.
Ironhide: "Why are we fighting to save the humans? They're a primitive and violent race."
Optimus Prime: "Were we so different? They're a young species. They have much to learn. But I've seen goodness in them. Freedom is the right of all sentient beings. You all know there's only one way to end this war: we must destroy the Cube. If all else fails, I will unite it with the spark in my chest."
Ratchet: "That's suicide! The Cube is raw power, it could destroy you both!
Optimus Prime: A necessary sacrifice to bring peace to this planet. We cannot let the humans pay for our mistakes. It's been an honour serving with you all."
Okay, Optimus Prime felt betrayed by Sentinel Prime and the humans, but remember that he was betrayed by Megatron too. When Optimus Prime removes the AllSpark sliver from Megatron's corpse, he regrettably says, "You left me no choice, brother." How did Optimus Prime devolve from this benevolent character to becoming who he was in the sequels? Okay, we could sit here and postulate plausible reasons, but we shouldn't have to. The movies themselves should provide us with a reason. In the absence of a presented reason, I'd be making Optimus Prime roll that 1D20! ;)

[Smint]

Comic strip is brilliant :D


but if any one of those plans worked the others no longer mattered.


Point of contention, I didn't think Bumblebees voice was fixed, it was worked on at the end of the first movie but it was still patchy and I didn't think he used it to even form a full sentence. as such, for Ratchets field patchwork to not hold isn't much of a stretch.

Primes progression to angry killer in the movies hasn't seemed all that far fetched to me either. We are used to prime being extremely noble, but after millions of years of war, which has to be wearing, they are all on a planet that Optimus feels compelled to protect and at every turn the Decepticons are killing and maiming humans. In the third movie, the humans are even working with the Decepticons, such a low blow after all the sacrifices Prime and his team have made. And they've been keeping secrets from him.

We don't know between movie 1 and 2 just how many people the decepticons have killed, perhaps the termination of Demolisher is simply carrying out a judgement.

Sentinel Prime was their hope, his mentor of millions of years, the one who instilled his values and he has turned on it all killing humans and Autobots and trying to kill prime, he had it coming. Prime even gave him the opportunity in Washington to change his mind, and it nearly cost him his life. It's not like he just walked up to him and killed him in cold blood.

by AOE Prime has discovered that Humans have turned against him and his people, for all the help and sacrifices they've made. I'd be pissed too.

Sure i agree I'd be pissed too in the context of the story. But in movie world a character change like this needs to be explained.

Example being Man of Steel. Not a great movie but they emphasized the point of Superman not being a killer and when he finally had to kill it had impact. In TF it doesnt have to be a central theme but a brief moment would sure help tell us about who Optimus really is.

There are no story beats that say this is the turning point for Optimus or who he is or why he does what he does. Initially we get that he's noble and protects all life (because he literally says it) but what happens to him after that? It literally is explosions, explosions, explosions and toilet humour.

[Yongeltron]

Ultimately, I don't think canon really matters all that much.

The details of the events aren't really what matter. It's how it affects the characters and what it means for them that matter. Naturally, a story needs to have some coherence to convey that effectively but these are movies. Most movies tell a fairly self-contained story, or one episode in the lives of its characters. Consistency between movies is nowhere near as important as consistency within each episode.

Most people who go to see the movie aren't thinking "gee, I can't wait to see what happens next in the Transformers saga". They probably can't even remember what happened in the previous ones. But that doesn't matter because what they ARE thinking is "gee, I enjoyed those other crazy robot movies, so I'll probably enjoy this one too."

Even with the character of movie Prime. I don't think it really matters all that much whether he satisfies any particular person's idea of who Optimus prime should be. What matters is that the character is well-motivated and compelling whoever he is.

That's why we don't need a reboot. We just need them to make the next one a better movie.

[Demonac]

We shouldn't be too harsh. After all AoE did win an award (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/mar/04/transformers-4-product-placement). Just goes to show where the filmmakers priorities are at.

[drifand]

Didn't they fix Bumblebee's voice at the end of the first movie?
Or did audiences think him being a robot Lassie was too cute, so it was retconned?

nope thats how bad this movie line is.

[drifand]

We shouldn't be too harsh. After all AoE did win an award (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/mar/04/transformers-4-product-placement). Just goes to show where the filmmakers priorities are at.

The toys are not winning me over either, if anything I bought Ironman figure over Tfs.

[Smint]

The toys are not winning me over either, if anything I bought Ironman figure over Tfs.

Dont get me started on the designs. Ugly is the word. But technically speaking they lack a focal point to draw the eyes. They look so busy they just look like millions of pieces of scrap metal stuck together. Couple that with Bay's "signature" fast editing and i cant tell head from arse.

[drifand]

Dont get me started on the designs. Ugly is the word. But technically speaking they lack a focal point to draw the eyes. They look so busy they just look like millions of pieces of scrap metal stuck together. Couple that with Bay's "signature" fast editing and i cant tell head from arse.

pretty much it, junk metal, and the alt mode is decent.

[BigTransformerTrev]

Considering that they couldn't even fix Bumblebee's voice box & their limited resources spark storage doesn't seem like a viable option to me.



I may be wrong, but weren't the Dinobots on the ship they needed to travel across the world? Freeing them onboard may not have been the best course of action if they were

Prime does ask for their help first though "so, today you stand with us, or you stand against me."
Grimlock decided to stand against Prime and once Jungle Law was applied and Optimus Prime proved that he was the Alpha Male, Grimlock and the other Dinobots fell in line. Happens in nature every day of the week




That's what we want though, isn't it? we want to see Prime develop as a character. we want to see how he feels and reacts. He's witnessed his family get torn apart, blown up, melted, betrayed by humans and we still expect him to do cartwheels?
If i see one more Prime sacrifice himself or die only to come back i'm going to headbutt something -it's cliche, it's tired, it's old. it loses it's edge when you've seen the same thing for the last 30 freaking years.

rule #1 you must die and come back to life
rule #2 you must sacrifice yourself at any given opportunity
yawn.


Agreed. I can understand nostalgia, but what's the point of telling exactly the same story with exactly the same characters again and again for decades on end? Are the Autobots, Decepticons and their endless war really the towering literary and conceptual achievements that would justify such treatment? Even Luke and his pals only blew up the Death Star twice.


I agree with all of the above :)

[drifand]

And I don't. :)

If you are tired of Transformers maybe you should stop everything altogether.

Who is going to complain about combiner wars robots that combined for 30 years? Exactly? What? Have Transformers but dont transform as a new point of direction? Ur no thanks.

Hell yeah, I want to see prime die again. :)
Bring on powermaster optimus. In fact I want to see Bay run out of options and finally throw in the towel, so bring it on. the faster he finishes this line, the better. I know he does a half arse job in the direction it has gone. Since TF 3 its been a great down slide.

Episode 5 should just solely focus on how bumble bee gets his voice back. < can't see the point he can get a new car body everytime but can't fix his voice.

This story line is sadly on a downhill slide, so only explosions and more Autobots dying is the way to go. Yeah comes to a point where humans are the decepticons and probably one where autobots have to work hand in hand with decepticons for their survival.

[BigTransformerTrev]

If you are tired of Transformers maybe you should stop everything altogether.

.

Don't talk stupid crap like that. :mad: Just because people enjoy new storylines and takes on characters doesn't mean they are tired of Transformers. And saying: 'If you are tired of Transformers maybe you should stop everything altogether' is like saying if a person is tired of this hobby they should just give up on life.

Have an opposing opinion - that's fine - makes for healthy discussion. But don't spout idiotic one liners like that. It proves no point and makes you look rude and adversarial.

[drifand]

Its my opinion of it, Transformers is what it is, you don't like it thats your take on it. Its been like this for 30 years. If you want I make it three liners and so on. I felt Bay had failed on many levels after the first two movies.

Saying that its like 5th episode of TF movie and bumble bee still kick ass but no voice.

I am standing as it is, if you feel that 30 years was bunch of looser storyline then perhaps you are not watching the Transformers as it is.

You are free to enjoy the movie line as you please. I don't have to agree with everyone here, quite simple.

The optimus I know is definately not of this version.

[BigTransformerTrev]

I am standing as it is, if you feel that 30 years was bunch of looser storyline then perhaps you are not watching the Transformers as it is.

.

Again - you are making confronting and adversarial statements. Who said anything about what's come before being loser storylines? :confused: People CAN enjoy what has come before and yet still want to see new storylines and different takes on existing characters. I quite liked Wheeljack from TFPrime. A former Wrecker who is battle-hungry and in your face. Does this mean I hated G1 Wheeljack? Of course not! I love the affable mad scientist! In fact I like the G1 version better but I still enjoyed this take on him.

Like I've said in other threads, the Movieverse Optimus is certainly in no way how I would have written and portrayed the character, but it doesn't stop me enjoying this different take on him where he is becoming hardened from all the struggles they have been through on earth such as being betrayed by his mentor, being betrayed by the humans, watching his friends die, dying himself etc etc.

You need to calm down and make rational arguments mate - not make confronting statements that make it sound like you are casting judgements on others because of their proclivities - DONT say thing like 'you are not watching Transformers as it is' - it's just rude.

[drifand]

Again it is what it is. :)

transformers 7.2
revenge of the fallen 6.0
DOTM 6.3
Transformers: Age of Extinction(2014) 5.8


Speaks for itself doesn't it?

You can like it all you want. Nobody's stopping you.

The looser battles is what its all its been, so saying "I am tired of it" you are sick of it.

BTW, many out there are clueless of the existence of G1 Transformers.
What I feel is the movie line has almost demolished every single thing that what transformers was.

[Sinnertwin]

Again it is what it is. :)

transformers 7.2
revenge of the fallen 6.0
DOTM 6.3
Transformers: Age of Extinction(2014) 5.8


Speaks for itself doesn't it?

i like comparing numbers too. Here are a few of my favourites

Transformers
$708,559,914
Revenge of The Fallen
$836,276,689
Dark of The Moon
$1,123,746,689
Age of Extinction
$1,091,394,158

Speaks for itself, doesn't it?

[drifand]

i like comparing numbers too. Here are a few of my favourites

Transformers
$708,559,914
Revenge of The Fallen
$836,276,689
Dark of The Moon
$1,123,746,689
Age of Extinction
$1,091,394,158

Speaks for itself, doesn't it?

yeah meaning people just love explosions. But you are not taking in consideration of what is actually reviewed. I did not watch the first TF movie in the cinemas

Likewise Star wars has build up a lot of hype and will definately get $$$, but will the fans like it?

[MayzaPrime]

I for one pay no attention to ratings at all. I go to see a movie to be entertained and to check my brain at the door. I use my brain all day at work and last thing that I want to do is have to think about a movie that I am watching.

Say what you will about Michael Bay he does make a very entertaining action movie. Explosions, fast cars crashing, giant bots battling are all things that I love to watch and judging by the money that the TF movies have made so do other people. I really dont care about a detailed story or plot holes, I just want to be entertained. He has the right formula to make money from movies. I will be lining up for TF5 decked out in TF gear ready to watch bots battle. :D

[Sinnertwin]

yeah meaning people just love explosions. But you are not taking in consideration of what is actually reviewed. I did not watch the first TF movie in the cinemas

Likewise Star wars has build up a lot of hype and will definately get $$$, but will the fans like it?


why would i take somebody elses thoughts on the movie into account ? I'm more than capable of making that decision myself. If you want to be another mindless drone, keep reading other peoples thoughts and making your decisions accordingly

[BigTransformerTrev]

The looser battles is what its all its been, so saying "I am tired of it" you are sick of it.



You just..... you just really aren't getting this whole 'don't tell others what they are saying because it's rude' point I'm trying to make are you, which is mainly what I'm trying to point out. Fine, you win. Keep being that way to folks - I'm sure people will credit you with a great deal of maturity for doing so. I get the feeling I'm just trying to push water uphill anyway. Good luck to you

[drifand]

Clearly because reviews do play an important roll on where each movie is at.
I didn't say you look at reviews before making a decision to watch.

It does however show an indication of how much appreciation for that particular movie. Or do you think people just rate purely on explosions?

[drifand]

[QUOTE= Good luck to you[/QUOTE]

No prob, 5th time lucky on bee's voice?:)

[Smint]

i like comparing numbers too. Here are a few of my favourites

Transformers
$708,559,914
Revenge of The Fallen
$836,276,689
Dark of The Moon
$1,123,746,689
Age of Extinction
$1,091,394,158

Speaks for itself, doesn't it?

Why cant a movie make a lot of money and actually be great movies. Oh wait they can be:
Avengers
$1,518,594,910
92% RT
Avatar
$2,787,965,087
83% RT
The Lord of the Rings
$1,119,929,521
95% RT

It's just TF that seems to get a pass for some odd reason more so from the long time fans of TF. The check your brain at the door attitude towards these movies is just puzzling.

Does Avengers require the powers of stephen hawking to decipher? Of course not. Good story, smart characters, no devastator balls are all im asking for. Bay gets it completely and utterly wrong AND makes a terrible movie.

[Yongeltron]

And I don't. :)

If you are tired of Transformers maybe you should stop everything altogether.

Who is going to complain about combiner wars robots that combined for 30 years? Exactly? What? Have Transformers but dont transform as a new point of direction? Ur no thanks.

Hell yeah, I want to see prime die again. :)
Bring on powermaster optimus. In fact I want to see Bay run out of options and finally throw in the towel, so bring it on. the faster he finishes this line, the better. I know he does a half arse job in the direction it has gone. Since TF 3 its been a great down slide.

Episode 5 should just solely focus on how bumble bee gets his voice back. < can't see the point he can get a new car body everytime but can't fix his voice.

This story line is sadly on a downhill slide, so only explosions and more Autobots dying is the way to go. Yeah comes to a point where humans are the decepticons and probably one where autobots have to work hand in hand with decepticons for their survival.

I guess I went too far when I assumed that we all, as Transformers fans, wanted to see the cinematic venture continue to succeed. Apparently, some of us would rather see the demise of one of the central sustaining pillars of the brand than see it continue in a way that doesn't continually massage our sense of nostalgia or our preconceptions of how things should be.

Silly me.

In defense of Michael Bay, whilst you can (and I do) criticise him for doing a bad job, I don't think it's fair to suggest that he doesn't put a lot of effort into his moviemaking.


BTW, many out there are clueless of the existence of G1 Transformers.
What I feel is the movie line has almost demolished every single thing that what transformers was.


Likewise Star wars has build up a lot of hype and will definately get $$$, but will the fans like it?

The kind of snobbery that you're displaying here Drifand really just seems bizarre to me. It's Transformers. The whole basis of the brand's continuing success is its broad appeal. But God forbid that a brand should ever go beyond fanservice! It's like the classic fan-entitlement phenomenon: they've been giving you something you treasure for thirty years and you've been dutifully sucking it all up, so obviously, you know, they OWE you. God forbid that a new incarnation of Transformers should be anything more than just a clever re-packaging of everything from G1. Naturally! Anything else just wouldn't be authentic Transformers, would it?

Sometimes, I think the connection to the history of the brand is one of Transformers' great strengths. Other times, I feel like this insistence on constantly re-creating the past is really just a great big albatross around the neck of the brand.

How do the movies destroy G1? G1 is G1. G1 will always be G1. It's safe. And guess what else? G1 was over a long time ago.

It's amazing to me that fans of a cartoon and toyline from three decades ago can still go out and buy brand-new toys of some of their favourite characters (frigging masterpieces!!) and then turn around and complain that their treasured childhood memories are being destroyed when the brand isn't directing all of its attention towards servicing their wants. I honestly think that the Transformers fandom has some of the most petulant and spoiled members of any fandom.

I'm not saying you're guilty of all that Drifand, but I do see echoes of it in your attitude.

(...runs and hides...)

[griffin]

Just keep it respectful people... by not directing aggression or sarcasm at others.

If you really don't like the opinions of others, just ignore their post, or put them on your post filter so that you don't even see any of their posts.
Responding to something that frustrates you will just result in more back from them.

[Megatran]

If you really don't like the opinions of others, just ignore their post, or put them on your post filter so that you don't even see any of their posts.
Responding to something that frustrates you will just result in more back from them.
If I got a dollar for every time I read that line posted on this forum I'll quit my job. :o

(I almost hit the alert button for spamming) :p

[Sinnertwin]

Why cant a movie make a lot of money and actually be great movies. Oh wait they can be:
Avengers
$1,518,594,910
92% RT
Avatar
$2,787,965,087
83% RT
The Lord of the Rings
$1,119,929,521
95% RT

It's just TF that seems to get a pass for some odd reason more so from the long time fans of TF. The check your brain at the door attitude towards these movies is just puzzling.

Does Avengers require the powers of stephen hawking to decipher? Of course not. Good story, smart characters, no devastator balls are all im asking for. Bay gets it completely and utterly wrong AND makes a terrible movie.

Avengers? Lord of The Rings? Avatar? Great movies?
Thank You, i needed that laugh :D

They've set out to do what the studios have expected and put bums on seats & money through the registers -which was what my original point that you missed was about -an imdb rating is one thing, box office performance another.
Avengers...lol :D

[Yongeltron]

Just keep it respectful people... by not directing aggression or sarcasm at others.

If you really don't like the opinions of others, just ignore their post, or put them on your post filter so that you don't even see any of their posts.
Responding to something that frustrates you will just result in more back from them.

Yeah, I know. Sorry if I've overstepped the mark here. I'm not overly bothered, but it was something I did want to express. Plus, if you ignore people you disagree with, then you can't have any interesting conversations.

Looking at my post, I realise I've come across a lot more acerbic than I really meant. Could've controlled my tone a bit better. Sorry.

[GoktimusPrime]

I for one get tired of having to justify being a TF fan because there are people out there who think that Transformers = Bayverse, and that the franchise didn't even exist before or outside of the movies. I'm serious. Just last week I had someone ask me how long I've been a fan of Transformers and I answered, "Since the beginning," and that person answered, "So since the first movie came out." He wasn't being facetious or anything, he was being sincere. Now, regardless of whether you love or hate the movies, I think that we can all agree that 'Transformers' is so much more than just these films. And let's face it, even if these films never existed, we'd still be massive fans of Transformers.

Regardless of whether we love or hate the movies, most of us here are fans of Transformers in spite of the films, not because of them. And we'll still be fans long after the film franchise has ended.

[griffin]

Yeah, I know. Sorry if I've overstepped the mark here. I'm not overly bothered, but it was something I did want to express. Plus, if you ignore people you disagree with, then you can't have any interesting conversations.

Feel free to discuss and debate as much as you want, as that's what makes fansites worth visiting... just know when to walk away if it gets too heated, so that you don't get sucked into a degenerating cycle. :)

[Smint]

Avengers? Lord of The Rings? Avatar? Great movies?
Thank You, i needed that laugh :D

They've set out to do what the studios have expected and put bums on seats & money through the registers -which was what my original point that you missed was about -an imdb rating is one thing, box office performance another.
Avengers...lol :D


Inbetween your lol's you missed the point. The point wasn't about bums in seats, if this was the case McDonalds would be restaurant of the year. Bay's TF universe doesnt respect the history which i can live with but the main problem is buying a ticket to see devastator's balls or bumblebee peeing on people. The TF movies are very bad but clearly people like yourself love this stuff.

I think what's lol is TF4 with a 18% on rotten tomatoes. It joins the ranks of The Rock's Toothfairy and is worse than the last Resident Evil movie. Pretty sure those movies made decent money too.

I wont comment on your taste but if you don't consider Avatar, Avengers and LOTR movies "great" then you're in the minority.

[Yongeltron]

...let's face it, even if these films never existed, we'd still be massive fans of Transformers.

But maybe not all of us would though.

Credit should be given to the movies for the reinvigoration of the brand they have achieved. The sucess of the movies and Animated and TFPrime and the video games off the back of them has introduced Transformers to a whole new generation of fans and re-introduced it to previous ones. They're a big reason why the brand has its current strength and why the fans have it so good.

To the long-time fans, Transformers obviously never went away. To the rest of the world, it had all but disappeared until it came roaring back in 2007. People who like Transformers for what it is now are no less legitimate as Transformers fans as those who grew up on G1. Maybe long time fans don't feel that way, or feel that such fan-hood is second-rate, but I think it's important to recognise different perspectives and tastes in the TF fandom as legitimate.

Transformers fan-hood isn't predicated on your level of knowledge, your years of following or the size of your collection. It's whether you like Transformers (for whatever that means to you).

[Paulbot]

Going to share this here: Transformers ruin your favourite movies (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e17e5b5db1/transformers-ruin-your-favorite-movies-mashup).

[Yongeltron]

^Love it!

At the end of the video with Michael Bay, my girlfriend goes "was that Michael Bay? I've never seen him before. I always imagined he was just a suit with a lense-flair for a head."

[BigTransformerTrev]

Going to share this here: Transformers ruin your favourite movies (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e17e5b5db1/transformers-ruin-your-favorite-movies-mashup).

Very good :)

[GoktimusPrime]

Transformers fan-hood isn't predicated on your level of knowledge, your years of following or the size of your collection. It's whether you like Transformers (for whatever that means to you).
I'm not talking about fans (I don't need to justify being a fan to another fan :p), I'm talking about non-fans who perceive the live action films as being the entire TF franchise. They think that Transformers actually didn't exist before 2007! :eek: So when people see that I'm a fan of Transformers, they immediately make certain assumptions about my taste in movies/stories, and so I'm often left having to defend my passion for Transformers by explaining to them that it goes well beyond just the live action film series. :rolleyes:

[drifand]

I'm not talking about fans (I don't need to justify being a fan to another fan :p), I'm talking about non-fans who perceive the live action films as being the entire TF franchise. They think that Transformers actually didn't exist before 2007! :eek: So when people see that I'm a fan of Transformers, they immediately make certain assumptions about my taste in movies/stories, and so I'm often left having to defend my passion for Transformers by explaining to them that it goes well beyond just the live action film series. :rolleyes:

same here, Many do not know beyond the existence of the flim series.

[Sinnertwin]

Inbetween your lol's you missed the point. The point wasn't about bums in seats, if this was the case McDonalds would be restaurant of the year.

1.4 billion returns to McDonalds shareholders for FY14 isn't something to be scoffed at. But, hey, you don't enjoy the Bay films? then don't invest any more time and/or money into them -just don't sit there and tell me that an over glorified popcorn movie like The Avengers has


Good story, smart characters, no devastator balls are all im asking for. Bay gets it completely and utterly wrong AND makes a terrible movie.

We must've watched two different versions then. What Avengers story? What smart characters? What development? We love taking pot shots at Bay for lack of character driven stories, but to throw The Avengers into the mix as a comparison? You've got to be kidding me, right? Tell me you're kidding. I've seen better stories on Dora The Explorer.


The TF movies are very bad but clearly people like yourself love this stuff

See, that's just an assumption. I don't "love" the Bay films and don't lose any sleep over them either. Labelling me as such would be akin to me calling you a pseudo intellectual overzealous Marvel Fanboy.


I think what's lol is TF4 with a 18% on rotten tomatoes. It joins the ranks of The Rock's Toothfairy and is worse than the last Resident Evil movie. Pretty sure those movies made decent money too.

I'm sure they have and I'm glad that you've taken the time out to illustrate that to me. Ratings on a website have absolutely zero bearings on how i feel about a particular movie. 1% or 100% i couldn't care about it either way. 18% on a website or a billion dollars in takings? Which one do you think that the makers of AoE consider a more important measure of success.



I wont comment on your taste but if you don't consider Avatar, Avengers and LOTR movies "great" then you're in the minority.

And I'm glad that I am ;)

[drifand]

I pick Avengers or Pacific Rim over the last 3 TF flims.

If money was a concern then all the more I would have prefered if TF movies are done more seriously with a better plot.

I still watch them, just saying it could have been way more better and Takara and Hasbro can earn way more.

[Smint]

[FONT="Century Gothic"][SIZE="3"]See, that's just an assumption. I don't "love" the Bay films and don't lose any sleep over them either. Labelling me as such would be akin to me calling you a pseudo intellectual overzealous Marvel Fanboy.



So you're defending the TF movies for what? Because it made money? Everyone knows it made money. We were discussing the movie itself, TF making money was not even the point.

[BigTransformerTrev]

1.4 billion returns to McDonalds shareholders for FY14 isn't something to be scoffed at. But, hey, you don't enjoy the Bay films? then don't invest any more time and/or money into them -just don't sit there and tell me that an over glorified popcorn movie like The Avengers has



We must've watched two different versions then. What Avengers story? What smart characters? What development? We love taking pot shots at Bay for lack of character driven stories, but to throw The Avengers into the mix as a comparison? You've got to be kidding me, right? Tell me you're kidding. I've seen better stories on Dora The Explorer.



See, that's just an assumption. I don't "love" the Bay films and don't lose any sleep over them either. Labelling me as such would be akin to me calling you a pseudo intellectual overzealous Marvel Fanboy.



I'm sure they have and I'm glad that you've taken the time out to illustrate that to me. Ratings on a website have absolutely zero bearings on how i feel about a particular movie. 1% or 100% i couldn't care about it either way. 18% on a website or a billion dollars in takings? Which one do you think that the makers of AoE consider a more important measure of success.




And I'm glad that I am ;)


Whoah Sinner! I've never seen you so vehement!

Cool! :cool:;)

[Starscream77]

This is my new favourite thread to read when I am bored.

Oh the hypocrisy featured here :eek:

But it does make me LOL. :D:p

[GoktimusPrime]

The money made by the films serves to demonstrate Michael Bay's core strength. He is an excellent "bums in seats" director. Getting people to watch his movies and make massive box office sales is his forte. Making movies that are actually good at telling stories and that people will want to watch over and over again without getting ever getting sick of it? Hhhmmm... :o Because IMHO, that's the hallmark of a good story; one that you never tire of.

"I'm so sick of The Empire Strikes Back," said no Star Wars fan ever. :p ;)

[M-bot]

The money made by the films serves to demonstrate Michael Bay's core strength. He is an excellent "bums in seats" director. Getting people to watch his movies and make massive box office sales is his forte. Making movies that are actually good at telling stories and that people will want to watch over and over again without getting ever getting sick of it? Hhhmmm... :o Because IMHO, that's the hallmark of a good story; one that you never tire of.

"I'm so sick of The Empire Strikes Back," said no Star Wars fan ever. :p ;)

...and that's the point right there. "Bums on seats" films don't have to be bad, and Gok's example is a stellar one. AOE was extraordinarily bad, but it just didn't have to be. There's no reason we can't expect a movie that kills at the box office AND has great story, characters, writing, etc. Put simply, Michael Bay is demonstrably not the guy to do it. 4 attempts so far with ever diminishing returns as far as quality (and I would argue increasing perversion, eloquently put by Film Critic Hulk from BadAssDigest.com). Let someone else have a go I say, even though my enjoyment of TFs is not remotely affected either way. I've already decided to vote with my wallet if Bay directs a 5th TF film (for all the good that will do:rolleyes:).

[drifand]

I am in agreement if everyone I believe here wants tf movies to succeed and not fail. Whether Bay or another director, I like to see a better movie.

[Magnus]

The money made by the films serves to demonstrate Michael Bay's core strength. He is an excellent "bums in seats" director. Getting people to watch his movies and make massive box office sales is his forte. Making movies that are actually good at telling stories and that people will want to watch over and over again without getting ever getting sick of it? Hhhmmm... :o Because IMHO, that's the hallmark of a good story; one that you never tire of.

"I'm so sick of The Empire Strikes Back," said no Star Wars fan ever. :p ;)

The fact that the movies have made so much money at the box office shows that people do want to see the movies over and over again. You don't get those kind of returns on people only watching your movie once.


...and that's the point right there. "Bums on seats" films don't have to be bad, and Gok's example is a stellar one. AOE was extraordinarily bad, but it just didn't have to be. There's no reason we can't expect a movie that kills at the box office AND has great story, characters, writing, etc. Put simply, Michael Bay is demonstrably not the guy to do it. 4 attempts so far with ever diminishing returns as far as quality (and I would argue increasing perversion, eloquently put by Film Critic Hulk from BadAssDigest.com). Let someone else have a go I say, even though my enjoyment of TFs is not remotely affected either way. I've already decided to vote with my wallet if Bay directs a 5th TF film (for all the good that will do:rolleyes:).

Once again, I can't help but think that the problem a lot of people have here comes more from the writing than Michael Bay's direction. Story and characters, which seem to be recurring points, come from the writing, which Bay does not do, so I think it's unfair to blame him on these points. The writing is the foundation on which everything else is built on.

On the point of character, I recommend people watch Bay's other movies - as I have said before, no shortage of character 'moments' in The Island, The Rock, Armageddon or Pain and Gain.


On a somewhat related point, I don't really get the story-related complaints. I can follow easily enough what's going on, what characters are doing and why (most of the time, anyway). Simplistic? Perhaps.

[drifand]

Bay still plays a part on what is approved on written. and since you said "a lot of people" on this thread it does shows there is not just a small amount of unsatisfied fans.

Besides the fan based, there are many viewers who are just shocked at the whole story plot.

There are bound to be people who love it 10/10, there is no denying that, I am just not seeing that many.

When was the last time we saw a toy masterpiece for the movie?

[GoktimusPrime]

The fact that the movies have made so much money at the box office shows that people do want to see the movies over and over again. You don't get those kind of returns on people only watching your movie once.
Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good, per se. Star Wars Episode I The Phantom Menace was the highest grossing of all the Star Wars films, while Episode V The Empire Strikes back was the lowest grossing (even in relative terms Ep I was the highest grossing of the Prequels while Ep V was the lowest of the Original Trilogy) (reference (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Wars)), but I reckon most fans would consider Empire to be the better story over Menace. ;)
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/starwars_bobahanbinks_zpsnqcgqjgb.jpg

On the point of character, I recommend people watch Bay's other movies - as I have said before, no shortage of character 'moments' in The Island, The Rock, Armageddon or Pain and Gain.
This doesn't help Transformers. :o


On a somewhat related point, I don't really get the story-related complaints. I can follow easily enough what's going on, what characters are doing and why (most of the time, anyway). Simplistic? Perhaps.
The sequence of events is the plot. What the plot is actually about is the story. And the quality of a story is determined or driven by its characters. Not in terms of what they're doing, that's the plot. It's what's happening to them that drives the story.

AoE Optimus Prime is the only Transformer character who's had any development in these four films, so let's use him as an example (because there's no other :p). In the beginning of the film, Optimus Prime has become a dark and embittered character. Having lost his faith in humanity, he has become spiritually lost. Through his relationship with Cade Yeager, Optimus Prime goes on a personal journey of rediscovery where he must learn to trust again. This is an arduous and difficult journey for him, as he encounters obstacles along the way as he delves deeper to discover the terrible truth behind the humans' betrayal against the Autobots. Now the problem is that this did NOT _drive_ the story of Age of Extinction. It was more something that almost happened in the background while other stuff was happening. AoE would have been a much better story if Optimus Prime's character arc were allowed to take centre stage.

Characterisation is much like the 'engine' of a story. The better it is, the stronger that 'engine' is the the greater drive a story has. Stories with weak character-development are like cars with weak engines. Yes, they can function, they can move, but they're not great. A movie that has loads of spectacular visuals and thrilling action but weak characterisation is like a car with say the chassis of a Lamborghini Aventador, but the engine of a Holden Gemini. ;)

And why does Bay get the blame? He's the director. The director is like the captain of the ship or the head of state of a country -- he's not solely responsible for everything, but as the leader he accepts all praise or criticism. And it's because the director has the ultimate say in what goes into a film; he can veto and alter the script as he sees fit or elect to stick to the script. That's the burden of leadership (http://tfwiki.net/wiki/The_Burden_Hardest_to_Bear) -- the captain sails or sinks with his ship. :o


When was the last time we saw a toy masterpiece for the movie?
Okay, to be fair, Bay/Paramount don't make the toys -- that's Hasbro. Although the movie designs do directly influence the toys, Hasbro can also influence Paramount. e.g. Aaron Archer requested Bay to ensure that the Transformers had visible alt mode kibble in robot mode, which made them easier to translate as toys. Archer's since left Hasbro, and the AoE Transformers lack sufficient kibble in robot mode. I don't know if it's because Archer's replacement failed to maintain the same request, or if Bay/Paramount of elected to ignore it (which they can, as the movie is a separate legal entity from the toy franchise; that's why they can use vehicle licences which Hasbro can't (e.g. Audi, Ferrari etc.)). But Hasbro could also elect to make the toys less screen accurate and as better engineered toys, but then they'd cop criticism from some collectors for a lack of screen accuracy. :(

[Demonac]

People keep forgetting that AOE made most of its money from China (I wonder why?).
Lets do some numbers work:
AOE 'only' made 245m in the USA, 130m of that in the first weekend.
By comparison, DotM made 345m, RotF 400m, TF1 340m (These are US numbers, to keep things consistent).

[Magnus]

When was the last time we saw a toy masterpiece for the movie?

As I understand it, the point of the Masterpiece series was to bring contemporary engineering to classic toys/characters. There's no need to do that to movieverse characters because they already benefit from current engineering. As I said in my review of APS-01U, one opinion was that RotF leader Optimus was practically a Masterpiece already.

There was also the short-lived Movie Masterpiece series from Takara, with Starscream and Bumblebee. I'm kind of surprised that Sentinel Prime wasn't released in that line with a new paint job.


Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good, per se.

The 'popular vs. good' debate is one I won't enter into here, since whether something like a movie is good (or at least likeable) or not is a matter of personal opinion. My point was that enough people liked it to result in the movies having the box office numbers that they have, so the filmmakers must be doing something right.


This doesn't help Transformers. :o

No, but my point is that Michael Bay can and does do characterisation well.



The sequence of events is the plot. What the plot is actually about is the story. And the quality of a story is determined or driven by its characters. Not in terms of what they're doing, that's the plot. It's what's happening to them that drives the story.

AoE Optimus Prime is the only Transformer character who's had any development in these four films, so let's use him as an example (because there's no other :p). In the beginning of the film, Optimus Prime has become a dark and embittered character. Having lost his faith in humanity, he has become spiritually lost. Through his relationship with Cade Yeager, Optimus Prime goes on a personal journey of rediscovery where he must learn to trust again. This is an arduous and difficult journey for him, as he encounters obstacles along the way as he delves deeper to discover the terrible truth behind the humans' betrayal against the Autobots. Now the problem is that this did NOT _drive_ the story of Age of Extinction. It was more something that almost happened in the background while other stuff was happening. AoE would have been a much better story if Optimus Prime's character arc were allowed to take centre stage.

Characterisation is much like the 'engine' of a story. The better it is, the stronger that 'engine' is the the greater drive a story has. Stories with weak character-development are like cars with weak engines. Yes, they can function, they can move, but they're not great. A movie that has loads of spectacular visuals and thrilling action but weak characterisation is like a car with say the chassis of a Lamborghini Aventador, but the engine of a Holden Gemini. ;)

Ok, I get what you're saying here. You've also hit upon (not for the first time)a major issue with the movies: the Transformers are often treated as peripheral or secondary characters, for whatever reason. There is character development and an emotional journey taking place within each movie - just not with the Transformers most of the time. Again, this is an issue with the writing, not necessarily Bay's direction. That's the point I was trying to make by suggesting people watch Bay's other movies.


And why does Bay get the blame? He's the director. The director is like the captain of the ship or the head of state of a country -- he's not solely responsible for everything, but as the leader he accepts all praise or criticism. And it's because the director has the ultimate say in what goes into a film; he can veto and alter the script as he sees fit or elect to stick to the script. That's the burden of leadership (http://tfwiki.net/wiki/The_Burden_Hardest_to_Bear) -- the captain sails or sinks with his ship. :o

Again, my point was that the script is what the director has to work with. Everything - including the director's choices - comes from there. Even so, as I typed before, it seems Michael Bay is a favourite target - Ridley Scott doesn't get blamed for Prometheus, or Sam Mendes for Skyfall, movies that have been criticised for questionable writing.

[Demonac]

No, but my point is that Michael Bay can and does do characterisation well.


Just out of interest, is your real name Michael Bay?
It's ok if it is. We just hate your lack of talent, not you personally.

[Smint]

People keep forgetting that AOE made most of its money from China (I wonder why.

2 reasons. Li Bing Bing and Hong Kong. Its partially a business decision when film makers court international stars and shoot overseas.


Flames on optimus, bumblebee peeing, ethnic stereotype robots etc are all Bay's idea. Even the designs are his.

Bay always loves saying he has a great relationship with the us military because he always makes them look good which he does. This is the kind of power a director has.

In the end it's always the director's call. He doesn't shoot if he's not happy with the script and writing. How much input is his only they know but I'm pretty certain all those obnoxious humans, those awful personalities are all his idea.

Do we all know why we fell in love with g1 and still remember them fondly. It's was because of the characters not the action.

Think about what defines magnus, starscream, megatron, rodimus, optimus. Now think about the movie characters ..yes I'm drawing a blank too.

I can remember the hash cookie eating parents, Ken jeong, John Malkovich why the fuck can't I remember any of the tf's?

[Yongeltron]

Can't remember any TFs?! What about that one that turned into a vehicle? Or there was that other one with the thing and he did all that stuff and Optimus was like "oh" and then Megatron comes in and he's like "AARGH".

Ahh, those memorable Bayformers. Good times.

[UltimateGalvatron]

What about the guy with the gun who got pwned by Optimus? Oh wait that is every Decepticon in the franchise.

[GoktimusPrime]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/Transformers/meme_humans_zps15ec3ee8.jpg :p


That's the point I was trying to make by suggesting people watch Bay's other movies.
Yeah but... I'm a fan of Transformers, not a fan of Michael Bay (although I don't mind Bad Boys; other Bay movies don't really interest me all that much :o). The Age of Extinction toys were fairly ordinary on the whole, but we know that they're made by the same people at Hasbro and TakaraTOMY who give us stuff like Classicsverse and Masterpiece. So we know that they're capable of creating excellent Transformers toys. But this does not at all impact on the Age of Extinction toys. :( We can often see good and bad stuff from the same creative people, but the good stuff doesn't necessarily make the bad stuff any better. After all, Star Wars IV: A New Hope demonstrates that George Lucas can make a good Star Wars movie. ;)

[drifand]

I did watch other Bay movies. Some are great. And like I said, his TF line went from not bad (good in fact) to urm... really? And since I am not the only one who thinks this way, I am glad.

[GoktimusPrime]

The first movie captured the basic spirit of the G1 cartoon reasonably well. The sequels not so much. :o

So... how many keen fans of the movies are gonna be watching Revenge of the Fallen on TV tonight (http://otca.com.au/boards/showthread.php?p=471991#post471991)? IMHO a good movie is one that you love to rewatch over and over again. e.g. if The Empire Strikes Back were airing tonight, and I had time to watch it, I'd definitely see it. So... I wonder how many people who have the time to watch this movie tonight, will actually tune in and watch it from start to finish, or go find something else to do in their spare time. ;)

[M-bot]

The first movie captured the basic spirit of the G1 cartoon reasonably well. The sequels not so much. :o

So... how many keen fans of the movies are gonna be watching Revenge of the Fallen on TV tonight (http://otca.com.au/boards/showthread.php?p=471991#post471991)? IMHO a good movie is one that you love to rewatch over and over again. e.g. if The Empire Strikes Back were airing tonight, and I had time to watch it, I'd definitely see it. So... I wonder how many people who have the time to watch this movie tonight, will actually tune in and watch it from start to finish, or go find something else to do in their spare time. ;)

I think my sock drawer needs rearranging...;):p

[BigTransformerTrev]

This is my new favourite thread to read when I am bored.

Oh the hypocrisy featured here :eek:

But it does make me LOL. :D:p

Same - i'm not going to get drawn back into the heated debate as I've realised long ago that I am not going to be able to change anyones perceptions. As someone who really liked the movies for the most part but still got irirated with some of the flaws I'm too much of a fence sitter anyway :p

It does amuse me however, that so many folk that have hated a few 2-hour-something movies have probably spent probably 10 times longer talking about why they hated them than actually watching the movies themselves :p Then there are others who bag out the movies who haven't even watched them which I find rather odd, best to experience and make up ones own mind rather than rely on the opinions of others I feel.


It's a bit like with Athiesm. A passionate athiest still thinks about gods all the time, albiet in terms of denying their existence. Then you have other forms of athiest who have just dismissed the idea of gods altogether so much that the topic never even enters their mind. There are some who hate the movies so much they have turned it into a consuming passion - often talking about them far more than people that loved the flicks! Then there are others who didn't like the movies so much they have put them from mind and wouldn't even consider bothering to chat about them.


And no - I am definetly not putting Michael Bay in a 'god catagory' ;)

[drifand]

It also amuses me that people do not see why so many are not at all happy the way tf movies has gone. In honesty it has lost the plot and other than Optimus prime all the rest of the transformers are a bunch of expendable assets. Along with a bubble bee who have no voice and lost loyalty to be guardian to wickwicky.


It is a popcorn movie, I give you that. But that's all. The franchise is already that bad I doubt it can be any better anymore without a proper reboot by someone else.

I am watching the Last ship produced by bay, it's way better than tf movies.
So there you go.

[BigTransformerTrev]

It also amuses me that people do not see why so many are not at all happy the way tf movies has gone. In honesty it has lost the plot and other than Optimus prime all the rest of the transformers are a bunch of expendable assets. Along with a bubble bee who have no voice and lost loyalty to be guardian to wickwicky.


It is a popcorn movie, I give you that. But that's all. The franchise is already that bad I doubt it can be any better anymore without a proper reboot by someone else.

I am watching the Last ship produced by bay, it's way better than tf movies.
So there you go.



Um.... You do realise you kinda just proved my point rather than providing a coherent rebuttal right? You did this last time too. You are so consumed with your hatred of the flick you don't seen to realise I'm just providing a bit of off-hand analysis of the debate itself rather than trying to promote or defend the movies. Yelling back at me about how the movies suck completely misses the points I'm discussing and in actual fact kinda reinforces them.

Tell ya what, find someone who, like my points about personal attacks, more gets what I'm trying to say and then come back :)

[GoktimusPrime]

I think my sock drawer needs rearranging...;):p
Bahahahahahahahahaha! :D

[Bladestorm]

2 reasons. Li Bing Bing and Hong Kong. Its partially a business decision when film makers court international stars and shoot overseas.


Flames on optimus, bumblebee peeing, ethnic stereotype robots etc are all Bay's idea. Even the designs are his.

Bay always loves saying he has a great relationship with the us military because he always makes them look good which he does. This is the kind of power a director has.

In the end it's always the director's call. He doesn't shoot if he's not happy with the script and writing. How much input is his only they know but I'm pretty certain all those obnoxious humans, those awful personalities are all his idea.

Do we all know why we fell in love with g1 and still remember them fondly. It's was because of the characters not the action.

Think about what defines magnus, starscream, megatron, rodimus, optimus. Now think about the movie characters ..yes I'm drawing a blank too.

I can remember the hash cookie eating parents, Ken jeong, John Malkovich why the fuck can't I remember any of the tf's?

I'm all for the globalisation of the franchise. They under-utilised Hong Kong (most of the fighting scenes are Detroit/Chicago staged to look like a Chinatown which is NOTHING like real HK) and bowed a bit to other powers to gain favour with their large emerging movie market... which kind of sucks.
Personally I would LOVE to see Optimus as a road-train in the outback... it's desolate, barren and really lends itself to secret isolated bases and epic high speed battles without having the drama of buildings, etc... but Bay is all about explosions and city destruction so it ain't gunna happen. And... Oz just doesn't have the population pull (even if you include those of us from those little isle on the east) for the $$ needed to make the movie a success.

Another issue with Bay is he dumbs it down for his American audiences. How many times do we need to be told Cade is an inventor? Why do we need to be told that a) Lockdowns ship is sucking things up and then b) it's a big magnet.... The reuse of scenes from earlier movies REALLY bugs me.
The spaceship chase scenes in Chicago in AoE didn't make any sense (other than convenience of advertising Bud Light, cgi models and previously filmed footage).

I don't mind Michael Bay. I actually like his cinematic style and his overuse of extreme angles and explosions. It's his storyline, lack of character development and cutting corners that really lets him down.

[drifand]

Um.... You do realise you kinda just proved my point rather than providing a coherent rebuttal right? You did this last time too. You are so consumed with your hatred of the flick you don't seen to realise I'm just providing a bit of off-hand analysis of the debate itself rather than trying to promote or defend the movies. Yelling back at me about how the movies suck completely misses the points I'm discussing and in actual fact kinda reinforces them.

Tell ya what, find someone who, like my points about personal attacks, more gets what I'm trying to say and then come back :)


I'm entitled to my opinion as much as yours just that I know there are more unhappy people. When tf really fails I won't be laughing and it be suck to say "I told you so"

If you cannot accept the truth about imdb reviews then that's too bad. As that's public opinion

As I said bay is great with some production and I am happy with those, just that for tf it has went downhill spiral.
You are free to disagree. But many do seem to think so.

[BigTransformerTrev]

I'm entitled to my opinion as much as yours just that I know there are more unhappy people. When tf really fails I won't be laughing and it be suck to say "I told you so"

If you cannot accept the truth about imdb reviews then that's too bad. As that's public opinion

As I said bay is great with some production and I am happy with those, just that for tf it has went downhill spiral.
You are free to disagree. But many do seem to think so.


Oh mate... (laugh), you are just so not getting what I am saying at all! You keep arguing the premise that the Transformers Movies suck, when I am not arguing that it doesn't (I don't think they do personally but it's not what I'm arguing). In fact I was talking about the different types of dislike and hate people have for it and the different ways that manifests itself - it was more an observation than arguing a point and at no point in that discussion did I say people were not valid to hold those views.

It's like when I kept saying to you to not make adversarial and rude statements and your rebuttal was "Yeah but Transformers movies suck and Michael Bay bad!". You are just missing it completely. If I was yelling "Transformers was great and you are wrong!" you'd be right on the money but its... (laughs again) its really not what I've been saying.

To be honest mate, you are better off just to block me or ignore whatever I say completely. Because this is the equivalent of me keeping saying "People like dogs" and you arguing back "Well you are wrong because noone should eat oranges!". You keep arguing a point with me that I'm not trying to make. I must admit it has gone from irritating me to amusing me a bit but I can see this getting a bit ugly and to be honest you are starting to make yourself look a little silly so lets just leave it there eh. Like before, I don't really think you should argue with me until you understand what the partiular discussion is actually about and once again I'm pushing water uphill.

[drifand]

I didn't say tf movies suck.
They are just not doing well..

Blocking is an easy option I am here to say it as it is.
If you can't stand it. Maybe you should re watch all4 movie and just compare to the one tf cartoon movie.

I would love bay to succeed but it's been 4th attempt and it has came to a point that it has lost the plot.

[BigTransformerTrev]

Blocking is an easy option I am here to say it as it is.
If you can't stand it. Maybe you should re watchs all4 movie and just compare to the one tf cartoon movie.



ROTFL!!!!! :D:D:D:D:D


Oh please! (giggles with laughter and sniffs!) Oh please - can some kind person read few the last few pages and explain it to drifand? If I keep trying I'm just going to start looking condesending and mean ;)

Oh dear (wipes tear from eye), oh my this is getting good :D



M-bot - maybe you can explain it to him mate. I know you are a lovely guy who also didn't care much for the movies - maybe you can get him to realise I'm not trying to debate his point of view of the flicks or change his mind about them

[drifand]

Whatever?

I don't have to use Rofl and lol and etc....

:)

Didn't know you need help too.

Pretty sure the board is going to be cleaned.

[BigTransformerTrev]

Whatever?

I don't have to use Rofl and lol and etc....

:)

Didn't know you need help too.


Ok - I'll change it - BWAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Oh I'll say this - this is good for a laugh! :D


Seriously, someone PLEASE explain it to him. I can't do it anymore :D

[drifand]

Ok - I'll change it - BWAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Oh I'll say this - this is good for a laugh! :D


Seriously, someone PLEASE explain it to him. I can't do it anymore :D

You can try harder, I was just getting it.

[BigTransformerTrev]

You can try harder, I was just getting it.

Na mate, I've genuinely tried but I'm obviously failing to get you to understand what I'm on about. Maybe someone else with better communicative skills than I will have better luck. I don't think we should do this anymore because it's just going to end up making both of us in different ways look bad.

[drifand]

Something I finally can agree on. Let's move on.

Besides not as if I can stop bay from making his 5th nor beg you to stop watching.

[Trent]

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/head-bash.gif (http://www.sherv.net/)

[Smint]

It does amuse me however, that so many folk that have hated a few 2-hour-something movies have probably spent probably 10 times longer talking about why they hated them than actually watching the movies themselves

It's a bit like with Athiesm. A passionate athiest still thinks about gods all the time, albiet in terms of denying their existence. Then you have other forms of athiest who have just dismissed the idea of gods altogether so much that the topic never even enters their mind. There are some who hate the movies so much they have turned it into a consuming passion - often talking about them far more than people that loved the flicks! Then there are others who didn't like the movies so much they have put them from mind and wouldn't even consider bothering to chat about them.


I've seen them all. Am i allowed to talk about how i hate them?

What amuses me is that you post on a transformers forum, in a thread discussing the pros and cons of michael bay and have to ask why we're discussing the pros and cons of michael bay. :confused:

I have no idea what you're on about with atheism and Michael bay movies.

Is it wrong people want a better transformer movie and want to discuss it?

Perhaps try reading the actual points that were made in the last few pages about why people are not happy with the movies. Or you could raise points of your own as to why bayformers are great.

[BigTransformerTrev]

I've seen them all. Am i allowed to talk about how i hate them?

What amuses me is that you post on a transformers forum, in a thread discussing the pros and cons of michael bay and have to ask why we're discussing the pros and cons of michael bay. :confused:

I have no idea what you're on about with atheism and Michael bay movies.

Is it wrong people want a better transformer movie and want to discuss it?

Perhaps try reading the actual points that were made in the last few pages about why people are not happy with the movies. Or you could raise points of your own as to why bayformers are great.

Haha! Oh god here we go again!

Discuss it all you like! I'm not saying you are wrong to do so or that your opinions of the movie are wrong. Nor did I ask why you were debating it. I was demonstrating how some people hate the movies and nearly a year after the last one are talking about their dislike, while others that disliked it just never want to think about the movies again. The atheist thing was an example of similar behaviour to help illustrate what I was on about. I'm not saying the movies are great or trying to convince you of such a fact. It was an observation of behaviour - not a judgement of it.

Really, this is not that hard a concept to understand folks :rolleyes:

[Bladestorm]

At the end of the day, the fact the movies generate such heated opinions and discussion is probably a successful thing.

They may not be memorable in the RIGHT ways depending on your point of view, but they are memorable enough to cause some kind of emotional sentiment about them.

And let's face it - for Bay - any marketing is going to be good marketing because it does put the films out there. People will watch because they like Transformers. People will watch for the mindless non-storyline action and explosions. People will watch because of all the criticism and can't believe a movie about such cool childhood toys could possibly be THAT bad... For him it's a win-win whatever any of us think.

[drifand]

^ I have no dispute on his attempt. It was at least a good effort. I only wished it was better.

[Starscream77]

Haha! Oh god here we go again!

Discuss it all you like! I'm not saying you are wrong to do so or that your opinions of the movie are wrong. Nor did I ask why you were debating it. I was demonstrating how some people hate the movies and nearly a year after the last one are talking about their dislike, while others that disliked it just never want to think about the movies again. The atheist thing was an example of similar behaviour to help illustrate what I was on about. I'm not saying the movies are great or trying to convince you of such a fact. It was an observation of behaviour - not a judgement of it.

Really, this is not that hard a concept to understand folks :rolleyes:

Quit while your behind big fella, your point is clearly sailing over people's heads

My personal opinion I expressed when I saw the movie. Done. Feel no need to drum on about it either way a year later. Snore fest

[BigTransformerTrev]

Quit while your behind big fella, your point is clearly sailing over people's heads

My personal opinion I expressed when I saw the movie. Done. Feel no need to drum on about it either way a year later. Snore fest

Heh - yep! I really didn't think it was difficult a concept but I guess I'd best go back to your tack and be an entertained observer, otherwise as Trent so succinctly pointed out -


http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/head-bash.gif (http://www.sherv.net/)

- I'm just going to be doing the debating version of this to folk, when I was never even trying to debate or question their opinions in the first place :p

So go for your life kids! Love or hate the movie till the cows come home! No judgement from me (not that there really was in the first place. I did say I was amused but then when my toddler dances to the Wiggles I am amused by his behavior and it certainly doesn't mean I'm judging him negatively for it - it just makes me grin :D)

[drifand]

Coffee? Anyone?

[Tetsuwan Convoy]

Slightly going back to a Trev post er... somewhere back there,
I saw the movies and hated them, but I feel that I have got my amusement from talking about how bad they are. Oh and my money's worth too. Although I didn't pay ;), so yay for free tickets.

To me, Bay films seem to be a random collection of action scenes that looks cool, and someone has to string them together somehow. Transformers especially so.

90% of atheists agree too.

[Paulbot]

Just saw some of ROTF (it's on Go! right now) and I know it's an unpopular opinion but I'd have liked to see more of Leo.

Second thought, watching them run around the desert I wonder how this movie would look if the colours of this movie were made more natural rather than the blue/orange colour grading (Like that Man of Steel in Colour video that went around a few weeks ago).

[Sinnertwin]

Second thought, watching them run around the desert I wonder how this movie would look if the colours of this movie were made more natural rather than the blue/orange colour grading (Like that Man of Steel in Colour video that went around a few weeks ago).

Damn you, Michael Bay! Sucking the colour out of the Transformers movies. Grumble grumble *waves fist* 👊

[GoktimusPrime]

I'm all for the globalisation of the franchise. They under-utilised Hong Kong (most of the fighting scenes are Detroit/Chicago staged to look like a Chinatown which is NOTHING like real HK)
It was explained that it's because they couldn't actually close off streets to shoot scenes. Apparently people were still walking through sets while they were filming, whereas in other countries like the U.S., you can block off the entire area and anyone who's not involved in the production have to make massive detours. Looks nothing like Hong Kong? Bay can't even get the geography of his own country right! In Revenge of the Fallen, the Smithsonian is shown to be in the middle of an Arizonian desert... in Washington D.C.! Also, Sam is living in D.C. in DotM and you can see skyscrapers in the background, despite the fact that Washington D.C. has none.

Btw, you might like this if you haven't already seen it:
AoE Honest Trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz5vEfa7UvI) ;)


http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/head-bash.gif (http://www.sherv.net/)
^lol.

[BigTransformerTrev]

Slightly going back to a Trev post er... somewhere back there,
I saw the movies and hated them, but I feel that I have got my amusement from talking about how bad they are. Oh and my money's worth too. Although I didn't pay ;), so yay for free tickets.

90% of atheists agree too.

Oh. My. God.

Someone who didn't like the movie that actually understood what I was saying and therefore didn't feel insulted by it! :eek:

Can I frame you on my wall for the novelty value TC? :p

With the atheist thing, I used to be one of those passionate atheists who yelled from the mountain tops - now I've met too many cool religious people so it's something I still believe but don't really think about or talk about much these days.

I must be one of the 10% of them that didn't mind the flicks ;)

[Smint]

I honestly dont mind how awful the designs are or how different the personality of optimus is compared to how we all know him. I just want a good movie.

If its done right this could be a whole other universe of TF. One filled with scrapyard robots, toilet humour and ethnic stereotypes but i can overlook that if the movie is overall good.

If the movie is terrible AND they include all those changes to TF then that gets me annoyed.

First one was a just pass for me, the rest were all terrible.

Bay should just be a second unit director and do action scenes for the directors who know how to tell a story.

The honest trailer is spot on.

[Bladestorm]

It was explained that it's because they couldn't actually close off streets to shoot scenes. Apparently people were still walking through sets while they were filming, whereas in other countries like the U.S., you can block off the entire area and anyone who's not involved in the production have to make massive detours. Looks nothing like Hong Kong? Bay can't even get the geography of his own country right! In Revenge of the Fallen, the Smithsonian is shown to be in the middle of an Arizonian desert... in Washington D.C.! Also, Sam is living in D.C. in DotM and you can see skyscrapers in the background, despite the fact that Washington D.C. has none.

Btw, you might like this if you haven't already seen it:
AoE Honest Trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz5vEfa7UvI) ;)


^lol.

Honestly, I don't think the fact they couldn't close off streets is an excuse.
Where they do use real HK the scenes are really good (visually)...
AoE isn't the first action movie to be shot here ... and other directors have been able to (and still do) fully utilise the city even with the "open road" policy.
So in some ways I feel like Bay has used that and the air con incident as a bit of a cop out.

Honest Trailers rule. I saw the honest trailer for AoE when it first came out... so worth watching... almost better than the movie! ;)

[UltimateGalvatron]

Honest Trailers rule. I saw the honest trailer for AoE when it first came out... so worth watching... almost better than the movie! ;)

Yeah I know Honest Trailers, How it Should have ended and Everything Wrong With are the best! Especially bagging out the Bay movies which I don't hate as much as most.

[Paulbot]

Interesting article from Wired about Industrial Light and Magic (http://www.wired.com/2015/05/inside-ilm/) had two interesting Michael Bay anecdotes.


BAY: A lot of artists worked on Optimus’ face. Getting it right was very important. But it’s like a bad face-lift. And I’m there meeting with the artists and we can’t figure out why it doesn’t look right.

PHILLIPS: One of our technical directors—the artist who designs how parts move relative to each other—is a guy named Keiji.

BAY: Keiji wasn’t even on Optimus’ face, but he had a meltdown.

KEIJI YAMAGUCHI (TECHNICAL ANIMATOR): I wanted Optimus Prime to look like a hero, but he didn’t, and I exploded. It was very gentle; I wanted the transformation to be huge, like a wrestler in a sumo ceremony. I said, “You’re insulting the Japanese idea of animation.”

PHILLIPS: Nobody talks to Michael Bay like that.

BAY: I just smiled and I’m like, “Oh my God, I want you to do Optimus Prime.” So he took it and fixed the face. And he also was the genius who helped us figure out how to take these 10,000 parts and make them transform.



WAYNE BILLHEIMER (VFX EXECUTIVE PRODUCER): The second Transformers was my first real working relationship with Bay. I went into a couple of early preproduction meetings with him where I began to get what was going on: “I’m going to shoot it, I’m going to give it to you guys, and you guys are going to have to come up with some stuff. It’s going to be brutal.”

BAY: It has gotten heated a few times. Directors like me love our crew and we love the people we work with, but we push ’em and push ’em and push ’em.

BILLHEIMER: There was a point toward the very end of production when he lost it. He had just come from a screening with Jerry Bruckheimer and didn’t have a complete third act. He called me, screaming: “I just saw a movie that I can’t fucking release!” It was nuclear-level Bay screaming. All I could do was scream back at him. There was a good five minutes of screaming along those lines. The next day he goes, “That was a fun little yell yesterday.”

BAY: They never let you down.

BILLHEIMER: He gets very hot very fast, and very sweary, which is always entertaining.

PHILLIPS: He’s a tyrant. He’s a nonstop string of obscenities. He’ll berate you and tell you you’re an idiot. But he always makes your shot better.

BILLHEIMER: And the movie makes a billion dollars.

[Magnus]

It was explained that it's because they couldn't actually close off streets to shoot scenes. Apparently people were still walking through sets while they were filming, whereas in other countries like the U.S., you can block off the entire area and anyone who's not involved in the production have to make massive detours. Looks nothing like Hong Kong? Bay can't even get the geography of his own country right! In Revenge of the Fallen, the Smithsonian is shown to be in the middle of an Arizonian desert... in Washington D.C.! Also, Sam is living in D.C. in DotM and you can see skyscrapers in the background, despite the fact that Washington D.C. has none.



Honestly, I don't think the fact they couldn't close off streets is an excuse.
Where they do use real HK the scenes are really good (visually)...
AoE isn't the first action movie to be shot here ... and other directors have been able to (and still do) fully utilise the city even with the "open road" policy.
So in some ways I feel like Bay has used that and the air con incident as a bit of a cop out.

Now I'm thinking that there was meant to be a transition or brief montage of the team chasing Jetfire across America, ending up in the boneyard in Arizona, and it was cut for whatever reason (remember, this movie was being edited literally hours before its premiere).

As for Washington, alternative locations are used all the time for whatever reason, and I suspect that if one looked hard or closely enough, one could see clues in every movie as to its filming location, so this seems like an odd reason to criticise Bay.

Perhaps the HK locations didn't allow the angles he wanted or the equipment needed wouldn't fit. I have no idea.

After all, Robocop wasn't filmed in Detroit. ;)

[drifand]

I actually don't care about where it was shot, it is the story line that is very weak, and putting in things that is not of the transformers making it bad.

Like Goki has pointed, the only Transformer that even seem to have a character is only Optimus. And he is one of the only Transformers whether Autobot or Decepticon have a face similiar to to anime/cartoon.

Some of the other characters are just horrid, Italian voices not needed, Que was ugly as hell like they can't do a wheeljack. Ironhide was almost the next decent bot that they also killed off. Then you get new bots poping out but no history what so ever and you are just expected to "go with it"

The humans on the other hand, too much to say, I seem to know them better than the Autobots or decepticons in the movie.

[GoktimusPrime]

I can accept butt-ugly bots so long as the story is good. Just look at Transmutate. :) Some people initially considered Beast Wars Transformers to be 'ugly' too (re: Trukk Not Munky) - and heck, even as an avid BW fan myself, I gotta say that the Fuzors and Transmetal 2s are pretty darn ugly - but it's proven to be one of the best stories written for Transformers ever. :) Armadaverse uses more orthodox (i.e. Japanese mecha) style aesthetics, but the cartoon stories are comparatively rather weak.

[drifand]

[QUOTE=GoktimusPrime;472364]I can accept butt-ugly bots so long as the story is good. QUOTE]

Here's the thing, if its a good looking bot, means kids will want one. So if there is more effort in making their faces cooler, they will make more money than a toy where people may pass.

Just look at Iron man's hulkbuster. I can't get the image just forgotten whereas some chracters in TF movies are easily not remembered.

The Dinobots were okay, just that the rest are questionable. Probably a handful I could remember, but guess what? I can remember all the humans easily.

[Smint]

I think what's really lacking for me about the designs and the faces in particular is they all look the same.

There's too much detail, too many lines, too many edges, ridges. Its too busy. And that makes telling the faces apart difficult because there's nothing instantly recognisable.

The other thing is Bay's fast editing makes it even harder to see the face.

And here's my point without being able to recognise the expressions on their faces its that much harder to make a connection with them. They're characterless robots.

I think it was a good idea that Optimus actually has a face. We need to see him talk and convey expression. And it's just as important to see this when the TF's are doing battle. The designs and Bay's fast editing just makes this impossible.

Its why Sam Raimi had Spiderman lose parts of his mask in the Spiderman movies. So you could actually see and feel what the character is feeling.

[Magnus]

I agree that the robots are visually 'busy', but I suspect that that was intentional. It showcases the robots' complexity and reminds us that these are large, complex machines, as opposed to the boxy, inflexible G1 designs from Marvel/Sunbow.

In the same vein, the odd, gangly proportions and angular, complex faces reinforce the point that these are alien robots. That's probably why the faces are hard to 'track' in fast action sequences. It's easier following faces in general during longer or 'calmer' shots, and to the filmmakers' credit, action shots are easier to follow in the sequels.

The other thing is that the complex designs mean the character models have a lot of freedom of movement without joints 'cheating' or solid parts stretching or flexing. How many times in G1 or Beast Wars have we seen joints 'float' or solid pieces warp or twist to allow a character to move?

[Megatran]

The other thing is Bay's fast editing makes it even harder to see the face.

On the other extreme is the slo-mo of the likes of Megan Fox running. And yes its even harder to see the face.

[Yongeltron]

I agree that the robots are visually 'busy', but I suspect that that was intentional. It showcases the robots' complexity and reminds us that these are large, complex machines, as opposed to the boxy, inflexible G1 designs from Marvel/Sunbow.

In the same vein, the odd, gangly proportions and angular, complex faces reinforce the point that these are alien robots. That's probably why the faces are hard to 'track' in fast action sequences. It's easier following faces in general during longer or 'calmer' shots, and to the filmmakers' credit, action shots are easier to follow in the sequels.

The other thing is that the complex designs mean the character models have a lot of freedom of movement without joints 'cheating' or solid parts stretching or flexing. How many times in G1 or Beast Wars have we seen joints 'float' or solid pieces warp or twist to allow a character to move?

These are the exact things that I find appealing about the movie bots. I like the complexity and their alien forms. This was particularly drawn into focus for me in AoE when you compare Bee's "classic" face to the faces of Drift, Hound and Crosshairs. They're all basically just humans with faces made out of metal. Bee actually looks like a robot alien.

I don't think the solution is necessarily to just give them human faces like in AoE. As long as you can give them clear and distinctive features without too much visual noise and complexity. I hate to say it, but the Twins are a good example. As awful as it was, you could definitely tell you were looking at faces.

Distinctive colour identification of characters makes a big difference in action shots. It's just a shame that they didn't do with the AOE dinobots what they did with the toys (obviously it would have to be toned-down for the screen).

[GoktimusPrime]

The AoE Dinobots actually are coloured like the toys, but they're so toned down that you can barely notice it. But it's there if you look close enough. They're more like... grey with tinges of colour. Or as Sam Witwicky would say:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/avatars/meme_customfaded_zps2b0zjkaq.jpg

[BigTransformerTrev]

On the other extreme is the slo-mo of the likes of Megan Fox running. And yes its even harder to see the face.

Bwah haha! Nice! :D

[griffin]

For the Michael Bay fans out there, tonight on channel seven, the movie "13 Hours" is on, from about 9.30pm.
This was one of just two non-Transformers movies that Michael Bay directed during his 10 year run on Transformers... neither of which raked in huge amounts at the box office.

It's interesting to see that Michael Bay has only ever directed 13 movies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bay_filmography), and five of them (almost 40% of his directing experience) were Transformers movies.
His box office average though is still pretty impressive, despite a fairly poor average to his review ratings.

[M-bot]

For the Michael Bay fans out there, tonight on channel seven, the movie "13 Hours" is on, from about 9.30pm.
This was one of just two non-Transformers movies that Michael Bay directed during his 10 year run on Transformers... neither of which raked in huge amounts at the box office.

It's interesting to see that Michael Bay has only ever directed 13 movies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bay_filmography), and five of them (almost 40% of his directing experience) were Transformers movies.
His box office average though is still pretty impressive, despite a fairly poor average to his review ratings.

I got through about half of 13 Hours on Netflix a while back... It's not bad, but there are some lazy character and story-telling elements in there that made finishing the film low down on my priority list. Like all Bay films though, it looks spectacular, and there's the usual glorification of the military that can be a bit sickening (especially for non-'Muricans).

Was the other film he made during the TF years "Pain and Gain" (or something like that)? I've read theories about that film that fit into my ideas about Bay as a film maker, especially with regards to his TF work - i.e. that what he's doing might look superficially bad, but his movies are actually cleverly and deliberately perverse.

[BigTransformerTrev]

It's interesting to see that Michael Bay has only ever directed 13 movies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bay_filmography), and five of them (almost 40% of his directing experience) were Transformers movies.

I had no idea it was that few! He’d certainly made s big name for himself pre-TF movies with so few under his belt then

[SharkyMcShark]

I had no idea it was that few! He’d certainly made s big name for himself pre-TF movies with so few under his belt then

He has produced a significant amount too, recently.