Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Master KChief on June 24, 2009, 04:38:29 AM
-
three words: super. optimus. prime.
'nuff said.
-
Yeah, it was pretty awesome.
-
Oh, good. Ebert gave it one star, to crown a mountain of poor reviews from critics, so now I know to just apply the Bay Formula to the film to get my money's worth:
1). Turn off brain
2). See giant robots having sweet battles
3). Enjoy movie
And if it sounds like I'm being sarcastic when I say that, keep in mind I watch Con Air almost every time it comes on cable.
-
Yeah, michael bay films are a mile wide and an inch deep. Fun to look at but that is about it.
-
Though I really wanted to see the movie, after reading Plugged In review, I don't think I want to see it anymore. I'm sick and tired of people always pumping good movies with a bunch of sex.
Plugged In Review (http://www.pluggedinonline.com/movies/movies/a0004696.cfm)
-
anyone else like the new sideswipe? that chevy corvette stingray concept was seriously, seriously, SERIOUSLY sick. although i would have been happy to see the original lamborghini as well. :)
-
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I have spent my share of time admiring that Corvette concept car online. It is one of the best-looking cars ever, in my books. I really wish they would make it. (Not that I would have the money though. ::))
Kirk
-
Though I really wanted to see the movie, after reading Plugged In review, I don't think I want to see it anymore. I'm sick and tired of people always pumping good movies with a bunch of sex.
Plugged In Review (http://www.pluggedinonline.com/movies/movies/a0004696.cfm)
Thanks Ironica. I appreciate someone who is willing to give up seeing a movie that they were very excited to see because they don't want to fill their mind with things that displease God. Submitting yourself to God in this way is difficult, but commendable. I not only applaud you, but also join you. In spite of my love for transformers that dates back more than 20 years, I will not be seeing this movie.
Christian Spotlight Review (http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2009/transformers2009.html)
-
Ironically, the porn blocker on my laptop will not let me access that link Prof. I guess the review itself is too pornographic for me to look at. I cant believe you would post that smut on the redemption boards ;)
Actually, I am glad you posted that. I was looking for a christian review of the movie just to see if there was anything overly distasteful in the movie. Now I just gotta get my wife to enter the password on the porn blocker so I can see the review itself...
..provided it is not full of nastiness itself. If it is I am blaming you Prof when my wife tries to beat me up.
-
I don't know if I can even avoid seeing this movie without getting a bruise from my friend. :laugh: However, it isn't even out yet over here I don't think. ...Is it?
EDIT: oh noes, it is. :o I thought this might be some...east coast deal or something; since when are movies coming out on Teusday/Wednesday? :P
Also, although I do commend thee for thy Christian efforts, I think the badness of the contents is a matter of varying opinion and interpretation. (And please no arguments today, I have a headache that makes me illergic to deep thought. :P)
-
i seriously LAWLED at the christian spotlight review. moral rating VERY OFFENSIVE??? please. heavy violence? they're MACHINES shooting each other for crying out loud. sex/nudity HEAVY??? did the reviewer actually SEE the movie? maybe there were sexual overtones, but certainly no sex or nudity whatsoever. sometimes christians are overly critical about the simplest things...making mountains out of mole hills. its a harmless movie...plenty of robots, plenty of fast cool cars, and plenty of michael bay-esque explosions. its a great movie for casual viewers and die-hard fans alike.
-
While they are machines shooting at each other, it is violence. The machines is probably what kept it at a PG-13 rating. But I'm kind of doubting some of those reviews to the level they claim. I don't think society is yet so corrupted that the movie is not rated R for the content they claim.
-
i seriously LAWLED at the christian spotlight review. moral rating VERY OFFENSIVE??? please. heavy violence? they're MACHINES shooting each other for crying out loud. sex/nudity HEAVY??? did the reviewer actually SEE the movie? maybe there were sexual overtones, but certainly no sex or nudity whatsoever. sometimes christians are overly critical about the simplest things...making mountains out of mole hills. its a harmless movie...plenty of robots, plenty of fast cool cars, and plenty of michael bay-esque explosions. its a great movie for casual viewers and die-hard fans alike.
Did you happen to read the Plugged In review? It lists everything out (which is why I like the site).
-
..provided it is not full of nastiness itself. If it is I am blaming you Prof when my wife tries to beat me up.
If you can get your wife to let you see the review, you will not be disappointed. I have found Christian Spotlight to be the best place for me to go when I want a review of a movie that is in line with how I would review it myself. I also like that below the main review, they also list reviews of regular people who have seen the movie. In this case those were also negative.
The only reviews at that site that I don't agree with are the ones for the rated "R" movies. It seems that the people who they have review those movies have a different (read: lower) standard of movies than I do. Perhaps that is why they review the rated "R" ones :)
Anyway, I highly recommend that site for checking out all movies before going to them. And I highly recommend letting you wife read the one on Transformers 2 before letting her know that you are planning on skipping it. If you wife is like mine, she'll be so happy that you have decided to not see that stuff, that it will be worth more brownie points than even watching a chick-flick with her :)
-
Here's how the secular ScreenIt.com rates it:
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fsite%2Fkramerfamilytech%2FHome%2FPicture2.png&hash=1a54731f5711404239614a56ff965e4621509e2d)
The Screenit.com site is a paid subscription I have to check out some of the older flicks I see in film class, so I can't link to it, but it basically listed the same stuff as Focus On the Family's Plugged In review above.
Ironically, the porn blocker on my laptop will not let me access that link Prof. I guess the review itself is too pornographic for me to look at. I cant believe you would post that smut on the redemption boards ;)
Yeah, one of their screenshots shows way too much skin. Kinda felt like a Bill O'Reilly moment: "Images too shocking for television... we'll show them to you next..."
-
Well despite what most of you are saying about this movie, I'm going to post what I want to say regardless.
Ohmygosh. AMAZING MOVIE. Like. Wow. I just got back from it, and am still in awe.
One of the best movies I've seen in a loooonnng time. Not to mention we parked behind the brand new Camaro model that had the exact same paint job as the one in the movie.
On the subject at hand, while pluggedin is a great review site, it over-emphasizes some of the points. They use overly dramatic description to emphasize something that could easily go without notice, and make it sound as if it's half of the movie and should never be seen by Christians. I personally think that they do a great job at getting everything, but I don't think that they list them as accurately as could be. I will admit the movie had 1, maybe 2 inappropriate scenes for children under the age of 13, but other than that... I see nothing wrong with them, as long as the viewer understands that it is wrong. Of course, there are boundaries that should not be crossed, but the little stuff (such as what is mentioned in this movie review) will not effect a person.
To sum it up, unless you are a very strong believer in that violence corrupts the minds of the youth, then this movie is fine.
And honestly, if you think that if your child (assuming he's a teenager) should not see this movie due to the violence having a possibility of getting to his head and causing him to rebel, then I don't think you educated your child enough in how the world really is, and not just how Christians want it to be.
I know I'm probably coming off as a non-Christian, but it's how I was raised. I was raised and taught what to believe in, what's right and what is wrong, and that in order to view something that contains violence or a small amount of sexuality, that I would not let it get to me and always remember that we have a loving God that has everything under control.
And yes, I'm not a fan of over-protective parenting (not anyone on here in particular, just a general statement). If you don't teach children how the world is, and force them to "cross that bridge when they get to it" then they will not know what to do when that time comes, and might make the wrong decision. So educate them of what to do when something happens, and allow them some freedom to see if they do the right thing. My parents trust me to only watch appropriate movies, and I have used my judgement to pick and choose, and they agree with my choices.
-
FWIW, it's the job of sites like that to bring those things to light, because it's practically guaranteed the one thing they try to downplay is the one thing an offended parent/Christian is going to latch onto and say holy cow, why didn't they mention that part?
I've also found that the vast majority of people who think parents are not permissive enough with their children, are those still living under the tutelage of their parents.
-
If you don't teach children how the world is, and force them to "cross that bridge when they get to it" then they will not know what to do when that time comes, and might make the wrong decision.
There's a difference between teaching your kid how to handle temptations when they come to them, and purposefully sending them into a place of temptation (for no greater purpose than to see an entertaining movie). The first is good parenting. The second is not.
There's also a difference between being able to handle temptation when it comes to you, and purposefully coming to temptation (for no greater purpose than to see an entertaining movie). The first is spiritual maturity. The second is not.
-
I like how everytime I make a comment, there is usually no one that agrees.
-
Welcome to my world :p
-
Welcome to why I rarely post anymore.
-
Welcome to my world :p
That's a pretty sweet Tech N9ne song.
-
I went to see the movie tonight. Not because I'm a huge fan, although I would have rented it when it came out (still will cuz Missy didn't see it). It was an opportunity to hang out with an old friend who grew up in church but turned his back on it. He's a huge Transformer fan.
I enjoyed the movie. I thought it was really good. I don't think it's appropriate for kids or even adults that have a weak concionse in regard to language, violence or sexual references. The movie contains all three.
-
I like how everytime I make a comment, there is usually no one that agrees.
I disagree :)
-
Ironically, the porn blocker on my laptop will not let me access that link Prof. I guess the review itself is too pornographic for me to look at. I cant believe you would post that smut on the redemption boards ;)
Yeah, one of their screenshots shows way too much skin. Kinda felt like a Bill O'Reilly moment: "Images too shocking for television... we'll show them to you next..."
Ha, ha, That is a good one. although to be fair all the newsies to that. Its insane. "this next clip is to violent to show on television. But we will show it to you after this break."
So, is there actually nudity in this movie? I cant really get a lear read on it from the posts.
-
Ironically, the porn blocker on my laptop will not let me access that link Prof. I guess the review itself is too pornographic for me to look at. I cant believe you would post that smut on the redemption boards ;)
Yeah, one of their screenshots shows way too much skin. Kinda felt like a Bill O'Reilly moment: "Images too shocking for television... we'll show them to you next..."
Ha, ha, That is a good one. although to be fair all the newsies to that. Its insane. "this next clip is to violent to show on television. But we will show it to you after this break."
So, is there actually nudity in this movie? I cant really get a lear read on it from the posts.
There isn't any rated-R nudity. There is one close shot of a guy in a thong and lots of scantily clad women.
-
No, there is no actual human nudity. There is a scene of decepticon nudity however.
-
The chick in that movie is so gross looking. I don't know who in their right mind would think that she was attractive.
Scratch that. I Google image searched her; apparently she just wasn't attractive in the first movie.
-
Was the acting as bad as in the first movie?
You do know it's a Michael Bay movie, right?
-
who cares about the acting...just enjoy all the cool explosions :)
-
I heard this movie had like the biggest recorded explosion ever on television or something like that. :o ;D
-
Also, as for the whole "exposing" your kids thing, I'm shocked that you'd let your children go to school and take an anatomy class. Seriously.
This ^. I do not understand the whole deal with Christians freaking out about the human body being shown in a movie. As if viewing the human anatomy that God made is somehow harmful. :-\ Of course I'm not advocating pornography, but seriously, freaking out about a butt or a nipple is just retarded.
I saw the movie last night, and I thought it was even better than the first one. They focused a whole lot more on the Autobots and Decepticons this time, rather than the humans, and the film was better for it. My only complaint is that the Dinobots weren't in it. :P
-
but it had a pretender (alice) and a constructicon in it...way awesome!
-
Also, as for the whole "exposing" your kids thing, I'm shocked that you'd let your children go to school and take an anatomy class. Seriously.
This ^. I do not understand the whole deal with Christians freaking out about the human body being shown in a movie. As if viewing the human anatomy that God made is somehow harmful. :-\ Of course I'm not advocating pornography, but seriously, freaking out about a butt or a nipple is just retarded.
I saw the movie last night, and I thought it was even better than the first one. They focused a whole lot more on the Autobots and Decepticons this time, rather than the humans, and the film was better for it. My only complaint is that the Dinobots weren't in it. :P
Admiring an attractive body in art or whatnot is a lot easier in a culture that isn't centered around having sex.
-
I agree with your prmise Lawful Dog, FWIW.
-
i seriously LAWLED at the christian spotlight review. moral rating VERY OFFENSIVE??? please. heavy violence? they're MACHINES shooting each other for crying out loud. sex/nudity HEAVY??? did the reviewer actually SEE the movie? maybe there were sexual overtones, but certainly no sex or nudity whatsoever. sometimes christians are overly critical about the simplest things...making mountains out of mole hills. its a harmless movie...plenty of robots, plenty of fast cool cars, and plenty of michael bay-esque explosions. its a great movie for casual viewers and die-hard fans alike.
I agree half.
1. Yes, they are too sensitive. Comparing escargo to bird poop is now under negative comments? Are you kidding me...?
2. I also disagree. There was definitely sex and sexual connotations. Calling someone a very negative name for a wimp, one of the girls laying on the main actor, super close shot of Megan Foxx in super small shorts, lots of cleavage... it wasn't a completely family friendly movie. I think you have to admit that.
3. Don't keep posting links to plugg-in. Basically, you now just saw and heard everything bad in the movie, so why not see it? :-\ It tells you the exact lines, what they're about, so now you've just been succummed to the very things you were reading the review to see if you the movie had. For example, if "year one" wasn't imo so blasphemous, I would see it because plug in already told me every exact line that was inappropriate. Anyone else think that this kinda defeats the purpose? :dunno:
-
I find a big difference between reading something and seeing it. If Song of Solomon was a movie, I would be thinking far different things watching it than what I do reading the scripture.
One of the reasons I use Screenit is the summary chart at the top of the page. If I see "heavy" or "extreme" in a category that bothers me, I don't even need to read the detailed review.
-
3. Don't keep posting links to plugg-in. Basically, you now just saw and heard everything bad in the movie, so why not see it? :-\ It tells you the exact lines, what they're about, so now you've just been succummed to the very things you were reading the review to see if you the movie had.
First of all, it's not the same thing, and I think you know it's not the same thing. Second of all, the point of sites like that are for parents to be made aware of the content of a movie so they can make an informed decision about what they are going to allow their children to see.
Which do you think is a better overall solution: for a parent to see this site, say "eh, those things aren't a big deal to me" and allow their child to see it, or for a parent to want to raise a child a certain way, not be aware of those things, and wind up in the theater with their child regretting the thirty bucks they just dropped on tickets?
-
most of these site reviews are purely subjective and based on the opinion of the reviewer. what might be negative to one person may not be to another. while these site reviews are a good starting point in judging whether you or your children should see the movie or not, it is by no means the end-all-be-all to movie reviews. i say dont knock it til you try it...live and learn.
-
You found Year One blasphemous? Maybe offensive, but blasphemous? I saw it, and at it's worst it's just a buddy comedy set in the backdrop of various tales of how the early world went combined into one. There were some times were I was like "ehh, was that really needed?" but I certainly didn't find it blasphemous.
-
For people with hemophobia (like me), I could see the merit of checking out such reviews.
-
You found Year One blasphemous? Maybe offensive, but blasphemous? I saw it, and at it's worst it's just a buddy comedy set in the backdrop of various tales of how the early world went combined into one. There were some times were I was like "ehh, was that really needed?" but I certainly didn't find it blasphemous.
I find it blasphemous in the same way that Evan Almighty was blasphemous: both contain multiple oral blasphemies ("Oh my...", etc), a mocking of scripture, the creation of an idol to replace the true God, and a lack of reverence for the God they are mocking. That's exactly the kind of stuff that "blasphemy" is (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy).
And then there's the whole "not funny" thing...
-
I was more offended by some of the sexual jokes than any of the mockery of god(s). I mean, let's not pretend they mocked just our God. They mocked anything out there basically, but at the same time, the story seemed to show the existance of a god. There's a discussion about ahtiesm in it that is later rebutted by the movie's events.
You not finding it funny is a perfectly fine reason to not like it/see it. I personally find Michael Cera the funniest person alive, so I went and saw it. I was dissapointed they had to stoop to some levels and even more disapointed that some of the mythology was inaccurate (Sargon, King of Sodom, and Lilith, the Daughter of Adam, are both combinations of various characters from through mythology), but overall, I can appreciate the movie for what it is. It's a buddy comedy set within a created time and land by people who are willing to toss some vain uses of God's name. My humor found most of the movie to be funny as a whole.
I don't really see how they mocked scripture as much as they synthesized it. If you want to call that mocking, then we're just using different definitions. But if I were to attack the mythology of the movie, I'd attack how they blended it all together, making it seem like there's many right ways.
And let's face it, the circumsion sequence is one of the most realistic non-Jewish/Christian reactions I have ever seen. When questioned about going to Sodom, which Abraham said was about to be destroyed, by Michael Cera, Jack Black essentially says "Your going to listen to a man who was told by God to cut of his foreskin?" I'm sure that was the reaction to Israel by many surrounding nations. Face it, it sounds ridiculous.
-
i say dont knock it til you try it...live and learn.
That's right everyone. Don't knock porn until you watch it. Don't knock Meth until you try it. Don't knock Satanism until you try it. Don't trust others who try to warn you of the harmful affects. Harm yourself first and then learn instead of learning from others who have been through those things. [/sarcasm]
As per pluggedinonline, I usually don't read the review part of the artical (which is a matter of opinion). The main thing I focus on is the content (which is not a matter of opinion but of fact). I used to go to screenit but I stopped when they wanted me to pay for subscriptions (I was young and not working at the time and by the time I started being more interested again in the content, pluggedinonline was already up).
As per the reading/seeing debate, understand that there is a HUGE difference between some one quickly describing it and some one describing it in detail (e.g. Michael Criton's "Disclosure"). Also, if you don't see that stuff in the first place, the images won't pop up in your mind when you read it.
-
3. Don't keep posting links to plugg-in. Basically, you now just saw and heard everything bad in the movie, so why not see it? :-\ It tells you the exact lines, what they're about, so now you've just been succummed to the very things you were reading the review to see if you the movie had.
First of all, it's not the same thing, and I think you know it's not the same thing. Second of all, the point of sites like that are for parents to be made aware of the content of a movie so they can make an informed decision about what they are going to allow their children to see.
Which do you think is a better overall solution: for a parent to see this site, say "eh, those things aren't a big deal to me" and allow their child to see it, or for a parent to want to raise a child a certain way, not be aware of those things, and wind up in the theater with their child regretting the thirty bucks they just dropped on tickets?
I understand that Scheaf. I'm just saying that we should be careful the plug in reviews we reference, for example some of the year one references were kind of messed up and so I shouldn't have read the reviews since the movie itself was pretty sexual (so I heard). That's all I'm saying.
Second, to the blasphemy thing, I think that mocking many Biblical stories is considered blasphemy. If not, what is blasphemy? If not blasphemy, it's definitely disrespectful to God. They make Abraham a non-Christian who parties in Sodom, mixed up facts, made jokes about Cain killing Abel, and many other things that completely put a joking and sexual spin on God's reverent word.
But enough arguing, this was not the right thread for this. It was to see if anyone liked the movie, and I did. :)
-
most of these site reviews are purely subjective and based on the opinion of the reviewer. what might be negative to one person may not be to another.
Isn't that the exact reason why they list the specific content in the films that qualifies as being sexual/violent/offensive in nature? In order to make an OBjective presentation from which the viewer can draw their own conclusions about whether to see the film? You can say that about the critical portion of the review, maybe, but the fact that the content is listed specifically puts the power in the hands of the readers.
-
i say dont knock it til you try it...live and learn.
That's right everyone. Don't knock porn until you watch it. Don't knock Meth until you try it. Don't knock Satanism until you try it. Don't trust others who try to warn you of the harmful affects. Harm yourself first and then learn instead of learning from others who have been through those things. [/sarcasm]
theres a big difference between a movie about cars that transform into robots and porn, meth, satanism, etc. some of these are common sense...but if you're lacking that, maybe you really should try some of those things.
-
theres a big difference between a movie about cars that transform into robots and porn, meth, satanism, etc. some of these are common sense...but if you're lacking that, maybe you really should try some of those things.
That might be true if the objection was about cars transforming into robots. But of course, you're now asking people to exercise common sense while simultaneously suggesting they NOT inform themselves before making the decision.
-
Abraham was very much a Hebraic person in the movie. Isaac was more of a mischevious kid in it, so pick your person right. You should be mad about Litlith being Adam's daughter and being a lesbian, not about Abraham.
-
theres a big difference between a movie about cars that transform into robots and porn, meth, satanism, etc. some of these are common sense...but if you're lacking that, maybe you really should try some of those things.
But of course, you're now asking people to exercise common sense while simultaneously suggesting they NOT inform themselves before making the decision.
when did i ever say this? in fact, i encouraged the exact opposite. these reviews are great as a bit of guidance, but thats as far as they go. its up to the reader to decide for themselves. whether a person decides to see/not see the movie based on a review, common sense, past experience, etc is their decision alone and should be respected.
-
You said they were purely subjective (meaning, zero objective presentation of the facts, and not addressing what I presented to the contrary) and that the viewer should experience the movie in order to find out if they found it offensive. Your post was NOT an encouragement to use the information on the site then, and even now as you claim that you're saying the opposite, you're marginalizing the value of their efforts to tell you exactly what is the content in question.
Meanwhile, you subtly excluded the other objection to your attempt to turn this into something that it's not. People are not comparing cars turning into robots with porn and drug use.
-
The chick in that movie is so gross looking. I don't know who in their right mind would think that she was attractive.
Scratch that. I Google image searched her; apparently she just wasn't attractive in the first movie.
-
I saw it am liked it.
-
Yeah, I just saw it recently. I was surprised at the unnecessarily elevated level of crudeness, but other than that it was really good.
-
I was surprised at the unnecessarily elevated level of crudeness
Anyone who would be "surprised" by this has clearly not been reading this thread.
-
I was surprised at the unnecessarily elevated level of crudeness
Anyone who would be "surprised" by this has clearly not been reading this thread.
I saw it recently.
While I was not surprised by the "unecessary level of crudeness" I was surprised in how much it really made my experience unpleasant. The foul language seemed forced and extremely unnecessary. Even the sexuality bit (the attempted seduction of Sam) was really unnecessary and they could have found a different way to acomplish the same result. I did like some of the plot lines. The ideas that Autobots and decepticons can change. That was good. but overall, I am done with transformers if this is the current trend. The first movie was mildly entertaining, this one was just not worth it.
-
I saw it last night, and thought it was amazing.
However, I agree there were several completely unneccesary bits. The whole seduction bit, the robot testicles, and essentially everything the twins said. Oh, and the dude in the thong. I fail to understand the point of that even from a production standpoint. Girls in scanty clothing can be advertised, a dude in a thong? Not really. Anyway, if you're into explosions, epic fight scenes, and cool cars, I'd recommend it. If you like movies that make you think, I might not.
-
Michael. Bay.
How many times must I say it?!? ;D
-
Michael. Bay.
How many times must I say it?!? ;D
Oh I expected the explosions and the characters as deep Paris Hilton, I was just extreemely dissapointed in the amount of unecessary language and sexuality. The first transformers had much less of this and was, IMO, a much better movie for it.
-
I will start by saying that every child should submit to their parents decision about seeing any type of entertainment content. And parents should review such content to make wise decisions.
That being said...
TRANSFORMERS IS MORE OP THAN THE GARDEN TOMB!!
To think that I get the first good Star Trek movie, GI Joe and another Transformers in the same summer is just awesome! Total definition of coolness!!
Look, I use my brain at home and at work. I don't need my brain for fishing or summer blockbusters.
Looking forward to Transformers 3 with Dinobots in 2011 :thumbup:
-
... and constructicons.
In fact, Bay should just bring in the writing team from the third season of Transformers: Animated. That show is a great reboot of the franchise.
-
devastator was a constructicon...
-
Devastator was a tank, a considerable faux pas in the first film.
Not having seen the new film, I do not know if the actual "Devastator" - which was supposed to be a combined form of the Constructicons, not really a Constructicon unto himself - actually consists entirely of constructicons, or a mix of robots, or non-constructicon Decepticons.
The point was that there are a ton of unexplored stuff they can add, without straying even from the first-generation robots. I was pretty thrilled to hear that Jetfire is in the film, albeit as a redux of Kup. I'd prefer about 80% of the cast of that cartoon (which are pretty much the only ones that appear in Animated as well) over the chaff he's picking up from Armada and Cybertron. Blech.
-
devastator in the second film is portrayed as seven constructicons (hightower, scavenger, scrapper, hook, long haul, mixmaster, and rampage). bay has also said that the name devastator was used incorrectly in the first film for brawl.
-
Maybe Bay is also incorrect in his assertion that the Transformers 3 release is 2012, rather than the recently announced July 1, 2011, date by Paramount. ::)
-
"I said I was taking off a year from Transformers. Paramount made a mistake in dating Transformers 3—they asked me on the phone—I said yes to July 4—but for 2012—whoops! Not 2011! That would mean I would have to start prep in September. No way. My brain needs a break from fighting robots." -- Michael Bay
He's a big enough producer to choose a release day.
-
devastator in the second film is portrayed as seven constructicons (hightower, scavenger, scrapper, hook, long haul, mixmaster, and rampage). bay has also said that the name devastator was used incorrectly in the first film for brawl.
Hightower, Overload and Rampage were not Constructicons in first-generation Transformers. So it's either a mix of robots or Bay changing around the robots to suit his whim again.
And naming the tank Devastator was Bay's own idea to change from Brawl (http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-news-rumors/135688-transformers-movie-sydney-screening-event-pics-reviews-possible-spoilers-13.html#post1360922), which the writers had correctly penned.
-
hightower (or iron lift) is a constructicon and from tf: universe. the other two not so much. but at least bay stuck with a good mix of the originals.
i also find it hard to quote another forum as a reliable, citable source. nonetheless, its obviously wrong.
-
saw it and loved it...fact 1 aobut me reviews mean nothing to me and i will take OTHERS views on things for I will always have my own...
fact 2 NEVER NEVERRRR have i read a christain review (call me a bad christain if you like I will explain why i don't read them) they take things WAY to far...violence? REALLY!? it's CGI shooting CGI bullets...the sex thing...meh...really? REALLY!? okay i can name 2 things that came off to me as bad and they only lasted about 10 secs? really this review writers need to get out more if you go to the beach you'll see more then that...if anyone is still "giving up what they injoy and love for someone elses review because they just said something about" don't...okay? don't let what OTHERS(mainly reviews cause those people are paid to find something wrong with the moive) say effect you...fact 3 transformers is and always will be awesome live action or not
-
hightower (or iron lift) is a constructicon and from tf: universe.
Iron Lift was the original (the ORIGINAL original was "Hook"). Hightower did not appear as a name for him until they started doing all that Universe and Classics stuff a few years back. "Hightower" is not an original Constructicon.
i also find it hard to quote another forum as a reliable, citable source. nonetheless, its obviously wrong.
Yeah, that's obvious. Because there's no possible way it could be you. That's why it makes so much sense to tear down one guy's source while providing none of your own.
-
hightower (or iron lift) is a constructicon and from tf: universe.
Iron Lift was the original (the ORIGINAL original was "Hook"). Hightower did not appear as a name for him until they started doing all that Universe and Classics stuff a few years back. "Hightower" is not an original Constructicon.
i also find it hard to quote another forum as a reliable, citable source. nonetheless, its obviously wrong.
Yeah, that's obvious. Because there's no possible way it could be you. That's why it makes so much sense to tear down one guy's source while providing none of your own.
since when did any of the constructicons in the movie have to adhere specifically to the 'original' constructicons? does that necessarily mean there aren't other constructicons in the official tf universe? thats not the argument here. the point is there were several constructicons in the movie. its micheal bays vision, and i thought it was pretty cool.
as far as my citations, feel free to sift through all 184 of them on the main wiki page.
-
since when did any of the constructicons in the movie have to adhere specifically to the 'original' constructicons?
Maybe because that's what I've been talking about this entire time?
thats not the argument here.
That's exactly the argument here. You might want to keep that in mind, since I was the one who's been making it to begin with.
the point is there were several constructicons in the movie.
I verified several posts ago that some of the bots in Devastator were Constructicons and some were not. There were three possible outcomes, that was one of them, I never denied it. Exactly what is it about my statement that you feel you have to criticize?
its micheal bays vision
Again, that's what I've been saying from the beginning.
as far as my citations, feel free to sift through all 184 of them on the main wiki page.
Really? Is this the part where I go "LOL wiki"?
-
since when did any of the constructicons in the movie have to adhere specifically to the 'original' constructicons?
Maybe because that's what I've been talking about this entire time?
no? because by self-admission you did not know?
thats not the argument here.
That's exactly the argument here. You might want to keep that in mind, since I was the one who's been making it to begin with.
again, no, because you didnt even know if there was a constructicon in the movie to begin with.
the point is there were several constructicons in the movie.
I verified several posts ago that some of the bots in Devastator were Constructicons and some were not. There were three possible outcomes, that was one of them, I never denied it. Exactly what is it about my statement that you feel you have to criticize?
you did not 'verify' anything, you offered possibilities of what devastator could be that covered the spectrum of ALL possibilities. i could very much well say 'the earth is round' and 'the earth is not round', and still come out right whichever way. this is not 'verification', this is simple conjecture.
its micheal bays vision
Again, that's what I've been saying from the beginning.
ok. cool.
as far as my citations, feel free to sift through all 184 of them on the main wiki page.
Really? Is this the part where I go "LOL wiki"?
184 citations is far more reliable than the whopping zero you've provided...from another forum, at that... ::)
-
I had been hoping to see this movie in IMAX this summer, but after reading the reviews and this thread, I realized I really might as well not bother. I didn't particularly enjoy the first Transformers movie, and it seems to me that this sequel has solved none of the first movie's problems, and actually increased some of them. I found the sexual innuendo and crude humor in the first movie annoying and distracting from what little story there was, as it felt forced and wildly out of place in a movie based on a kid's cartoon. Some movies can include offensive content and still be enjoyable (Casino Royale comes to mind), but in my opinion the character development, storyline, and action in the first Transformers movie were all woefully sub-par. In my opinion, just about its only redeeming qualities were the impressive visuals, which hardly make a good movie.
...I just realized I still need to go see Star Trek...dang...
**not exactly edit, but...**
Yeah, so I was looking at the reviews for the first Transformers movie, and found this one...
Negative - Do not see this movie. Like Harry Potter it is meant to appeal to kids and will only lead them astray using clever marketing techniques and product tie-ins. Furthermore, I find it unhealthy for our kids to go on thinking God created other planets and that they are alien robots inhabiting them. Once your kids see this movie they are going to want to play with Transformer toys, Legos, and all other sorts of toys that enable them to build robots like they saw in the movie. They will fantasize about other worlds that are not in the Biblical account of creation and believe that robots are created with life in the same way God made man. Our youth cannot help but be corrupted by such robot fantasies and it encourages them to grow up worshipping manmade technologies like robots. Obviously this has clear implications for other man-made creations, like stem cell research. We should not mess with Creation or with the story of it. If you want your kids to worship robotic life then take them to this movie. If you want them to know that God made man on the sixth day and stopped there—he didn't make another planet filled with evil robots—then avoid this movie at all costs. Don't be 'Decepticon'-ed by this movie.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 1
—Jonathan, age 31
...what the heck? :rollin:
-
no? because by self-admission you did not know?
What does that have to do with which Constructicons I was talking about?
again, no, because you didnt even know if there was a constructicon in the movie to begin with.
What does that have to do with which Constructicons I was talking about?
you did not 'verify' anything
Hightower, Overload and Rampage were not Constructicons in first-generation Transformers. So it's either a mix of robots or Bay changing around the robots to suit his whim again.
Your information was what provided me with the ability to verify which of the three possibilities was the one that took place in the movie. This is not rocket science.
184 citations is far more reliable than the whopping zero you've provided...from another forum, at that... ::)
You actually have made zero citations, but it's pretty cool that you're willing to give other people their props for doing all of their homework, even if you couldn't be bothered. Sadly, that means I have no way to confirm what you claim.
BTW, if I made a claim from another forum, that would have to be at least one, right? Not zero? And I guess it's not relevant to you either that they guy said he spoke directly to Bay for that information. So here's some more.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/goofs (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/goofs)
In the movie the Decepticon tank is called Devastator; in all other promotional materials, it is called Brawl. Hasbro do not actually own a trademark on the name "Devastator" and re-issues of the old Devastator toy [a huge robot made of multiple pieces of construction equipment] have had to be called "Constructicon Devastator." Michael Bay changed it because he thought it "sounded better;" Hasbro and Roberto Orci have both stated the name is an "error."
And don't let the fact that this is the actual screenwriter distract you from the source: LOL FORUM:
http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showpost.php?p=368555&postcount=4479: (http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showpost.php?p=368555&postcount=4479:)
Apparently, Bay said something about there being a big error in the film prior to the screening; do you know if the Devastator/Brawl mixup was it, or something else? Thanks Roberto!
It's gotta be, because we pointed it out twice in the editing room!
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808716430/video/2701721/20070418/2048/2701721-300-wmv-s.35907855-,2701721-300-flash-s.35907881-,2701721-100-wmv-s.35907849-,2701721-100-flash-s.35907874-,2701721-1000-wmv-s.35907866-,2701721-1000-flash-s.35907894-,2701721-700-flash-s.35907887-,2701721-700-wmv-s.35907861- (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808716430/video/2701721/20070418/2048/2701721-300-wmv-s.35907855-,2701721-300-flash-s.35907881-,2701721-100-wmv-s.35907849-,2701721-100-flash-s.35907874-,2701721-1000-wmv-s.35907866-,2701721-1000-flash-s.35907894-,2701721-700-flash-s.35907887-,2701721-700-wmv-s.35907861-)
Webcast with the writers. They call him Brawl @ around 7:50
And a hundred other links I googled all say the same thing: the writers wanted Brawl, Bay changed it to Devastator. I don't know what else to tell you.
-
no? because by self-admission you did not know?
What does that have to do with which Constructicons I was talking about?
exactly? i said there were obviously constructicons in the movie, and you spin off on how some were not the 'originals'. AGAIN, what you stated was not being debated.
again, no, because you didnt even know if there was a constructicon in the movie to begin with.
What does that have to do with which Constructicons I was talking about?
again, what you stated has absolutely nothing to do with the fact there were several constructicons in the movie.
184 citations is far more reliable than the whopping zero you've provided...from another forum, at that... ::)
You actually have made zero citations, but it's pretty cool that you're willing to give other people their props for doing all of their homework, even if you couldn't be bothered. Sadly, that means I have no way to confirm what you claim.
no, i could easily provide all 184 citations here, but for the sake of my time, decided to leave the legwork to you since you were inquiring about it.
BTW, if I made a claim from another forum, that would have to be at least one, right? Not zero? And I guess it's not relevant to you either that they guy said he spoke directly to Bay for that information. So here's some more.
no, that would still make it zero. its not a verifiable, reliable source...much like you'd be hard-pressed to prove anything on these forums (can i trust you're THE schaef??? :-\)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/goofs (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/goofs)
In the movie the Decepticon tank is called Devastator; in all other promotional materials, it is called Brawl. Hasbro do not actually own a trademark on the name "Devastator" and re-issues of the old Devastator toy [a huge robot made of multiple pieces of construction equipment] have had to be called "Constructicon Devastator." Michael Bay changed it because he thought it "sounded better;" Hasbro and Roberto Orci have both stated the name is an "error."
And don't let the fact that this is the actual screenwriter distract you from the source: LOL FORUM:
http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showpost.php?p=368555&postcount=4479: (http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showpost.php?p=368555&postcount=4479:)
Apparently, Bay said something about there being a big error in the film prior to the screening; do you know if the Devastator/Brawl mixup was it, or something else? Thanks Roberto!
It's gotta be, because we pointed it out twice in the editing room!
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808716430/video/2701721/20070418/2048/2701721-300-wmv-s.35907855-,2701721-300-flash-s.35907881-,2701721-100-wmv-s.35907849-,2701721-100-flash-s.35907874-,2701721-1000-wmv-s.35907866-,2701721-1000-flash-s.35907894-,2701721-700-flash-s.35907887-,2701721-700-wmv-s.35907861- (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808716430/video/2701721/20070418/2048/2701721-300-wmv-s.35907855-,2701721-300-flash-s.35907881-,2701721-100-wmv-s.35907849-,2701721-100-flash-s.35907874-,2701721-1000-wmv-s.35907866-,2701721-1000-flash-s.35907894-,2701721-700-flash-s.35907887-,2701721-700-wmv-s.35907861-)
Webcast with the writers. They call him Brawl @ around 7:50
And a hundred other links I googled all say the same thing: the writers wanted Brawl, Bay changed it to Devastator. I don't know what else to tell you.
thank you for finally providing legitimate citations. i still dont know what you're trying to prove to me by this, as i also claimed there was an error in regards to brawl/devastator.
-
exactly? i said there were obviously constructicons in the movie, and you spin off on how some were not the 'originals'. AGAIN, what you stated was not being debated.
What I said was that some were Constructicons and some were not. That is an accurate assessment of the information you provided in response to my inquiry. So yes, it is exactly what was being debated. Frankly, I don't see any reason it needs to be debated. It's only a statement of fact, and you just can't stop yourself from trying to tear it down.
again, what you stated has absolutely nothing to do with the fact there were several constructicons in the movie.
I never said there were no Constructicons in the movie. What exactly are you arguing about here?
no, i could easily provide all 184 citations here, but for the sake of my time, decided to leave the legwork to you since you were inquiring about it.
I did the legwork and haven't found anything like what you're suggesting. Your blustering statements do not automatically make something true, so I lend no weight to this claim until you return some hint of the fairness I have shown you.
no, that would still make it zero. its not a verifiable, reliable source.
You said I provided zero citations... then mocked the source. So you're still ignoring the fact that logically one cannot have zero of something and at the same time have a source, since having a source at all suggests having a citation; and you're moving the goalposts by changing your claim from zero citations to zero "verifiable, reliable sources".
And sidestepping the fact that you have provided zero verifiable, reliable sources. All you've done is mock the citation of a forum, make a vague reference to an unidentified wiki without even citing it, and miss the irony even when it was pointed out bluntly.
...Michael Bay changed it because he thought it "sounded better...
And a hundred other links I googled all say the same thing: the writers wanted Brawl, Bay changed it to Devastator. I don't know what else to tell you.
thank you for finally providing legitimate citations. i still dont know what you're trying to prove to me by this, as i also claimed there was an error in regards to brawl/devastator.
As you can see from the post which you quoted but apparently did not process, the claim was not that there was an error, but that Bay changed the name at the last minute. I assumed you knew this, since your entire argument with me has been over whether Bay changed the name. So your suggestion that we're saying the same thing is wrong, and you've glossed right over the meat of what I've told you: I've found article after article after article saying Bay changed the name, and I have yet to find one that says he did not.
And you refuse to provide any.
-
exactly? i said there were obviously constructicons in the movie, and you spin off on how some were not the 'originals'. AGAIN, what you stated was not being debated.
What I said was that some were Constructicons and some were not. That is an accurate assessment of the information you provided in response to my inquiry. So yes, it is exactly what was being debated. Frankly, I don't see any reason it needs to be debated. It's only a statement of fact, and you just can't stop yourself from trying to tear it down.
im not trying to tear it down. im simply saying IT HAD NOTHING AT ALL to do with my very first original statement, which was saying devastator was indeed in the movie, and indeed a constructicon.
again, what you stated has absolutely nothing to do with the fact there were several constructicons in the movie.
I never said there were no Constructicons in the movie. What exactly are you arguing about here?
and i never said that you did. moot point.
no, i could easily provide all 184 citations here, but for the sake of my time, decided to leave the legwork to you since you were inquiring about it.
I did the legwork and haven't found anything like what you're suggesting. Your blustering statements do not automatically make something true, so I lend no weight to this claim until you return some hint of the fairness I have shown you.
what did i exactly suggest? what, of what i've said, seems to be fabricated to you? everything that i already did not know came from wiki. i suggest you check those sources again.
no, that would still make it zero. its not a verifiable, reliable source.
You said I provided zero citations... then mocked the source. So you're still ignoring the fact that logically one cannot have zero of something and at the same time have a source, since having a source at all suggests having a citation; and you're moving the goalposts by changing your claim from zero citations to zero "verifiable, reliable sources".
i think its rather funny that you say i mocked your source when you mocked wiki first. the first time i ever mentioned a citation from you was in regards to your attempt at a forum post. forum posts are NOT verifiable, reliable sources, and i called you out on it. THAT was the first time i ever said anything about a citation.
And sidestepping the fact that you have provided zero verifiable, reliable sources. All you've done is mock the citation of a forum, make a vague reference to an unidentified wiki without even citing it, and miss the irony even when it was pointed out bluntly.
my verifiable, reliable source is wiki; i've obviously stated that several times in this thread. wiki trumps the random musings of a random person on a random forum on the internet.
...Michael Bay changed it because he thought it "sounded better...
And a hundred other links I googled all say the same thing: the writers wanted Brawl, Bay changed it to Devastator. I don't know what else to tell you.
thank you for finally providing legitimate citations. i still dont know what you're trying to prove to me by this, as i also claimed there was an error in regards to brawl/devastator.
As you can see from the post which you quoted but apparently did not process, the claim was not that there was an error, but that Bay changed the name at the last minute. I assumed you knew this, since your entire argument with me has been over whether Bay changed the name.
really? your source at http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showpost.php?p=368555&postcount=4479: (http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showpost.php?p=368555&postcount=4479:) has 'error' written all over it, and apparantly verified by orci. unless, of course, your 'source' is not 'verifiable' or 'reliable'.
So your suggestion that we're saying the same thing is wrong, and you've glossed right over the meat of what I've told you: I've found article after article after article saying Bay changed the name, and I have yet to find one that says he did not.
And you refuse to provide any.
did i ever say bay didnt change the name? i merely suggested it was the WRONG name for the WRONG decepticon. THAT is what i mean by error.
-
im simply saying IT HAD NOTHING AT ALL to do with my very first original statement, which was saying devastator was indeed in the movie, and indeed a constructicon.
The original Devastator was a combined form of Constructicons. I stated I did not know if the movie version combined a). all constructicons, b). some constructicons, or c). no constructicons. That's a logical assessment of the possibilities.
Upon learning the names of the robots, some of them did not match up with the Constructicons as they originally existed, meaning b). was either true due to the nature of the robots involved, or true because Bay took some other robots and recast them as Constructicons, as he had recast a few robots in the first movie. As it turns out, the second of those is true.
All of these are simple logical assessments bolstered by additional facts brought to light, and nothing I have said is even remotely controversial. I really don't understand what the problem is, that we need to be having this conversation at all.
and i never said that you did. moot point.
Then what's the point of saying "I said there were constructicons in the movie"? Just to restate the obvious?
what did i exactly suggest?
I know you're not arguing with me over the course of two days only to turn around and say you were never arguing with me. You said my citation was "obviously wrong", you mocked it because the person who spoke with Bay posted it on a forum, and you said you had 184 citations that proved you were right.
Can you tell me what your 184 citations are supposed to tell me, if you're supposedly not suggesting any factual information at all?
i suggest you check those sources again.
What sources? You gave me nothing to check a first time, much less again.
i think its rather funny that you say i mocked your source when you mocked wiki first.
That's not even remotely possible, because my reference to the wiki was a deliberate point in response to your dismissal of the citation. The point was not a mockery of the wiki, which apparently you missed the rhetorical nature of that question, but the double-standard of crying foul on reliable sources and then going to a wiki. All of which makes this...
THAT was the first time i ever said anything about a citation.
... flatly incorrect.
my verifiable, reliable source is wiki; i've obviously stated that several times in this thread.
Yeah you "stated" it, but you haven't even attempted to identify which wiki, or where it's to be found, or what this information is supposed to be. "Stating a wiki is your source" is the ONLY thing you've done, you haven't provided one shred of information. The whole point of "verifiability" is that other people can see it for themselves. Well guess what: if you keep it to yourself, WE CAN'T.
And the open, vulnerable nature of a wiki is exactly what does NOT make it either verifiable or reliable. That is why no college professor worth their salt is going to let you cite it on a term paper.
wiki trumps the random musings of a random person on a random forum on the internet.
That would be true if any of your applications of the word "random" were true. To put forth any one of them suggests you dismissed the entire thing without even trying to understand the data involved. I notice you did not pull this same nonsense when the author in question was one of the screenwriters himself.
did i ever say bay didnt change the name?
That's been the entire discussion here. I said he changed it and gave a source. There was no other information in that sentence at all. NONE. They wrote Brawl, he liked Devastator. that's it. You said it was "obviously wrong". OBVIOUSLY. WRONG. If you're not arguing against Bay changing the name, then please educate me on the part of my statement that was not only wrong, but obviously so.
-
im simply saying IT HAD NOTHING AT ALL to do with my very first original statement, which was saying devastator was indeed in the movie, and indeed a constructicon.
The original Devastator was a combined form of Constructicons. I stated I did not know if the movie version combined a). all constructicons, b). some constructicons, or c). no constructicons. That's a logical assessment of the possibilities.
Upon learning the names of the robots, some of them did not match up with the Constructicons as they originally existed, meaning b). was either true due to the nature of the robots involved, or true because Bay took some other robots and recast them as Constructicons, as he had recast a few robots in the first movie. As it turns out, the second of those is true.
All of these are simple logical assessments bolstered by additional facts brought to light, and nothing I have said is even remotely controversial. I really don't understand what the problem is, that we need to be having this conversation at all.
exactly. i never debated any of those points with you. like i've been saying, it has nothing at all to do with my original post.
and i never said that you did. moot point.
Then what's the point of saying "I said there were constructicons in the movie"? Just to restate the obvious?
yes. exactly. what i've been preaching for the past two pages.
what did i exactly suggest?
I know you're not arguing with me over the course of two days only to turn around and say you were never arguing with me. You said my citation was "obviously wrong", you mocked it because the person who spoke with Bay posted it on a forum, and you said you had 184 citations that proved you were right.
i said the brawl/devastator subject was 'obviously wrong'. i said YOUR source was neither verifiable nor reliable. two completely different things.
Can you tell me what your 184 citations are supposed to tell me, if you're supposedly not suggesting any factual information at all?
my 184 citations envelope everything i've been discussing these past 2 days with you. you can find them on the transformers: rotf wiki page.
i suggest you check those sources again.
What sources? You gave me nothing to check a first time, much less again.
see above. i figured it was pretty self-explanatory and obvious, but apparantly not.
i think its rather funny that you say i mocked your source when you mocked wiki first.
That's not even remotely possible, because my reference to the wiki was a deliberate point in response to your dismissal of the citation. The point was not a mockery of the wiki,
'LOL wiki' proves otherwise.
which apparently you missed the rhetorical nature of that question, but the double-standard of crying foul on reliable sources and then going to a wiki. All of which makes this...
i believe alot of people consider wiki to be a very reliable source and tool. except you, apparantly.
-
THAT was the first time i ever said anything about a citation.
... flatly incorrect.
um, no? because i know what i said in regards to your citation, and when i said it? ok.
my verifiable, reliable source is wiki; i've obviously stated that several times in this thread.
Yeah you "stated" it, but you haven't even attempted to identify which wiki, or where it's to be found, or what this information is supposed to be. "Stating a wiki is your source" is the ONLY thing you've done, you haven't provided one shred of information. The whole point of "verifiability" is that other people can see it for themselves. Well guess what: if you keep it to yourself, WE CAN'T.
i've pointed you in the direction numerous times. you're just choosing to ignore it.
And the open, vulnerable nature of a wiki is exactly what does NOT make it either verifiable or reliable. That is why no college professor worth their salt is going to let you cite it on a term paper.
are you a college professor? have you attempted to use a wiki on term papers? because even though there are some that do not allow it, there are still many that do.
wiki trumps the random musings of a random person on a random forum on the internet.
That would be true if any of your applications of the word "random" were true. To put forth any one of them suggests you dismissed the entire thing without even trying to understand the data involved. I notice you did not pull this same nonsense when the author in question was one of the screenwriters himself.
uh, yes i did. just as you cannot prove to me today that you are indeed THE schaef, i can only take what is said on any other forum with a grain of salt. there is no proof whatsoever those postings are indeed from a screenwriter, bay, you, me, a decepticon, whatever. forum postings are not reliable, citable sources. shall we see if a 'college professor worth his salt' would let you use forum postings in a term paper?
did i ever say bay didnt change the name?
That's been the entire discussion here. I said he changed it and gave a source. There was no other information in that sentence at all. NONE. They wrote Brawl, he liked Devastator. that's it. You said it was "obviously wrong". OBVIOUSLY. WRONG. If you're not arguing against Bay changing the name, then please educate me on the part of my statement that was not only wrong, but obviously so.
[/quote]
again, you're misconstruing what i say. i did not say YOUR point was wrong. I BELIEVE YOU SCHAEF. I BELIEVE MICHAEL BAY USED DEVASTATOR INSTEAD OF BRAWL AS A PERSONAL CHOICE. im just saying the fact that brawl was named devastator was obviously wrong. why? because brawl = brawl...brawl =/= devastator. that is what im saying when i say 'obviously wrong'. not you. not your sources. not bay, the screenwriters, whatever.
-
i never debated any of those points with you.
That's all you've been doing, is debating these points with me. My curiousity about Devastator isn't good enough. My idea of the original Constructicons being the "actual" Constructicons isn't good enough. I didn't "verify" the right way for you. I didn't give the right kind of source for you. And even in this response you are arguing every aspect of my reply to you. And you tell me now that you haven't been debating these points with me? Are you joking?
i said the brawl/devastator subject was 'obviously wrong'. i said YOUR source was neither verifiable nor reliable. two completely different things.
They are different things. Which is why when your paragraph consists of the following two sentences: "your source stinks" and "it's obviously wrong", there is only one subject to which "it" can point backwards. THE SOURCE.
If there was a misunderstanding, I apologize for my part in that, but be advised that all I did was read exactly what you wrote.
you can find them on the transformers: rotf wiki page.
THANK you. The first actual reference to the location. But "enveloping everything" does not quantify where your disagreement with me lies. I want to know exactly what you think is worth arguing about, and how your sources prove you right and me wrong.
'LOL wiki' proves otherwise.
If that was all I said, that WOULD prove otherwise. But you can't prove anything without chopping up my words. "LOL wiki" was not a statement I made. "Is this the part where I go 'LOL wiki'?" is the rhetorical question I asked after you mocked my citation, because of the double-standard involved.
i believe alot of people consider wiki to be a very reliable source and tool. except you, apparantly.
Except a lot of people. You brought "verifiable" and "reliable" into this, which is what disqualifies the use of the wiki. This is not news.
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15715.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15715.0)
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15833.msg248670#msg248670 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15833.msg248670#msg248670)
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15153.msg237007#msg237007 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15153.msg237007#msg237007)
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=13389.msg208689#msg208689 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=13389.msg208689#msg208689)
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14327.msg223490#msg223490 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14327.msg223490#msg223490)
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=12435.msg189745#msg189745 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=12435.msg189745#msg189745)
um, no? because i know what i said in regards to your citation, and when i said it? ok.
So do I. You mocked the citation at 5pm forum time July 7, and my rhetorical question about your double-standard appeared four hours later, four posts down. Explain to me how that makes mine first.
i've pointed you in the direction numerous times. you're just choosing to ignore it.
Have you? Let's examine from the time you moved past simply listing who appeared in the film.
as far as my citations, feel free to sift through all 184 of them on the main wiki page. ..
184 citations is far more reliable than the whopping zero you've provided …
i could easily provide all 184 citations here…
everything that i already did not know came from wiki …
my verifiable, reliable source is wiki
There's everything you said about your "sources". Feel free to show me where you specified ANYthing that could tell me where to BEGIN looking. WHAT citations? WHAT wiki? WHERE?
are you a college professor? … because even though there are some that do not allow it, there are still many that do.
I don't have to be a college professor, you are the one who brought qualifiers into this. And I can't remember the last time I saw a professor allow the use of wikipedia. I can't even remember the last time I sourced it myself in a forum debate without getting dressed down for using it.
just as you cannot prove to me today that you are indeed THE schaef, i can only take what is said on any other forum with a grain of salt.
I see, so the only thing I need to do in order to discount these firsthand accounts is to be unreasonable.
shall we see if a 'college professor worth his salt' would let you use forum postings in a term paper?
We don't have to. I would be happy to let both stand for an informal discussion. You are the one who demanded a qualified source.
I BELIEVE YOU SCHAEF. I BELIEVE MICHAEL BAY USED DEVASTATOR INSTEAD OF BRAWL AS A PERSONAL CHOICE.
Then what have you been jumping my butt for all week? If you believe me, why can't that be good enough, why do I have to jump through all these stupid hoops just to get the smallest acknowledgment from you?
-
i never debated any of those points with you.
That's all you've been doing, is debating these points with me. My curiousity about Devastator isn't good enough. My idea of the original Constructicons being the "actual" Constructicons isn't good enough. I didn't "verify" the right way for you. I didn't give the right kind of source for you. And even in this response you are arguing every aspect of my reply to you. And you tell me now that you haven't been debating these points with me? Are you joking?
you're mixing two completely different tangents here. when i say i never debated any of your points, im alluding to the 'original' constructicons and whatever else you said in reference to that. i KNEW what the original constructicons were. i KNOW which constructicons make up michael bays devastator. im just SAYING what you said had nothing to do with my original post, which was (again): devastator is a constructicon. devastator is in the new tf movie.
i said the brawl/devastator subject was 'obviously wrong'. i said YOUR source was neither verifiable nor reliable. two completely different things.
They are different things. Which is why when your paragraph consists of the following two sentences: "your source stinks" and "it's obviously wrong", there is only one subject to which "it" can point backwards. THE SOURCE.
If there was a misunderstanding, I apologize for my part in that, but be advised that all I did was read exactly what you wrote.
if you can point me to the paragraph in question where i stated this, that would be terribly helpful. i also apologize if seemed like that was what i meant. its not my place to judge if your source 'stinks' or is 'wrong'...its up to me to decide for myself if its reliable or not. im sorry, but forum citations just dont do it for me.
you can find them on the transformers: rotf wiki page.
THANK you. The first actual reference to the location. But "enveloping everything" does not quantify where your disagreement with me lies. I want to know exactly what you think is worth arguing about, and how your sources prove you right and me wrong.
actually, i dont remember what we're even arguing about. thats how trivial this has become. im pretty sure we both agree on the same points.
'LOL wiki' proves otherwise.
If that was all I said, that WOULD prove otherwise. But you can't prove anything without chopping up my words. "LOL wiki" was not a statement I made. "Is this the part where I go 'LOL wiki'?" is the rhetorical question I asked after you mocked my citation, because of the double-standard involved.
right, because i find wiki to be leaps and bounds more reliable than just a random forum quote that could be fabricated by anybody.
i believe alot of people consider wiki to be a very reliable source and tool. except you, apparantly.
Except a lot of people. You brought "verifiable" and "reliable" into this, which is what disqualifies the use of the wiki. This is not news.
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15715.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15715.0)
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15833.msg248670#msg248670 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15833.msg248670#msg248670)
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15153.msg237007#msg237007 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15153.msg237007#msg237007)
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=13389.msg208689#msg208689 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=13389.msg208689#msg208689)
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14327.msg223490#msg223490 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14327.msg223490#msg223490)
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=12435.msg189745#msg189745 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=12435.msg189745#msg189745)
lol, six posts on this forum certainly does not disqualify wiki. so six users out of (how many total users?) disagree with wiki. wow. if that is what you equate to 'alot of people'...
-
um, no? because i know what i said in regards to your citation, and when i said it? ok.
So do I. You mocked the citation at 5pm forum time July 7, and my rhetorical question about your double-standard appeared four hours later, four posts down. Explain to me how that makes mine first.
i never said yours was first. i said that was the first time i ever mentioned anything about a citation. i believe that was what we were debating about, not who mocked who first.
i've pointed you in the direction numerous times. you're just choosing to ignore it.
Have you? Let's examine from the time you moved past simply listing who appeared in the film.
as far as my citations, feel free to sift through all 184 of them on the main wiki page. ..
184 citations is far more reliable than the whopping zero you've provided …
i could easily provide all 184 citations here…
everything that i already did not know came from wiki …
my verifiable, reliable source is wiki
There's everything you said about your "sources". Feel free to show me where you specified ANYthing that could tell me where to BEGIN looking. WHAT citations? WHAT wiki? WHERE?
as stated before, the main tf:rotf wiki page. begin there.
are you a college professor? … because even though there are some that do not allow it, there are still many that do.
I don't have to be a college professor, you are the one who brought qualifiers into this. And I can't remember the last time I saw a professor allow the use of wikipedia. I can't even remember the last time I sourced it myself in a forum debate without getting dressed down for using it.
either way, its subjective. some people like it, some people dont, some people allow it, some dont. im just trying to stress that i feel a wiki source is far more reliable than just some forum post from gosh knows who. if you dont share that sentiment, ok then, we're both entitled to our opinion. lets move on.
just as you cannot prove to me today that you are indeed THE schaef, i can only take what is said on any other forum with a grain of salt.
I see, so the only thing I need to do in order to discount these firsthand accounts is to be unreasonable.
no, its called not believing everything you read on the internet.
shall we see if a 'college professor worth his salt' would let you use forum postings in a term paper?
We don't have to. I would be happy to let both stand for an informal discussion. You are the one who demanded a qualified source.
somehow i have a gut feeling a professor would instantly discount forum postings from a term paper before they discount a wiki source.
I BELIEVE YOU SCHAEF. I BELIEVE MICHAEL BAY USED DEVASTATOR INSTEAD OF BRAWL AS A PERSONAL CHOICE.
Then what have you been jumping my butt for all week? If you believe me, why can't that be good enough, why do I have to jump through all these stupid hoops just to get the smallest acknowledgment from you?
i havent been jumping your case over that, and i have acknowledged that over SEVERAL posts. you said something to the effect of wanting constructicons for the next movie, i pointed out there was already some in the new movie, and then you move on to how they all weren't the 'originals' as if to discredit me or the fact there are constructicons. at least, thats the way i took it. the only point i cared about was proving to you there are constructicons in the new movie. its irrelevant if they're not the originals, its irrelevant if bay changed names in the first movie, all this rambling filler for the past two pages is irrelevant. all i wanted to say is there are constructicons in the new movie. THAT IS IT.
-
you're mixing two completely different tangents here. when i say i never debated any of your points, im alluding to the 'original' constructicons and whatever else you said in reference to that.
And I'm just saying that you've been arguing with me all week over nothing.
if you can point me to the paragraph in question where i stated this, that would be terribly helpful.
i also find it hard to quote another forum as a reliable, citable source. nonetheless, its obviously wrong.
actually, i dont remember what we're even arguing about. thats how trivial this has become.
Then why do I still have to prove myself over and over again just to get to this point?
right, because i find wiki to be leaps and bounds more reliable than just a random forum quote that could be fabricated by anybody.
Wikis can also be fabricated by anybody. THAT'S THE POINT.
lol, six posts on this forum certainly does not disqualify wiki.
You're doing it again.
The point, which you're too busy mocking me to realize, is that the questionable nature of wikipedia as a reliable source for important topics IS NOT A NEW THING. So laugh all you want about unrelated points, it only shows that you're not ashamed to be disrespectful when it suits you.
i never said yours was first.
i think its rather funny that you say i mocked your source when you mocked wiki first.
as stated before, the main tf:rotf wiki page. begin there.
Yes, I know that now that you've finally said it. That does not answer my question. Tell me how I am supposed to know this, or what website you're referring to, or ANYthing, based on the TOTAL of all the times you talked about your citations. Tell me how you pointed me in that direction, so that I could have been ignoring your responses instead of simply not finding any help in them.
no, its called not believing everything you read on the internet.
It's also called keeping perspective. Do you seriously want to tell me that this bit of information was worth this much headache?
somehow i have a gut feeling a professor...
... is not having this discussion. You still miss the point.
you said something to the effect of wanting constructicons for the next movie
As part of a larger point about liking the treatment the G1 Transformers get in the new Animated series. And how I would like to see more of that. I explained this in detail not once, but twice, how the Constructicons unto themselves were in the end not the point.
the only point i cared about was proving to you there are constructicons in the new movie.
The last time I told you that I NEVER DENIED they were in the movie, you responded by saying you never claimed I did. So what exactly were you trying to prove, if you really knew already where we both stood?
All the stuff you say is irrelevant (in terms of subject matter) was me moving forward with the discussion:
- BEYOND the mere presence of Devastator to his composition,
- BEYOND the robots to whether they were the same as the G1 brand, and
- BEYOND that to desiring a better treatment of G1 robots, and not to just have Bay come in and shuffle the robots around because he wants to see this, or it would be cool to have that, then the writers have to scramble to find some bot from Armada or whatever that maps closely to his vision. Or just go totally off the reservation like they did with Frenzy. That's all I was trying to do, was HAVE A CONVERSATION. Can I have a conversation without composing a bibliography to submit for your approval?
-
somehow i have a gut feeling a professor would instantly discount forum postings from a term paper before they discount a wiki source.
If you find this professor, let me know. Sounds like an easy 'A'.
Forum posts can be made by a legitimate author. I am part of a couple filmmaker boards that have directors and DPs on them (nobody that you'd know, sorry), and I can trust what they say about a decision made because I know they are a reliable source. Not the way they chose to relay the info, but because I know that they are saying it. Wikipedia entries are made by a group of people of unknown reliability; although they are often right, it is nearly impossible to verify sketchy material because there isn't a reliable author. I'd trust a post from Rob or one of the mods far, far more than a ruling posted on Wikipedia.
-
somehow i have a gut feeling a professor would instantly discount forum postings from a term paper before they discount a wiki source.
If you find this professor, let me know. Sounds like an easy 'A'.
Forum posts can be made by a legitimate author. I am part of a couple filmmaker boards that have directors and DPs on them (nobody that you'd know, sorry), and I can trust what they say about a decision made because I know they are a reliable source. Not the way they chose to relay the info, but because I know that they are saying it.
yes, people you know. not people i know. nor people the rest of the world knows. how is that in the least bit an objective, reliable source?
Wikipedia entries are made by a group of people of unknown reliability; although they are often right, it is nearly impossible to verify sketchy material because there isn't a reliable author.
thats why authors provide citations. thats why wiki often removes material unless it is cited by a reliable source. they stress this part very much.
I'd trust a post from Rob or one of the mods far, far more than a ruling posted on Wikipedia.
thats probably because all of us already know rob on the boards, and it isnt a hard decision for us. any other ignorant person from the outside looking in would more than likely use google or wiki to get the information they want.
-
I Used Wiki as a startign point on nearly all my papers. I looked up the content and then I traced that content back into reputable journals and books. I never once actually cited Wiki as a source in any of my papers because it is not peer reviewed by scholars..it is just peer reviewed by other peers who may or may not be knowledgable in that field. There have been several times that Wiki has been the victim of bogus pages full of bogus material that could have easily been debunked had someone bothered to take the time to trace it down but they didn't (The recent obituary brouhaha that the Guardian in England found its self in and the infamous John Siegenthaler page that lasted over three months)
Wiki is a great source to mine for information, it is just not a credible final source
-
Wikis have potential to go either direction. On the one hand, as you said, it can be easily changed by whosoever chooses. But, on the other hand, there is a massive wealth of editors, and there's a good chance one will catch an error and fix it.
-
Wikipedia gets a bad rap due to the fact that users have the ability to edit most postings there. However, according to arguably the most prestigious scientific journal, Nature, “Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries” (1). In my own experience, I have also found Wikipedia to be very accurate when it comes to any subject that is not popularly controversial. And I have found Wikipedia to actually be at least as objective at reporting both sides of a popularly controversial subject as the mainstream media tends to be.
If I find something there that seems incredulous, then I would check other sources to ensure its accuracy. But in general, I think that Wikipedia is worth trusting.
1 - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html)
-
Is it just me or did this thread do a little transformin'... ::)
-
I'm not even gonna pretend I read all those posts. ;D
-
I considered writing a review of them so other people could decide for themselves if they wanted to read them or not...but I was too lazy to actually read them myself...sorry everyone ::)
-
Apology accepted. ;D I think it was something about Transformers... and sex... :dunno:
-
I think it was about constructicons and whether Devastator was named brawl on purpose or an accident or...
WHO THE HECK CARES!