Blackout was killed in the first Transformers movie my Lennox and a squadron of F22 Raptors. His body was seen buried at the bottom of the sea. The helicopter Decepticon in Revenge of the Fallen who looks similar (but not identical) to Blackout is Grindor... who was killed by Optimus Prime in the forest when he tore his head apart with his hooks.
Okay, but to be fair, I haven't seen anyone here nitpick it in terms of comparing it with G1. With the first movie we had some people who did that with comments like "I hate Optimus Prime's chopper flames," "Why isn't Megatron a gun?," "Why isn't Barricade a pink and blue F-1 racer?" etc. -- but I don't recall seeing too many comments here like that. Unless I'm missing comments like, "Why isn't Sentinel Prime more yellow/orange?", "Why isn't Leadfoot an F-1 race car?", "Why isn't Roadbuster an armoured jeep?", "Why isn't Laserbeak a cassette tape?" "Why doesn't Shockwave transform into a space gun?" (oh wait, Shockwave doesn't transform into anything... (-_-)) etc.Originally Posted by Mr Ed
The criticisms I've been reading have been about the movie as a Transformers movie in its own right and not necessarily expecting it to be G1. People are allowed to have opinions.
Really? He was definitely there. Particularly when the 'Cons had rounded up the Autobots as POWs and started executing them -- then the humans started shooting at them and Barricade got shot in the eye, allowing Bumblebee and the other Autobot prisoners to fight back.Originally Posted by Decepticon
The worm would've been a whole lot cooler if it were actually a Transformer. Like even if Shockwave transformed into his alt mode and could bore under ground -- even if he's a lot smaller, he could still present a credible threat and I would've preferred it. *sigh* The comics explain that the worm was a creature from Cybertron which Shockwave keeps as a pet... but of course, the movie doesn't give an exposition for this so audiences who haven't read the comics would be left wondering. Shockwave was reduced to the level of "Rancor Keeper." Such a massive downgrade from what he was in G1 (especially in the comics).Originally Posted by Decepticon
On one hand I agree -- as I've said before, Dark of the Moon does capture the basic spirit of the G1 cartoon well, and arguably offers more plot and development than the G1 'toon. But on the other hand, the G1 comics - which a lot of G1 fans prefer over the cartoon (including myself) - did have pretty decent plot and character development. Better than what we see in the movies.
IMO the movies might have been goodererer if they'd tried to capture the spirit of the comics rather than the cartoon. But on the other hand, while that might please us fans because we have familiarity with the comics, a lot of Joe/Jane Average non-fan movie goers may not be as familiar with the comics and be more familiar with the cartoon.
So on one hand, if the movies are more like the G1 cartoon and ends up being shallow, then people whinge about it, but then if they attempted to match the depth that the G1 comics had, then they would have less familiarity with non-fan audiences. And the success of this movie franchise has been its popularity with the general public and not only fans. When I the movie, I reckon Fonecrusher, mknell, 1AZRAEL1 and I were possibly the only fans in the cinema. Either that, or any other fans in there were really shy -- because from 22:00-23:30 we were playing Transformers Monopoly in the foyer decked out in TF clothes with TF music blasting away, and inside the theatre we played Transformers Trivia, and I did say that anyone could join in and try to answer the questions and that I had prizes to give away, which was true. But I didn't give any away because nobody other than ourselves bothered to participate in the triv game. There _might_ have been other fans in the audience, but my guess would be that most likely there probably weren't. :/ But I digress...
Having said that, just because you're basing a story on the G1 cartoon doesn't mean it can't be well written. And movie writers have MUCH greater freedom than G1 writers because G1 was created as toys first, then the writers had to write stories based on those toys to promote them. Hasbro would dictate which characters needed to be removed or inserted into the story and when. That's why if you look at stories like Transformers The Movie, a lot of characters that were killed or rebuilt were toys that Hasbro no longer wanted to market because they were no longer current (e.g. Brawn, Ironhide, Ratchet, Optimus Prime, Megatron, Thundercracker, Skywarp, Starscream, Wheeljack, Windcharger, the Insecticons etc.) and introduced current/new toys (e.g. Ultra Magnus, Rodimus Prime, Galvatron, Scourge, Cyclonus, Springer, Kup, Blurr etc.) With the live action movies, Paramount makes the story first, then Hasbro has to figure out how to engineer toys based on Dreamworks' designs.
Like the random mooks in Austin Powers!Originally Posted by Decepticon
Okay, not every character needs to be developed, but at least a select core of characters should be - because it's characted development that drives the story. Let's take any of the new characters introduced in Dark of the Moon and describe them without talking about what they look like, what they transform into or what they do in the story. In other words, describe their character.
For example, Sentinel Prime:
Sentinel Prime is a stoic, respected and authoritative figure. Whereas Optimus Prime is driven by an altruistic sense of ethics (selfless concern for the welfare of others), Sentinel Prime is driven by utilitarian morality (the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few), although his utilitarianism is skewed by his belief that Transformers are inherently superior to the expendable fleshlings of Earth whom he believes should worship the Transformers as gods and work as their slaves (thus it could be argued that Sentinel's ethics is based on utilitarianism but diluted with some authoritarianism or totalitarianism (probably the former)). Sentinel Prime does feel inherent loyalty to the Autobot cause, but has had to compromise his standards in making a deal with Megatron and the Decepticons with the ultimate goal of saving Cybertron. So we can see that Sentinel's morality has also been "corrupted" into consequentialism (the ends justify the means) - which is something that the altruistic Optimus Prime refuses to accept (and thus continues to defy his former leader and mentor). Sentinel Prime can be seen as a somewhat tragic or fallen hero -- deep down we can see his utilitarian heart, but it has been "tainted". He may have been Sentinel Prime... but he had become Nemesis Prime.
Okay, now pick ANY of the new characters introduced in Dark of the Moon (robot or human) and describe them without talking about how they look like what they transform into, what they physical capabilities/weaknesses are or what they actually do in the film.
The comics came before the cartoon, actually. And being fans of the Transformers doesn't necessarily mean that we are only fans of giant robots fighting each other.Originally Posted by Decepticon
Why do so many fans prefer the G1 comics over the cartoon? Why is Beast Wars so widely respected? Speaking of characters, Dinobot and Waspinator were both voted into Hasbro's TF Hall of Fame (despite attempts at making this year's HoF into a farce with the Erector nomination )
I quite like the movie too - and there are lots of positive things about it (which I've already mentioned before)... and IMO the positives outweigh the negatives (otherwise I wouldn't like the movie! As it is I can't wait to see it again on Saturday! ). But that's not to say that I'm unaware of some of its flaws.Originally Posted by Decepticon
I mean, I really love the Lord of the Rings trilogy too, but I can also see some of its weaknesses (seriously... WHY did the Elves go to Helm's Deep?! Why the face?! ) </rhetorical.question>
True. Michael Bay did bring a lot of good things to the franchise -- he certainly made Transformers VERY popular again in the mainstream. His links with the military has been a big asset... he was the first director who was permitted to film F22 Raptors (arguably the best jet fighter in the world today)! His decision to use low-angle shots has just been awesome because it really made the Transformers look like giant freakin' robots, which they are! But other TF franchises just don't quite give you that same sense of scale. The low angles allows the audience to see the Transformers from a human's POV and remind us that these are really BIG @$$ robots!
I know some people don't like his fast and furious blurry looking fight sequences, but I do - because:
a: Real fights are fast and furious. If you've ever seen a street brawl (either IRL or on TV/video) they're just all over the place... it's messy.
b: Again, gives sense of scale. Imagine two people having a brawl, but imagine looking at them from an ant's POV. All you would see are giant body parts flying past you in a blurr!
I can't stand the unrealistically "clean" looking fight sequences used in many other movies, especially so-called "martial arts" films. <shudder>
And to give Michael Bay credit, it does seem that he has learnt from some of his mistakes in DotM. For example no more extensive pointless juvenile humour. No robot peeing, no giant janglies, no humping, no drug-jokes. Okay, there's still humour, but even the most juvenile jokes don't drag on. Look at that scene in the toilet cubicle where Wang gets all "close and cosy" and semi-nekkid with Sam... that got big laughs, but not only that, it contributed to the story. Wang was giving Sam vital information so that he could hopefully use it to stop the Decepticons - which was a pretty bold move from him (and he paid the ultimate price). Also, he didn't have silly things happening when important expositions were being presented (e.g. farting a parachute). Overall DotM didn't drag on like RotF did -- I found it far more engaging.
That's true. 1986's Transformers The Movie was actually a box office failure despite being completely within the TF lore than fans knew -- but while fans may have loved TFTM, non-fans didn't. Even today I don't know how many people who aren't TF fans would enjoy sitting down and watching TFTM. But having said that, it's still no excuse for a poor story (not necessarily saying that the DotM story was poor - I think it was alright - but just saying that it doesn't justify its weaknesses).
Just because the franchise needs to appeal to the movie going public, doesn't mean that fans ought to lower their standards. Look at X-Men for example... it successfully appealed to both fans and the movie-going public. It maintained a pretty good storyline with substantial development of core characters while still remaining true to the spirit of the X-Men franchise. The Lord of the Rings is another example -- quite a lot of things were changed for the benefit of the general audience e.g. replacing Glorfindel with Arwen and giving her a MUCH more significant role than she originally had! The romance between Aragorn and Arwen is only briefly mentioned/seen in the books, yet it's really prominent in the films because Hollywood audiences like to see romance. But despite this, the LotR trilogy still gave us a really good story with definitive character development (I personally wish they'd left in the Scouring of the Shire - but then some people argue that it would've been a turn off for general audiences who might then see Frodo's entire quest as an act of futility).Originally Posted by Shirokaze
Fans should definitely have realistic expectations when adapting a franchise for a general audience, e.g. Wolverine can't wear yellow spandex, Megatron can't be a gun etc., but it doesn't mean we can't expect greatness.