Author Topic: Transformers: Midnight Release (Read 19719 times)

The Schaef · « **Reply #50 on:** June 27, 2009, 11:51:38 PM »

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.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #51 on:** June 28, 2009, 12:14:11 AM »

Quote

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.

Matman · « **Reply #52 on:** July 06, 2009, 01:30:09 AM »

I saw it am liked it.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #53 on:** July 06, 2009, 07:33:49 AM »

Yeah, I just saw it recently. I was surprised at the unnecessarily elevated level of crudeness, but other than that it was really good.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #54 on:** July 06, 2009, 10:44:06 AM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on July 06, 2009, 07:33:49 AM

I was surprised at the unnecessarily elevated level of crudeness

Anyone who would be "surprised" by this has clearly not been reading this thread.

crustpope · « **Reply #55 on:** July 06, 2009, 11:08:04 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 06, 2009, 10:44:06 AM

Quote from: BubbleBoy on July 06, 2009, 07:33:49 AM
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.

~Jake of the Wolves~ · « **Reply #56 on:** July 07, 2009, 10:49:01 AM »

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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #57 on:** July 07, 2009, 10:56:07 AM »

Michael. Bay.

How many times must I say it?!?

crustpope · « **Reply #58 on:** July 07, 2009, 11:52:19 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on July 07, 2009, 10:56:07 AM

Michael. Bay.

How many times must I say it?!?

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.

STAMP · « **Reply #59 on:** July 07, 2009, 12:34:47 PM »

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

The Schaef · « **Reply #60 on:** July 07, 2009, 12:43:26 PM »

... 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.

Master KChief · « **Reply #61 on:** July 07, 2009, 04:45:22 PM »

devastator was a constructicon...

The Schaef · « **Reply #62 on:** July 07, 2009, 05:01:09 PM »

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.

Master KChief · « **Reply #63 on:** July 07, 2009, 05:38:15 PM »

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.

STAMP · « **Reply #64 on:** July 07, 2009, 05:44:18 PM »

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.

sk · « **Reply #65 on:** July 07, 2009, 05:49:42 PM »

"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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #66 on:** July 07, 2009, 05:52:41 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on July 07, 2009, 05:38:15 PM

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, which the writers had correctly penned.

Master KChief · « **Reply #67 on:** July 07, 2009, 06:01:48 PM »

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.

BunnyReaper · « **Reply #68 on:** July 07, 2009, 07:45:34 PM »

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

The Schaef · « **Reply #69 on:** July 07, 2009, 07:55:33 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on July 07, 2009, 06:01:48 PM

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.

Quote

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.

Master KChief · « **Reply #70 on:** July 07, 2009, 08:30:17 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on July 07, 2009, 07:55:33 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on July 07, 2009, 06:01:48 PM
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.

Quote
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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #71 on:** July 07, 2009, 09:50:12 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on July 07, 2009, 08:30:17 PM

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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?

Quote

its micheal bays vision

Again, that's what I've been saying from the beginning.

Quote

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"?

Master KChief · « **Reply #72 on:** July 07, 2009, 11:53:02 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on July 07, 2009, 09:50:12 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on July 07, 2009, 08:30:17 PM
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
its micheal bays vision

Again, that's what I've been saying from the beginning.

ok. cool.

Quote
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...

MichaelHue · « **Reply #73 on:** July 08, 2009, 12:32:52 AM »

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...

Quote

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?

The Schaef · « **Reply #74 on:** July 08, 2009, 12:48:28 AM »

Quote from: Master KChief on July 07, 2009, 11:53:02 PM

no? because by self-admission you did not know?

What does that have to do with which Constructicons I was talking about?

Quote

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?

Quote

you did not 'verify' anything

Quote from: The Schaef on July 07, 2009, 05:52:41 PM

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.

Quote

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

Quote

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:

Quote

Quote
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-

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.

News:

Author Topic: Transformers: Midnight Release (Read 19719 times)

The Schaef

~Jake of the Wolves~

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

BunnyReaper

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef