There's a difference between "being realistic" and "looking real".

 

Well, MEGATRON's vehicle mode could be bright pink with green spots. It would be no less 'realsitic' than the gun metal he is now because it's a fictional aircraft and nobody can say with any authority that it "looks wrong".

But, we all know it would still look damn stupid. That's what I took the term 'realistic' to mean when it first surfaced in relation to this film. Something has to look like it could work even if, in 'reality', it couldn't.

 

Megatron's vehicle mode DOESN'T work. Go ahead and question my authority, but I'll be the first one to say "It looks wrong." (No matter WHAT the colors are) It already look pretty darn stupid to me. It's so unrealistic that I have to seriously question Bay's whole spiel regarding realism. According to him, "Picture something transforming at 80mph. That's real." Ok Michael, um, what?

I have to go with Ktulu here. They would have ended up with a better final product if they'd gone the full sci-fi/fantasy route, especially with some real drama mixed in. The frequent witty one-liners and catchphrases may be cute, but tell me -- is that realistic?

Weak. Bay was in debt to the US armed forces for this "unprescedented military cooperation," so I'm not impressed that he hung around to shoot the breeze and pose for some photos. Anyway, that wasn't my point in the first place. I'm not saying Michael Bay is a bad man. I couldn't tell you that. What I CAN tell you, though, is exactly what I already have. After ACTUALLY reading interviews with the guy, I FEEL he comes off as being arrogant. For anything further, go back to my original post.

As far as fans "attacking" Bay, guess what? WE are the customers. We have a right to complain about whatever we want. Michael Bay is immature for reacting in ANY negative way to the opinions he's read or heard. How can anyone justify pulling an attitude with the people you're trying to sell your product to? It's just wrong.

1- No matter how good or bad the movie turns out to be, how do you think fans would react if it read "Transformers: A Uwe Boll Film?" Having a director's name on a movie poster is not always a good thing. In Bay's case, he doesn't have the same kind of track record that someone like Steven Spielberg has, so I'm not impressed at all by seeing his name up there, almost as big as the title of the movie itself.

2- I think he's trying to be hip in his interviews. It's like he's acting as a carricature of himself, trying to appeal to some kind of "cool" crowd. To me, there's something very phony about some of his interviews. It's difficult to describe, but there you have it.

3- X-men focuses mainly on Wolverine and Rogue, but glossed over everyone else. To me, the X-men films are a perfect example of cinematic swill. Everything from characterisation to action to dialogue seemed weak, forced, and poorly executed. I'm not saying Transformers will be THAT bad, but if it shares many elements with the X-films, it's not going to be pretty.

4- Glad you loved the Star Wars prequels and Spidey 3. Dune's probably my favorite film. I can't understand why it's so underrated. A lot of people find it confusing, but it seems pretty simple to me.

5- I don't feel like you're picking on me   Explosions are cool, but here's the problem -- Michael Bay is known for certain elements that appear in each of his films. Personally, those elements turn me off (anything from the over-done explosions to slow-motion character pans). For me, the excitement of explosions, etc, wore off after Terminator 2. Now, THERE's a good movie. Too bad Cameron couldn't have directed Transformers. That was James Cameron, correct? Anyway, I'd gladly lose some explosions in favor of deep character development for the Cybertronians.

6- Thanks. Just got back from the doctor. Massive infection, and now I'm on all sorts of meds for at least 10 days. Hoping to avoid having tubes put into my ears. I've lost my voice and am pretty miserable. Oh well! At least I'll be able to get some new toys tomorrow  

 

Doesn't everyone speak in funny one-liners? I know I do.

 

Not only that but if he's so worried about realism why is he giving Prime a mouth and things of that nature? It kind of goes back and forth. I dont hate Bay personally but as others have said from his previous movies you can expect a lot of action, bad one liners, bad acting and little to no plot. Will it be a bad movie, depends on your POV I guess.

 

To be honest, I don't think highly of Bay. Never have.

However, I'm giving him this chance to prove he can make a decent movie. So far, I'm satisfied. Don't screw this up, man.

 

Uwe Boll?
You think he is as bad as Uwe Boll.
What and also ever.

 

Let's just say I'm about equally impressed by both.

 

No matter how unbeleivably fantastic the basic premise of a movie is, there's always going to be the goal of making it seem beleivable. It's not a matter of downplaying the fantasy, it's a matter of making the fantasy work in the seemingly physical world. Now, whether or not the direction this movie is taking succeeds in that reguard is largely a matter of opinion, though, in my opinion, the current designs are both more fantastic and more believable as transforming alien robots. That's not to say I'm entirely happy with 'em--Starscream in particular--but I do understand what's being attempted here, and appreciate it.

But, then, I'm one of those that feels that Transformers has been in need of a facelift for the last--3 years or so...

 

You got hemo blood on me... oh, it's on.

 

Kaiju:
You ARE being sarcastic, right? I haven't seen, "Godzilla", but the, "Super Mario Bros.", movie SUCKED - as horribly as a Uwe Boll flick, i.e., "House Of The Dead". Thank God Uwe kept his hands off, "Silent Hill"!

 

Cullen

Actually, it's not that confusing, if you know the details behind motion capture vs. voice recording. IOW, the same person may not do both.

 

Hey, EDcomics

Hey EDComics, even though the trailers look cool, and even though I'm still going to see the movie to find out for myself and make my own informed opinion ( I like to be an educated consumer),I still have some issues (which may be premature considering that the movie is not out yet) with what I THINK may be on the finished product, come 7-4-7, as I too, happened to read the script.

I agree with alot of what you said - as far as the explosions thing, and what Bay has said himself, he seems to be the kind of director that fixates on the visual spectacle - well, while film is a visual medium, there's also the element of STORY, which I am not sure if Bay regards with the same passion. Yes, Bay can do a HELL of an action scene, but does he do that at the expense of STORY? Hmmmmmmm........................................................................................I also feel that Bay's heart isn't fully in it, based on what Nelson and Bay himself has said over the past couple years, statements such as, "Initially Bay didn't want to do a 'kid's robot movie", or, "This is going to be the coolest looking movie you're going to see", or the fact that Bay wasn't even interested to any extent until AFTER Hasbro took him to Transformers School. There's another director who seems to think that only things like massive explosions make a film good, and his name is (I even hate saying his name) Uwe Boll.

One of my issues with this film is STILL the designs, especially with the Decepticons. Yes, the Decepticons are evil, but what should make them evil? Their look or their deeds, actions, and mindstate? I think the latter of those two things should constitute if someone is good or evil, rather than just how they look, which once again plays off on ONLY the visual element of film, rather than the STORY element. IF the Transformers are truly MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE, doesn't that mean that we shouldn't know who is good or evil right off by looking at them, but by what their deeds and actions are? Looking at these trailers, it's pretty obvious to tell right away who is evil - Barricade is ugly as hell, as is Megatron, Starscream, and Blackout. It's as if the audience is not allowed to find out for themselves completely who is bad and who is good. Maybe I'm over-reacting, but maybe not. Even if we didn't see Blackout decimating the military base, I could still suspect he was evil, just by his overdone look. Maybe I'm wrong.

Second, it seems there is too much of an emphasis on the human factor. Yes, I know the TFs land on earth. But shouldn't the main focus be on the TFs? I saw the cover of the SciFi Magazine with the Autobot logo on it and the headline said something to the effect of, "Shia LeBoeuf and Megan Fox defend Earth with the help of the Autobots", or something like that.Oooooooooookkkkkkkaaaaayyyyyyy - shouldn't it have read, "The Autobots, with the help of Shia LeBoeuf and Megan Fox, help defend Earth from the Decepticons?" I recall an, "E.T." reference when Sector 7 catches Bumblebee - I can see that to a point, but the point where that reference stops, IMO is this: E.T. was a carbon-based flesh lifeform, whereas Bumblebee is a metal-based synthetic lifeform. Catch my drift? Yes, I do believe the government would intervene, which is one thing the G-1 cartoon didn't factor in (as much as I love G-1 I do admit it had its flaws).

Well, I'll still be in line to see this movie 7-4-7. I just hope that I didn't end up wasting my hard-earned $7.50 when the credits roll.

 

**Content: Spoiler** I may have the different feel to the decepticons, I think Megatron motion is pretty hot, Barricade is dammm sexy , Blackout is pretty damm hot while Frenzy is pretty badass funny cute... except Starscream

 

Reading a movie script doesn't and WON'T give you a good grasp of the movie as a whole. It's only a basic blueprint without the nuances.

It just seems like a tired cliched assumption to say "Too much emphasis on humans" simply because of reading a script. And you yourself admit that you're opinion's probably premature

 

Nice interview.

Liked the bit about referring to the TFs as characters. I know it should be a given, but that's one of the things that has me worried about the movie.

Or:

Person 1: "WOW! I'm going to buy movie Starscream! I think is the best TF ever!"
Person 2: "Stupid fanboy! You'll buy anything Hasbro slaps the TF name on!"

Works both ways.  

I think the all out sci fi stuff should be shown progressively (sp?), just like they did in The Matrix trilogy. That way the concept is sold better ... because we get to see things in an environment that's familiar to us.

You see. I agree we're the customers, and we have every right to complain. But shouldn't we do it once we have an informed opinion on the movie?

I could say that I think "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" (is that the correct name?) it's the worst movie ever based on its visuals, but I don't because I haven't seen it. I guess I'm not the customer of that movie.  

-airfox