Where did all this Knight stuff come from?

Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by Cyborgraptor, May 18, 2021.

  1. Nova Maximus

    Nova Maximus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2020
    Posts:
    6,727
    News Credits:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    227
    Location:
    Mississauga, Canada
    Likes:
    +29,322
    Like an acutal Optimus vs Megatron 1:1 that isn't either 5 seconds long or in the background.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Fox13

    Fox13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2013
    Posts:
    363
    News Credits:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    142
    Likes:
    +543
    IIRC it started with concept art of Optimus Prime (which was originally more samurai-inspired). It's talked about in this video.

     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Nathanoraptor

    Nathanoraptor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2015
    Posts:
    827
    Trophy Points:
    172
    Likes:
    +1,192
    Another point here - Dragonstorm bears a suspicious resemblance to Drogon and, being a three-headed dragon, resembles the sigil of House Targaryen.
     
  4. MatrixQuardeanUnlimited56

    MatrixQuardeanUnlimited56 TheDarkKnightAndTheQuardeanPraetorianKnightsmen

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Posts:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    47
    Location:
    Nevermore And Cybertron
    Likes:
    +55
    This can and maybe objectively true, factually accurate, and legitimately correct in some and/or most cases, but, this won't be always true in every single case, considering that sometimes, and perhaps, more often than not, it isn't always The Director's fault that they may not truly, entirely, and wholeheartedly have the very means and control to create the original vision/s'/ of their personal and non-personal film/s'/ without executively corporate mandated control from everyone else and/or someone else, such as, their company's leadership, and perhaps, even the original creators' themselves.

    And unfortunately, again, more often than not, we objectively, critically, and factually, and also, personally and non-personally, have to look and research into these very matters', considering that again, not only do people tend to generally scapegoat corporate individuals, such as, writers', producers', and directors', for decisions that they may not have had control over, and that alone may lead to harrasively bullying these very same everyday people/s'/ and individual/s'/, not only online, but also, non and offline, as in, in their daily lives and even where they may live, which my, at its' best, may lead them to fortunately, responsibly, and officially retired from their career/s'/ and seek out either psychologically therapeutic help and/or an entirely different career, and at its worst, may unfortunately, irresponsibly, and tragically drive to use drugs and overdose and/or to harm themselves and end up dead either by splitting their wrists open and bleeding out to death and/or by, unfortunately, jumpin' off a subway line and being hit by an ongoing train, and none of those very things may help them to either truly get over the excessively unnecessary criticism or to move on, and if you want proof that this, more often than not, tends to happen, then just ask individualistically everyday director/s'/ and/or writer/s'/, such as, Sam Raimi, Marc Webb, Dwayne McDuffie, Edward Norton, Kevin Feigie, Paul Greengrass, George Miller, Patty Jenkins, Terry Gilliam, and even Michael Bay himself, and also, every single creator, writer, and director that has been excessively blamed for things' and matters' that they personally and non-personally had majorly, entirely, and perhaps even, absolutely had no control over at all, overall, and maybe, altogether.

    Michael Bay, in every single ounce and sense of these very words' and actions', may and/or may not be one of the most, if not, THE most divisively living director/s'/ out there as of right now, but even he get more than enough criticism that isn't even always and/nor necessarily warranted, and despite me, you, and everyone else, knowingly understandin' that, quite contrary to popular belief, and also, quite to the contradictory, that film/s'/ such as Transformers' Revenge Of The Fallen and Transformers' Age Of Extinction, weren't entirely has fault either, and as for the former rather than that of the latter, even moreso, considering that, had there probably not been for things' and matters', such as, The Writers' Strike Of 2007-2008, we may and/or may not have gotten an more than decently average film and/or perhaps an objectively great film from that of Hasbro's Transformers' BayVerse. Just Saying.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Music

    Music Primetimus Prime

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2014
    Posts:
    4,933
    News Credits:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +15,125
    YouTube:
    Sure, there are others that can be blamed, but it's fairly known that Bay had a heavy hand in Transformers productions. The writers have changed over time during the Bay movies, yet, the distinct look, feel, and issues of Bay have stuck around. Hell, he owns it too. He's been adamant the movies are his vision of Transformers. Here's an actual quote from him during an interview about TF1, "Listen, I make my own movie, I don’t have someone tell me what to do." If you're going to claim something as your own, then you better expect to take the criticism. There's very little corporate meddling with the Bay films (aside from things like Hasbro checking the trademarks of names). He pretty much got to do whatever he wanted.

    You do realize the writer's strike only lasted for one film, right? There were Bayverse films that followed that were even worse than that one. You can blame the writer's strike and whatever else all you want, but one consistent thing across all these films was Michael Bay in the director's seat. It's evident Bay deserves the larger chunk of the blame. The next chunk goes to Paramount for continuously trying to rope Bay back in for more films when it was clear he didn't want to make them anymore.
     
  6. MatrixQuardeanUnlimited56

    MatrixQuardeanUnlimited56 TheDarkKnightAndTheQuardeanPraetorianKnightsmen

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Posts:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    47
    Location:
    Nevermore And Cybertron
    Likes:
    +55
    Yeah sure, and yet, what someone may say then may and/or not be fundamentally applicable later on, considering that creator/s'/, writer/s'/, and director/s'/, such as, Jon Favreau, had a free reign on Iron Man 2008, and yet, Favreau didn't truly, entirely, and wholeheartedly have an free reign on any later film installment/s'/ of Iron Man and/or The Mandalorian, and just because someone may own to what they may and/or may not have done, that doesn't majorly nor entirely mean that they personally had a hand in every single facet and decision of a film, and yet, its fundamentally true, that if you take personal credit for every single decision, then you're gonna have to, personally and non-personally, take criticism and roll with it, but there's also considering that some people excessively act as if Michael Bay, majorly, if not entirely, ruined Transformers and was entirely responsible for its devastatingly horrific ruination, and that just isn't legitimately accurate, entirely true, and/nor is it factually correct.

    Hence, why I personally said that particularly specific things' and matters', such as, The Writers' Strike Of 2007-2008 can and could be partially, if not majorly and/or entirely, can, and again, COULD be what and why we got, at least, in part, an mediocrely average film/s'/ such as Transformers' Revenge Of The Fallen, because and considering that you really do need writers' and editors' to create an narratively cohesive script that, at least, truly, entirely, and wholeheartedly works for an film/s'/ and/or the film/s'/ that you're creatively making for corporations, such as, SONY and/or Hasbro. Did I personally say that The Writers' Strike Of 2007-2008 SHOULD be majorly, if not entirely, help primarily responsible for what happened on film/s'/ such as Transformers' Revenge Of The Fallen.?. NO. And yet, we can't also majorly nor entirely demised that that very event may and/or may not have played an meaningfully significant part in how film/s'/ such as Transformers' Revenge Of The Fallen at all, and overall, and also, altogether. And, there's also considering that we all may and/or may not factually know exactly how much corporations' tend to interfere and when they tend to interfere, considering that again, people such as director/s'/, writer/s'/, and concept artisans', are, more often than not, are corporately mandated to sign documented contracts that tells them to, at its best, not to personally disclose of some of the work that they personally worked on, and at its worst, to never disclosed of any of the work that personally had an hand in and what happens behind the scenes, such as, and as in, such cases such as Zack Snyder and Warner Brothers' DCEU-SnyderVerse and/or Marc Webb and SONY's The Amazing Spider-Man Universe.

    I never truly said nor wrotefully typed out that Michael Bay doesn't personally nor critically deserve any of the criticism, whether it is personally bias criticism and/or non-personally unbias criticism, but I did say that he doesn't personally deserve to entirely be wholeheartedly blamed for every single thing and matter that he may and/or may not have willingly signed off on, considering that, again, we rarely, if ever, see directors', creators', and writers', such as, Steven Spielberg, get as much criticism as Michael Bay does in spades, and he was just as much of an part of Transformers' as Bay ever was, and yet, rarely, if ever, do you entirely tend to personally see anyone, if not everyone, blame Spielberg for how everyone else, and everything else, concerning Transformers' BayVerse, was majorly, and also, entirely handled throughout the years' and decades' of its original inception, and it is fundamentally true that Hasbro, Paramount, and Spielberg are in part responsible for how and when such everyday people/s'/ and individual/s'/, such as Michael Bay, handled their IPs, and for that, I, objectively and subjectively, blame Michael Bay for.[/QUOTE]
     
  7. big420atx

    big420atx Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2021
    Posts:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Likes:
    +17
    I kind of wish they would go back and edit in all the knight stuff into the older films. I would be kind of funny to watch the fallen and his brother fight it out as giant knights.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. StrifeZ

    StrifeZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Posts:
    2,593
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +5,795
    Ebay:
    The direct root of it is the pre-AOE writers room. The indirect root-of-all-roots of it, was what happened with Revenge of the Fallen's shoot.

    Let's go back in time.

    The 2007 movie took several years to get together. It was, in fact, delayed a year from its original release date, from 2006 to 2007 (that's how we got Classics by the way, and thus, CHUG... it was originally the filler line). Michael Bay stuck very close to the script for the shoot and the edit. Furthermore, while big budget, it was not THAT big budget. The Transformers had a total of around 14 minutes of screen time. That's why TF2007 is the most cohesive movie by far. Circumstances and budget forced it. But it was a huge success and it's sequel had a massive budget.

    Revenge of the Fallen was targeted for a rapid 2009 release, which was about 18 months from when production began to gear up. That includes about a year to do the far more ambitious CG (which is why the 3D rendering looked weird compared to 2007 and DotM... it was super rushed). That left around 6 months to write the film and do reshoots. The script was never fully finished before shooting started (unlike 2007). Furthermore the writers strike hit the film exceptionally hard. Harder than most other productions. Michael Bay wrote script pages and shot it in the same day. Ultimately, he assembled the movie in the editing room. That's how the Macguffin changed midway through the movie from the Allspark information in Sam's head to the Matrix. ROTF's incoherence is due to the fact that Michael Bay realized he could shoot scenes and partial scripts, and even write pages on his own and make a movie in the editing room out of all the cool shit he shot. A complete inversion of the careful planning of the 2007.

    That was the legacy of ROTF to rest of the franchise. Michael Bay learned he could make a TF movie a certain way to get it out in 2 years.

    DOTM, two years later was originally hailed as having a cohesive script like 2007 (and indeed had more of one). But Bay wrote and shot scenes outside of the original script because he thought they were cool. The highway chase for example? Heavily reused from The Island. The final movie was considerably different from what was planned. Better than ROTF, but still filled with far more random shit than 2007.

    A year later, in 2012, Bay decides he'll shoot a 4th Transformers movie and do a "back to basics" approach. Several scripts are written. He pushes what becomes AOE out in two years ago.

    AOE is a product of at least two separate scripts: one involving the Dinobots and one involving Cybertronian Knights and Bounty Hunters. The Knight theme came from one of them. One of the criticisms of the original trilogy was that the action was hard to follow. The "realistic" designs, basically grey robots with single colored armor (usually black or silver or dark blue) made the action hard to follow. The design decision was made to change how characters looked in AoE to make them brighter, more humanoid and have more plating on them to try and make them easier to see. That's how you got Crosshairs, for example, and Lockdown's body shape. It's also how you got Bumblebee's weird look for the film. As a whole, Bay edited the film for a much more vibrant color palette than its predecessors, and TLK.

    The "Knight" stuff in AoE had no connection to Authurian legend at this point. It was mostly a rationalization for ancient history, more plating on characters, and giving Optimus Prime a big sword. It was the remnant of a half abandoned script as Bay again, made a film in the editing room from the parts of two scripts he liked.

    AOE was received better than DoTM, but did less business than it and was considered a dissapointment. Bay elected to go "back to basics" from the outset for what would become The Last Knight. This meant a bigger story (on scale with DOTM), a darker theme (and resultingly, a far darker color grading in the final product), a return of some characters from the trilogy, and an update to Bumblebee's "classic" 2007 design. That was all BEFORE shooting or a script were written.

    Paramount meanwhile commissioned a writers room filled with a bunch of writers who were paid to write scripts. The plan was to fix the story telling problems of the last three movements by writing a cohesive script that would be directly shot, like the 2007 movie. They assembled about half a dozen scripts. Beast Wars was one. Unicron was another. One of them was about the creators (and picked up after AoE). And one of them was about Arthurian legend and ancient Transformers on Earth.

    You can guess what happened again.

    Bay simply could not be controlled by studio management and ignored the entire point of the writers room. He took the scripts assembled - predominantly the Creators script and the Arthurian Legend script - and shot the scenes he liked and wrote scenes on the day of shooting to fill in the gaps. Bay, being the guy who shot all the movies and edited them, knew that none of it many any sense with regards to the previous 4 movies he shot. But he didn't care. His entire Transformers way of operating had become about shooting pages and scenes he liked, and assembling movies from that footage, original narrative plan be damned.


    That's basically how we got the Arthurian thing. Organically. Hollywood commissions far more script writers than movies it shoots, and and many scripts go far afield their core topic and are not shot for a reason. But they are an important part of the creative process. Some of the abandoned Star Trek scripts, for example, go REALLY off the rails compared to what we got. But that's fine. It's all part of how movies are made.

    The problem with Michael Bay is that he willfully chose to put aside that practice and just shot shit he thought would look great on screen. The thing is, he is not a bad director actually, nor a stupid and careless man. Quite the opposite, he has an industry reputation apparently, for being a meticulous workaholic and careful planner when it comes to making films. He prides himself on being on-or-under budget, and on schedule. And he has shot many other movies that have cohesive plotlines.

    It all goes back to Revenge of the Fallen. He decided that's what Transformers were going to be - chained action sequences and minimal internal consistency. That's how we got The Fallen... because he decided to make him like Emperor Palpantine to Megatron's vader (and then said years later, the Fallen was "kind of a shit character").

    So how'd we get "the knight stuff"? Because Michael Bay thought parts of it were cool, and not one level deeper than that. The end.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  9. Autobot Burnout

    Autobot Burnout Dukeup Nukhead

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Posts:
    40,313
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    417
    Location:
    [REDACTED]
    Likes:
    +27,502
    It was around that same time that Bay outright said that he wanted to move away from doing Transformers, but Paramount was dumb enough to think if they just kept Bay making TF films that it would keep making money, especially after the blatantly bay-inspired disaster that was Battleship.

    Bay leveraged Paramount thinking this for his own benefit, first using it to get the green light for something he actually wanted to make with Pain and Gain (AoE), and then a cool ten million bonus on top of the usual director's fee for TLK.

    Paramount got what they asked for, in my opinion. Which was a set of bay films with zero passion and a plot structure so all over the place that it's hard to really justify any of it.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  10. StrifeZ

    StrifeZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Posts:
    2,593
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +5,795
    Ebay:
    I've been saying for some time this reflected in Hasbro's relationship with the movie franchise and Bay as well. FOr those that don't know, Bay got a cut of every piece of movie-centric merchandise, including action figures. I'm not sure this carries over to Studio Series (I very much doubt it).

    2007 Movie - Hasbro's biggest single Transformers toy line ever up to that point in terms of units (though still dwarfed by Star Wars Episode I), and maybe still the overall Transformers reigning champ. The movie took over the entire line for about a year and a half. Hasbro probably figured that the "Michael Bay cut" didn't matter so long as it overall increased revenues (which is a very good bet). It sold extremely well and likely cemented the enduring return to a general G1 theme we saw in follow up toy TV franchises rather than pre-movie RID/Unicron Trilogy fare.

    2009 ROTF - Far larger than the 2007 line in terms of number of molds and redcos (and probably one of the biggest single TF lines ever). Truly an absolutely vast number of SKUs and repacks and multi-acks and redeco's of 2007 and UT figures. But in term of overall units shipped, probably modestly smaller than the 2007 movie. Like thee 2007 movie line, it took over the franchise for about a year and sold very well, but more of its figures lasted into the next year. Famously, some of its figures had such ambitious engineering that they had to be modestly simplified for cost purposes. Takara really went all out, and it showed. The "Bay Cut" was still worth it at this point. But this was probably the peak of the movie Toyline's popularity.

    2011 DOTM - This line by modern standards was quite big, but compared to the 2007 and ROTF line, was significantly smaller. Most notably, this was the first toy line seriously seriously "damaged" by both the 2008-2011 financial crisis and the 2000s commodities supercycle(which ended in 2013). While ROTF when in an "overengineered" direction, DOTM was simpler, figures were smaller (particularly Voyager class) and the dollar value of figures was obscured in the MechTech accessories, again, particularly at the Voyager class. Hasbro shipped overall less units, leading to a shorter (though substantial) comparative shelf life. There was a lot more emphasis on merchandise outside the core Deluxe-Voyager-Leader line. I think this is the point that the "Michael Bay cut" ended its value to Hasbro. DOTM sold well and sold through, but it was a much more normal line than the ROTF and 2007 mega-lines.

    Over the next three years Hasbro redesigns the Transformers toy lines. Generations movies to the middle. Rescue Bots begins and becomes a toy line for young kids. The Transformers Prime toyline launches and is the biggest single toy-only line since Energon.

    By the time AoE and its toyline arrives in 2004, instead of having it replace the entire Transformers franchise, it exists as a parallel, largely non-core toyline merchandise that lasts mostly for the duration of the movie's theatrical release. The "core" Transformers toys are released in just 3 subwaves of Generations and are very dinobot focus and largely no frills figures (most of them are trash and look nothing like their movie forms). Compared to what Hasbro launched in even DOTM, it was a stunning shift. Very clearly, the movies were no longer the focus of their retail efforts. They're just what turned a good year into a great one. The "Bay cut" if it existed, would be far smaller than the previous three movies, limited largely to the theatrical release window.

    For TLK, the line was superficially somewhat larger than the AOE one from every angle, but was actually filled to the brim with redecos and retools. There were only a handful new molds and even then, they mostly shipped in limited quantities or in later waves. Specifically the much in demand new mold Voyager class Optimus Prime, Hound and especially the Scorn mold were scarce, with Scorn shipping well into the movie's run.

    My feeling was that TLK was the apotheosis of the separation from Michael Bay and whatever his cut still entailed. The amount of redecos and retools made it cheap for Hasbro, who didn't have to spend money designing new molds for the bulk of the line. And the significant new molds that would be in demand, Scorn particularly were pushed to very late in the line when stores wouldn't place big orders (if any) due to existing inventory. I see this as them doing fans a solid, but also making the Bay cut smaller than it would be.

    Because think about it for a moment: it would have been very easy to make a modern line for TLK every bit as big as Revenge of the Fallen. It had the characters and the movie's scale. But we didn't get even "Supreme class" Infernocus. Instead we got a redeco of an old legion class Prime mold with a new core component. Even the much hyped Voyager Optimus mold was released in shitty a "toy version" deco with it's more movie accurate deco released as an SDCC exclusive. This despite the fact that Hasbro had started to do detailed decos the couple years prior, and would do them a year later with Studio Series. In fact, the other "tell" is probably Voyager class Scorn. Isn't it strange that all the AoE Dinobots are re-released in the TLK toyline in more "movie accurate" (not really) colors, but Scorn is the only new mold, and is done in the same inaccurate red color as the original AOE toys? The implicit implication is that he's mean to be for the people who had the original AoE decos and not the TLK decos. And that kind of makes sense, because a lot of people suspected that Scorn and voyager-class Megatron, like Nitro, were proto-Studio Series molds that were accelerated, maybe with Scorn at a smaller scale. But they reused Nitro at least twice in SS - as Thundercracker and KSI Boss.


    I just think what I wrote above is a long unwinding of Hasbro's liability in Michael Bay. It may seem weird to talk about toys relation to creative decision and involvement of a director, but merchandise ALWAYS sells more than tickets for major films (something Star Wars created, along with modern action figures, decades ago) and Michael Bay, like George Lucas back in the day, profited immensely from his contract stipulate a cut of the merchandising sales. Star Wars merchandise sales, not movie tickets, made George Lucas a very rich man. We don't know Michael Bay's cut, but simple math of an average selling Transformers line would imply that even a modest cut would make him tremendously rich.

    He played it cute that, for creative reasons, he would stop after several of the movies. I think that was bullshit. Just a negotiating tactic to get Paramount to cave (and Hasbro had minimal creative involvement in the movies until Bumblebee, seemingly due to the original licensing of the rights pre-2007 movie). I think -and this is where my detailed explanation was all leading to - he stuck around as long as he did because the merchandising deal was great for him, until Hasbro seemed to intentionally step it down over the course of three movies. And that money allowed him, as you said, to make the movies he actually wanted to make.

    Michael Bay partially wrote, shot and edited the movies. Via that process, as a whole, he's probably seen them more than all of us combined and being not-a-stupid-person and also a person known for his attention to detail, it's impossible he's not fully aware of every storyline, continuity or narrative flaw. But that's not what sold action figures and got people buying tickets. Action sequences and hot women were.


    I always loved these quotes from Michael Caine:
    • [on Jaws: The Revenge (1987)] I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific.

    and



      • I've made an awful lot of films. In fact, I've made a lot of awful films.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  11. Runamuck86

    Runamuck86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2018
    Posts:
    1,288
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Location:
    UK
    Likes:
    +1,537
    I hate everything about the Knight stuff especially the worst Optimus design ever.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  12. GrimlockPrime19

    GrimlockPrime19 I always have the high ground

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2021
    Posts:
    1,205
    Trophy Points:
    167
    Location:
    Brazil
    Likes:
    +1,206
    I mean, why would Megatron need another plane if one of them succeed?
    And technically, if the 2nd plan gave right, they'd have the matrix to revive Sentinel
    But those are the minor of the problems. The cool is the All Spark being everything that creates and keeps Transformers alive, but in dotm Megatron thinks that rebuilding Cybertron would change a shit. It's like rebuilding cities on Earth when there is no water in the planet
    And again, in Aoe, Transformers are build...!? But the All Spark!? Why do they need All Spark if they are build..!?

    In anyway, what does "being a Knight" mean in movies? Having a Knight design and weapons and just...?
     
    • Like Like x 1