Just not a fan of destroy the Earth plot in films because you know there is zero chance now that the villain has even the remotest chance of a win. Once they revealed that Ultron's goal in Avengers 2 was a mass extinction event it felt like the tension was gone from the film because he had already lost.

I think we need a bad bot plot the Decepticons would have a chance at because success would not mean the end of the film franchise. Sure logically we know the good guys are going to win because that's just how the film industry works when it comes to huge budgets. But it seems like films can hold the tension longer when a bad guy win would still be something the heroes can come back from. At least with that a tiny part of your logic can say well what if they pulled an Empire Strikes Back?

 

For me it's not if the heroes will win but rather what will be the consequences what will be the price of victory. I know the decepticons won't destroy the earth though I don't know how much they will destroy a city a country kill a big character. That's the stakes for me not if the good guys will win but what will be the price they pay.

For example they won Dark but Iron hide is dead so is Que Brains and wheelie are believed dead Cybertron is gone and Chicago has been turned into a grave yard. Age Ratchet is dead and so are most of the other autobots Hong Kong has been ravaged and Optimus must leave Earth to insure it isn't targeted by the creators who are after him more so Optimus now knows of the creators and is taking the fight to them.

Those are the consequences to me with Age of Ultron I was certain the Avengers would partially fail likely not rescue everyone on the island resulting in superhero backlash basically what happened in Age of Extinction but it didn't.

Basically my view is the world can be threatened as many times as the creators want so long as they are consequences that when the battle is over the franchise has changed both Dark and Age did this in my opinion.

All though I would be shocked if one of the movies or even any transformer story did have the earth be destroyed I'm not sure how people would respond to that.

 

I just don't think you can destroy the Earth in a Transformers story. Earth just makes too good of a dividing line to say why this group of robots is the good guys and this group of robots is the bad guys. Autobots are hey we need to give the human species a chance while perhaps the best example of evil we had in the films was Laserbeak killing people.

Even Beast Wars without humans showed good guys and bad guys with the Maximals saying we need to save the planet because life on the mud ball was something worth protecting while the Predicons just didn't care about other life forms.

Plus Earth modes always seemed more creative to me. Feels like you can be a bit lazier if the robot mode can turn into something the artist just pulled out of their head instead of a real world vehicle.

 

LOL, SRSLY.

OMFG, if I had a nickel for EVERY TIME I've seen a post by Ash from Carolina complaining about Paramount, rogue's galleries, reboots, "grimdark," etc. in ANY FUCKING THREAD AVAILABLE, lolololol.

And, honestly, he makes some good points here from time-to-time and I'm SURE we're ALL guilty of being Johnny-One-Notes every once in a while...

But OMFG.

Just sayin'!

>_>

 

Ash makes plenty of good points unfortunately what he wants and what i want cannot co exist and I do regret this he's a fan as much as I am and he deserves to be able to enjoy the movies but the ones he wants aren't the ones I want so I can't support them. I am sorry Ash I really am and I hope you do the transformer movie you want someday.

 

Huh. I actually didn't know that Bay didn't use storyboarding, I actually find that surprising for some reason. I'd have figured that since he came from a photographic background, and since his real strength (IMO) lies within framing single shots, that storyboarding would have been a big part of his planning.

I guess it sort of explains his more incoherent action sequences that they were thought out on-site and effectively in real time, however.

 

It is impressive but quite dividing i love it chaotic action is my favorite kind of action.

Hey sorry for the confusion in our previous discussion wasn't my intentions.

 

Bay actually talks a lot about the previz animatics and even displays several of them in the bonus features for the first two films. It's not some sloppy, bullshit improv thing happening onset at the last minute, he actually blocks them out months in advance of shooting the scenes onset and composes the footage irl to match since the FX are already underway and being developed around what he planned to shoot in the first place.

Kind of one of the major points of the video in OP, fwiw.

It is INSANELY involved and laborious work that he can practically do in his sleep and that's just one of the MANY reasons they keep paying him megabucks to come back.

ALMOST NO ONE ELSE WILLING TO TAKE THE JOB CAN DO THIS STUFF.

He REALLY doesn't get enough respect for that from everyone.

Fortunately, job security, movie ticket sales, and his paychecks cover the difference, amirite?

XD

But, srsly, it only makes sense.

As he tells it, no one on-set understands the language of storyboards as well as they do the visual shorthand of animatics. So he's bypassed the useless storyboard phase to put the money and focus where it's REALLY needed so he can show the onset cast and crew what's REALLY going to be going onscreen, while simultaneously using the previz, animatic phase of production to save money otherwise wasted on useless storyboards while ALSO putting that precious financial resource towards the groundwork of the finished FX shots the animatics are destined to become anyway. He DOES own one of the FX houses involved, after all.

But, yeah...he's just some asshole blindly ramming his way through slapdash setpieces onset as MOST would have you believe.

No skill or planning involved whatsoever and he's DEFINITELY not worthy of the respect his peers afford him despite whatever his uninformed detractors claim ad nauseum without any basis in reality, lol.

UGH.

>_>

 

I'm not saying that he's just like "oh put that mortar over there it'll be fine, yeah yeah", or that what he does in terms of structuring his sequences like the plan scene from Con Air isn't impressive from a professional standpoint. I just figured that, given his background, he'd frame out his shots photograph style, and then move from shot to shot to shot in a sequence, and that's how his fast-cutting style worked.

This methodology being tied to what I perceive as the incoherence of his sequences, I would argue, is tied to, again, this real-time perspective on the scene, that it lacks the "big-picture" plan (and probably some of the opportunity for iteration) of storyboarding out entire sequences in pre-production, in order to fine-tune those individual shots or to tie them together into a greater "vision" that I think some of his sequences lack. Bay's got a good eye, whatever else you'll say about him, but I've always thought cinematic motion, as opposed to static framing, was something that was not one of his strengths. I'm sure the technology he rigorously applies helps mitigate that (if only by expanding his toolbox), but I'm also generally a supporter of a "plan the work, work the plan" approach as a means to success.

So please, spare your diatribes for someone else on this.

 

Con Air literally had NOTHING to do with Michael Bay other than Jerry Bruckheimer paying Simon West to bite his style, lol.

 

He was referencing a sequence from Con Air, not referring to Bay's nonexistent contribution to that movie.

 

That's a possibility which might be true, granted.

But the way it was worded was unclear on that point:

So I clarified it.

It's actually a pretty common misconception that Michael Bay directed Con Air, btw...for obvious reasons. I caught Matt Taibbi making that same mistake in an article he wrote for "Rolling Stone" a few years ago, tracked him down on fb and messaged him about it, and he was kind enough to basically message me my own personal retraction from him about it, lol.

Awesome guy!

 

 

I think I lost count of the number of times people said something about Michael Bay directing Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles when he was only a producer on the film. It's just this rather weird thing where if Bay's name is connected to a film in any way that somehow people claim he was the director.