Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by NathimusPrime, Jan 28, 2013.
worked in tim burtons batman,
No movie should require me to become a zombie to be remotely enjoyable.
But we already have a movie full of quotes from the '86 movie. The '86 movie. And it was terrible.
Well, the TF movies don't. So I don't see the problem.
The movies aren't asking you to not think. They're asking you to not take it so damn seriously.
Totally untrue. If you had said Azazel from X-Men then that'd make sense, but Joker's comic book self could be amazing in movies. Tim Burton's movie was similar and was great and the Arkham games' Joker gave us a glimpse on just how perfect he could be in a non-comic setting. I'd take Arkham's Joker in a movie over Heath Ledger's Joker any day.
Nothing is perfect in the world.
TF1 was good
TF2 was a stinking toliet (something I would agree to with other people)
TF3 reiveved my hopes for the franchise by a little
So I wonder what TF4 will be?
This....people need to quit bitchin and enjoy the fact that we're getting live action Transformers films. And by the way, I liked Skids and Mudflap too.
Too bad. I'm sorry that she had to corrupted like that. But I digress.
I guess Scooby-Doo fans should've enjoyed the two steaming shitpiles they got for films by that logic. And Joe fans for getting RoC. So on and so forth.
"So what if this Hershey's bar spent the past three hours between my asscheeks? Just enjoy the fact you have chocolate."
The philosophy you're presenting is so flawed that I doubt even you live by it. More likely, you're just shooting off nonsense because you don't like how a lot of people have an opposing opinion.
Scooby-Doo was made for an age range of 6-8 and was never meant to be anything more than lighthearted fun of kids always defeating the bad guys.
Transformers on the other hand was targetted at primarily 8-13 year old boys. As such... what do we get when they try to make a live action movie? we get what everyone thinks all teenage boys want to see... some female acting dumb and flirty.
With Scooby-Doo they were targetting a different age range and the films are actually fun for all age ranges while the Transformers films are not. Thats why Scooby-Doo has an animated movie every year and has had four live action movies (the first two of which were shown in cinemas and recieved very possitive reactions from fans)
I dont see anyone ever saying "Oh look at that Scooby-Doo film they totally didnt have enough scenes of Scooby-Doo" or "Look at that dog humping another dog" or "Daphne was only added for sex appeal"
Atleast with Scooby-Doo it was fun and it wasnt a complete destruction of everything people loved about the franchise.
Oh and G.I.Joe failed mostly due to the fact it was made into an action flick. As an action flick on its own it is fun and enjoyable and there are many different plot points and characters. As a new comer to the series it actually made me want to go out and read the comics that it was based on. The same cannot be said for Transformers where as a new comer to the series you have no clue about anything other than Decepticons are bad for reasons
I'm sure 'The Last Airbender' fans were telling each other that too. Right up until they saw the live-action film they got.
Being grateful just for the fact that something exists, regardless of quality, is a poor argument.
Here's your new home. So what if the roof leaks, the walls are crumbling, it's infested with rats, smells of piss, has used needles scattered everywhere and there's a serial killer living in the bedroom. Be grateful you got a home at all. Never mind the fact that others are getting much better homes.
I haven't found a League of Extraordinary Gentlemen fan yet who was overjoyed that Hollywood took an amazingly cool comic book and turned it into something that only shared some names with the comic book.
BloodRayne fans weren't dancing in the street over whatever that was Uwe Boll called a movie.
When GI Joe fans bumped into each other after Rise of Cobra they would say "what movie?" in the hopes that somehow we could purge it from our memory if we all agreed it never happened.
If a movie gives people what they wanted out of a film and includes the stuff they loved then by all means enjoy. But don't ask people to love something just because it has Fantastic Four, Lost in Space, or Wolverine slapped on the title somewhere.
Reminds me of Revenge of the Fallen -shudders-
What's 'Revenge of the Fallen'?
I actually enjoyed ROC far more than ANY of the TF movies. I thought it was actually fairly well done, other than I'd prefer more traditional, and less "sci-fi" vehicles...
But back to topic... Everyone keeps saying they want a better TF movie. They want a "perfect" Transformer movie... What IS the perfect transformer movie?
The 1986 movie wasn't perfect.
The 3 part More Than Meets The Eye G1 pilot wasn't perfect.
Bayformers 1, 2, & 3 are just as flawed as the 1986 movie.
How do you make the "perfect" Transformers movie in under 3 hours? What would it have in it? How much "cybertronian politics" does it have? How much human interaction is there? Is it a near perfect translation of the source material a la "Silence of the Lambs" or does it capture the spirit but take liberties, a la "Marvel's Avengers"?
Playing Devil's Advocate, here, it's very difficult to take material that is already extremely weak (face it, other than the car to robot gimmick, Transformers fiction is very weak) and turn it into The Lord of the Rings. The entire draw of Transformers is a combination of the puzzle changing robot to vehicle, and the "Rock-em sock-em Robots". Also remember that movies have to appeal to the largest audience they can in 3 hrs or less, and meet a realistic budget, in an attempt NOT to please the fandom, but to MAKE MONEY. BUTTLOADS of money. Lets say the hardcore fandom of Transformers is 200,000 people (being VERY generous here) who will see the movie three or more times. Is the studio going to cater to them, or to the 50+ million of casual fans or newbies that just want to watch a summer flick with good special effects?
Not saying the studio couldn't find a better balance, but I'm just throwing out ideas.
I think if they went with more traditional, solid-looking Transformers rather than the spare-parts-sculpture look, they would have had more money for longer robot effects. I'm not saying G1 blocks, but more humanoid and defined, similar to the comics. It would have also made battles between characters easier to figure out, rather than look like a grinding of random metal parts. Some bots looked fine (Barricade and Sideswipe - tho Sideswipe should have been red), while others looked nothing like a Transformer (Starscream, for example). Transformations should take 3 to 5 seconds of screen time, not 15 to 30 seconds. We didn't need to see every gear slide into place on Optimus every film. They are an alien species, we don't need to see how they do it. Takes some of the mysticism out of them and makes them seem more like technology and less like cybernetic organisms.
I disagree. We're getting live action movies, and they've proven themselves as profitable, now we need to be pushing for them to be even better, or it's less likely there will ever been any incentive for improvement, and the franchise will stagnate. Once the films start to show diminishing returns, it's entirely likely we won't even get any more live action movies anymore. Unless of course, they can continue to perform by improving themselves.
as far as I am concerned, the 1986 movie is just as flawed as the live action films.
The 1986 movie killed all my childhood heroes in the first 5 minutes... and not just all at once explosion, but slow, dramatic, flames coming out of the mouth, holes blown into them, painful deaths. Then, while I was still reeling from the loss, they try to replace proven charismatic characters with a bunch of bland personalities in neon colors. I was 8 when the movie came out, and it was quite shocking, in the 80's world of He-Man, Rainbow Brite, Smurfs, Popples, Carebears, etc, to suddenly see cartoon characters viciously murdered in graphic detail.
The storyline was ridiculous, human (Daniel) was annoying and ridiculous, and other than nostalgia, it doesn't hold up as well as most other 80's movies.
Fast forward several decades, and Michael Bay has made 3 ridiculous movies, but the worse thing Bay did was the teen love & crass "humor". The stories of the movies would fit in perfectly within any of the Transformers fiction.
Having fairly weak and light source material might not be such a bad thing when hammering out a movie. Take the original Star Wars movies. Basically taking universal themes like the farm boy who becomes a hero and putting those elements into a science fiction setting.
Many of the themes in Transformers are fairly universal such as good vs evil and a society split by war. Really didn't seem like we got much in the way of evil until Laserbeak so the films could have pushed the Decepticons being evil harder than they did.
But even being faithful to source material can still leave a production team room to put their own stamp on something. Peter Jackson was about as faithful to source material as a film can get but since the book ending would be lost on our current society the ending got changed and Gollum ended up as more sympathetic than he did in the books.
jeez, people sorry i started this, all i seem to have done was give people a place to vent, really didnt think it would turn into a 20 page discussion( and i use that term loosely)
Welcome to the movie forum.
Separate names with a comma.