Sometimes storywise, the rebellion of a character or a group of characters is needed to advance the story. Take the 2003 Battlestar Galactica for example. The Cylons tried to wipe out humanity because they felt that, while taking human form made them closer to human, they had to "kill their parents" in oder to evolve to that level in their eyes.
As far as Optimus going to fight the creators, it isn't really that different from the G1 cartoon where the Consumer Goods/Autobots and the Military Hardware/Decepticons fought against the Quintisons to gain their freedom.

 

But the reason it's so juvenile in the movies is because it's accompanied a generally anti-authoritarian mindset and carried out by the most endlessly myopic wish fulfillment character of all time.

 

Ok how are they exactly anti-authoritarian? Also why do you claim that Movie Optimus has "Daddy issues" with the creators when we don't even know how Optimus is connected to them,why he stopped working for them and doesn't remember why? I'm sorry but your posts are now starting to be something out of an angry soccer mother article.

 

It's not the same symbolically, because so far you're the only one (that I've read or heard on the forums or real life) that sees it that way. If it was meant to be a symbol, how can the rest of us get it wrong?

Apparently Optimus is a tool, built for a purpose and he's not meeting that purpose and he doesn't want to meet that purpose. That is, absolutely, rebellion. But it could be for his own freedom, not because he's staying up past curfew or getting a tattoo that says "Autobots Rule, Decepticons Drool" on his arm. He's going off to the Creators to find out what they want.

His last comment was "stay away from Earth, I'm coming for you" was basically "stop sending your hired help to come get me, I'll meet you instead." It doesn't even indicate he wants to fight them or kill them.

Yes, but I had also stated it, and you ignored it and then brought it up to me again, even though after the fact I was the one that told you how I didn't agree and saw it in a different perspective.

And I still don't agree. Rebelliousness doesn't have to "daddy issues" or a child being upset at their parents, it could be a fight for freedom or even the truth, which the latter is what I feel Optimus is going for.

 

Because every single government and parental figure the POV characters have (or suffer, as it were) are completely incompetent/secretly evil.

First of all we don't know that he "[worked] for them" at all, secondly it's pretty obvious that the Creators didn't just build Optimus specifically, and actually engineered Cybertronians in general.

Thirdly (and most importantly), the specifics of whether they're god proxies or father figures is SO irrelevant; they're the same symbollically.

First I'm a hippy dippy liberal and now I'm an uptight conservative.   Apparently you can't criticize the messages a film puts out without a bajillion political accusations. I could just think these movies have some repugnant things to say, agenda free on my part.

The mental gymnastics... Just so you don't have to concede a minor point...

 

How is that any different from real life governments where many of them are indeed incompetent and/or evil? If anything that's being accurate. Besides before AOE the Autobots had a secret USA army that helped them out some of which came from the government and were pretty useful.

Lockdown was sent to target Optimus specifically because from what Lockdown said Optimus is said to be among a group of knights that went on crusades along with the four Dinobots otherwise Lockdown wouldn't have bothered with him. That hints that there might be a time Optimus worked with them but somehow left and lost his memory according to what Lockdown said to him once believing he was born and not built when it was the other way around. We only got some pieces of the puzzle and we might see it explored later in the future movies.

Also why do you keep assuming that it's bad that Optimus rebelled against the creators since the creators are pretty much likely villains since they sent down a murderous bounty hunter like Lockdown to get him and killed a lot of his friends and murdered an innocent human? That's like saying that the rebels from the original Star Wars movies were bad because they rebelled against the Empire despite the Empire doing evil things.

I never said you couldn't criticize a movie's message at all. It's just that the accusations you made makes no sense to me at all.

 

So the idea that these movies pander to the mindset of teenage boys makes no sense?

Cause... That's how Bay's defended his movies before.

 

I wouldn't let yourselves get dragged into it, guys. Being pulled into fighting against a crusade to prove the intellectual inferiority of fans of the movies is a battle that cannot go anywhere constructive nor enlightening.

I'm comfortable that I'm decently intelligent, generally have good taste (though am prone to guilty pleasures like most people), and my liking the movies gives no one the ability to judge me or look down on me.

This whole thing is absurd, really. Best not to give it more air time.

 

Why take me saying that the movies play to something stupid as you being stupid for indulging in it? People can criticize a movie, and even your reaction to a movie, and still not be criticizing you. Seriously, this whole Movie fan victim card is just... Just so played...

 

Or do what I did and put er on ignore

 

Why do you brag about using your ignore list every time someone you've put there says something...?

"I just do the laziest possible thing!"

- Bellpeppers

 

I won't concede something when I don't agree or share the same opinion as you.

Sorry mate. :/

 

I'm a Bay fan, and I hardly think I'm up in arms.
I'm just taking what has been stated and applied, what I think is reason.
Yes, I'm taking it at face value. But if it's confirmed that he's doing 13 hours, then how is it an less confirmed that he won't do TF5?

If you accept one part of the story, should you not accept the other?
Likewise, if you reject one part of the story then why not reject it all?

If the 2016 release date is firm, and Bay is doing another film then he aint doing TF5.
That's the story.
If everyone agrees to shuffle movies and release dates, then that's a different story.

The way I see it, there's only about 3 - 4 months before TF5 goes into production. It takes a couple years to make a TF film.

 

I think the fact that this rumour has been floating for so long without any kind of official word on it is evidence of something.

Evidence of what, I'm not sure. But forgive me for not trolling this very lengthy thread, but has anyone ese found that odd?

 

As long as it's not Bryan Singer directing TF5, I'm good.

 

Ok, this is starting to bug me:
When its reported in Daily Variety, how is it a rumor and not confirmation?

 

I have no doubt that he said it and Daily Variety reported it. So on that front, all good. But Bay has said the same thing twice before and changed his mind twice. Egos and dollar signs are a dangerous combination. Until we have confirmation from Paramount regarding a new director of the TF film franchise, Bay has to be the odds on favorite.

 

But how many of those times was he attached to another Project?
And, when he was actually attached, wasn't it reported that he's do Pain and Gain 'first', and not 'instead'?

But, I'll concede that the studios could conceivably change release dates and throw a few more millions at Bay.

The question is: will he want to do it? He took a pay cut & agreed to do DOTM for Pain and Gain because that's how much he wanted to do it. He's got 13 Hours that he seems to want to do. No budget info as of yet, so no idea if he takes Directors minimum again.

 

Bay’s likely to stay on as a producer, so I doubt he’s out entirely.

But on the whole, I have mixed feelings about this.

I enjoy what Bay has brought to the franchise – he turned what was a fairly unique cartoon about alien robots that can disguise themselves into vehicles, into a blockbuster sci-fi alien war story. He gave us some great robot designs, some really cool alternate modes and great transformations between robot and vehicle, a great voice cast of old/new favourites, and of course some incredible action sequences.
It was like nothing that I had ever been seen before. He made me believe that almost any action cartoon could be adapted into a badass action film with the right treatment.


But on the other hand, I get an impression that he wants to move on from TF, that he wants to do more with his career besides making these films, and that he doesn’t want to compete with Marvel/DC. He’s already done a trilogy, AND enabled a fourth film that serves as a reboot for a new series. I’m sure that’s more than enough for him.

And I have to admit, AOE didn’t offer much. A wipe-out of all the previous characters, a brand new history, non-existent transformation schemes, almost no Decepticons and prominent human antagonists? It was so unlike TF that it almost put me off. Hopefully a new director can hopefully provide a fresh new direction for the films, ideally into space or featuring more robots.

We’ll just have to wait and see.

 

Well it's been a week and no word from Michael, right? I guess it might be legit this time.