Transformers 3: Dark Of The Moon (7/1/11)

[AlexGTV]

I stand by my original opinion that they shouldn't bother making a transformers movie until they can make the robots for real.

The displeasure of watching a headache inducing CGI cartoon with a plot that seemed to have been added after filming was only topped by the least likely couple in the universe.

I'll second that, it might have taken state of the art CGI to make them but that doesn't make them really entertaining, what the goal should be.

 

[RACECAR]

Here's something I want to ask both of you: How? How would you make a robot which has to shift all those moving parts around to change ontop of making them work in both walking and driving around? Have both of you taken into consideration things like the robot's size being proportional to the Vehicle diminsions of which they are changing into? How mechanism of where each body part goes when going from one mode to the other? Quite honestly, its rather unrealistic to make that happen at this point in time. Hell, it would be far more possible to at least say, make the F/A 37 Talon from "Stealth" actually work and fly (doing those same maneuvers, perhaps not) then it would to make a actual working Starscream robot that can change into a F-22 Raptor and can still maintain its stealth.

 

[SuperShouden]

But the robots in the movies AREN'T porportional to the vehicles. I mean Prime goes from a Semi a robot that's bigger than a two story house. Same thing with all the Autobots.

However, I am interested to see what the 458 turns into. And this one actually looks decent. Now if they'd only get rid of Shia LeBouf....

 

[RACECAR]

But the robots in the movies AREN'T porportional to the vehicles. I mean Prime goes from a Semi a robot that's bigger than a two story house. Same thing with all the Autobots.

Exactly my point. In fact, there is not one iteration of Transformers I've seen where the robots transform into something proportional to their size.

 

[SuperShouden]

I think they should do Transformers as a horror movie. I think if there's one thing scarier than robots taking over, it's a race of sentient robots living somewhere in the universe.

 

[FoolKiller]

Exactly my point. In fact, there is not one iteration of Transformers I've seen where the robots transform into something proportional to their size.

Except the writers of the movie explicitly wanted to avoid this. The production team apparently wasn't paying attention when they designed the models.

All other iterations were obviously having it happen, but no one has an official explanation, although there were a few attempts to address the issue.

http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Size_changing



All I know is a robot that transformed into a gun was an awesome toy until the fun police came along.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I think the best example I can think of were the insecticons (comics and the original movie).. insect sized in the transformed state, and as big as the others when in robot form!..

Transformers change size... it's just the way it always has been.

.. fun police kill disbelief suspension.

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

I think the best example I can think of were the insecticons (comics and the original movie).. insect sized in the transformed state, and as big as the others when in robot form!..

Transformers change size... it's just the way it always has been.

.. fun police kill disbelief suspension.

Uhh, the insecticons of the G1 era were never insect sized. Unless you have insects the size of automobiles in your area.

 

[MercilessOne]

More one-dimensional characters, a plot as predictable as the 80s cartoon it's based on, lots of explosions, and product placement all over the place.


I'll watch it. For mindless entertainment, sure, why not. As long it's able to hold my focus long enough. No Megan Fox? There goes half the draw.


IMO, the second one was pretty awful. I don't see the third doing any better.

 

[niky]

The worst offenders for size-changing were Blaster and Soundwave, and their associated "casette-type" auxiliaries... though I agree with FK... who cares about the logic? It was freaking cool to have characters that popped out combat auxiliaries like giant PEZ dispensers.

I find it funny that the movies actively avoid all this, and yet give us a cosmic cube that compresses from the size of a building down into a "football".

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

Astro-train was pretty bad for size changing too.

I wondered if the cube was some kind of poke from Bay to all the G1 fans watching the movie, especially after he said no size changing bots because it would be unreal.

 

[RACECAR]

I'm still not grasping how a magical Cube thats "raw power" (already not realistic to begin with) is unrealistic because it changes shape. Since its non-existant to begin with, how was it to be anymore realistic by not shapeshifting?

Except the writers of the movie explicitly wanted to avoid this. The production team apparently wasn't paying attention when they designed the models.

All other iterations were obviously having it happen, but no one has an official explanation, although there were a few attempts to address the issue.

http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Size_changing

And like all hollywood, they failed. Really they shouldn't have even attempted to explain it, its supposedly Transformers. Shapeshifting has never made sense and since noone cared, its not like people wanted to know.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm still not grasping how a magical Cube thats "raw power" (already not realistic to begin with) is unrealistic because it changes shape. Since its non-existant to begin with, how was it to be anymore realistic by not shapeshifting?

Just to clarify, shapeshifting = transforming. Not unrealistic (as we have things that do it today), just advanced (in the way the Cybertronians do it). What we are talking about is technically mass shifting, possibly even matter shifting (Optimus' trailer). That defies all physics.

To answer your question, you spend a year before the movie comes out making statements like "F the fans" and 'there will be no mass shifting because we want it to be realistic' then have a cube the size of a building shrink to the size of a football. The complaint isn't the realism, the complaint is Bay's hypocrisy regarding realism just so he could make fun of old-school fans who were complaining about the character designs before the film's release.

And like all hollywood, they failed. Really they shouldn't have even attempted to explain it, its supposedly Transformers.

Most explanations were fan provided and what few were actually from the shows were in reference to their own continuity. Had nothing to do with Hollywood. Bay just called it unrealistic, then turned around and put it in the film.

 

[FoolKiller]

A couple of new pics here, but just people running from explosions. Typical Bay.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=75765

No, what caught my eye is that I did not realize who some of the cast was going to be:

Transformers: Dark of the Moon stars Shia LaBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson, Kevin Dunn, Julie White, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Ken Jeong, Patrick Dempsey, Alan Tudyk and John Turturro.

Got the usuals, but then:

Frances McDormand - Huh?
John Malkovich - <checks IMDB> Yep, in your trying to get a paycheck, not an Oscar phase.
Ken Jeong - Senor Chang?
Patrick Dempsey - You like racing and can act. Why are you only making crap?
Alan Tudyk - "Leaf on the wind" not turd on celluloid. I guess Wash really is dead.
John Turturro - JESUS! Are you still making these films?

Anyway, I seem to have missed out on the fact that this sequel will bring in a lot of A-listers that can cast quite a shadow on the main cast. Granted, Ken Jeong and Alan Tudyk are just personal favorites of mine but both of them can play lovable goofs far better than LaBeouf.

I'm just trying to figure out how McDormand, Malkovitch, and Dempsey got pulled into this. Hopefully they try better than Jon Voight did in the first one.

 

[RACECAR]

I'm just trying to figure out how McDormand, Malkovitch, and Dempsey got pulled into this. Hopefully they try better than Jon Voight did in the first one.

Dempsey is supposedly going to be this character who's a race car driver (figures, doesn't it?)/millionaire who gets caught up in this love triangle with the new girl and Sam. So if what I've pieced together is true, then we'll get another Pearl Harbor: 80% Romance story, 20% transformers story and some explosions somewhere in their. Writers supposedly say they've learned from the first film, but you'll likely find out if they did or not before me, or already have.

Here's another attention catching piece:
Leonard Nimoy to voice Sentinel Prime

Turns out the robot in the trailer I posted is Sentinal Prime. Whilst I rather he reprise his role as Galvatron, I'm still psyched to see Leonard will voice someone afterall. Interestingly, Micheal was actually scared to ask him to come voice one of the characthers, wonder why.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Uhh, the insecticons of the G1 era were never insect sized. Unless you have insects the size of automobiles in your area.

Damn, that one post is going to prompt me getting my Transformers comics from my loft.. (attic? in american speak?) and checking them all to make sure I'm right... I have most of them since Iss 1 in the early 80's.. this may take some time.

 

[niky]

I have the first three seasons complete... they've never been insect-sized in insect mode in the cartoons.

The only original characters who really shrunk down in the original series were Megatron, Soundwave, Reflector and Blaster. Even Perceptor's microscope form was portrayed as being huge.

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

I have all 4 seasons, plus the original movie from 1984-5, and not once is the insecticons smaller than a one of the average size autobots.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I have the first three seasons complete... they've never been insect-sized in insect mode in the cartoons.

The only original characters who really shrunk down in the original series were Megatron, Soundwave, Reflector and Blaster. Even Perceptor's microscope form was portrayed as being huge.

Surely Ravage, rumble, laserbeak, and the rest of Soundwaves cassettes all shrink down alot too?

I'm still going to check out the comics though.. they may well be different to those published in the US, but I've got the image of little insect insecticons from somewhere, I'm sure.

 

[FoolKiller]

I have the first three seasons complete... they've never been insect-sized in insect mode in the cartoons.

The only original characters who really shrunk down in the original series were Megatron, Soundwave, Reflector and Blaster. Even Perceptor's microscope form was portrayed as being huge.

Perceptor was relative size for a Cybetronian microscope. Could also double as a human telescope.

Surely Ravage, rumble, laserbeak, and the rest of Soundwaves cassettes all shrink down alot too?

Only when in Soundwave in alt mode. If he popped them out then the cassette would grow as it flew into the air and then transform. They were relative in size to look like a regular-sized dog, bird, and whatever Rumble was supposed to be.

If you are familiar with Beast Wars, the only spin-off series to play off the G1 canon, they were similar in size to those characters.

I'm still going to check out the comics though.. they may well be different to those published in the US, but I've got the image of little insect insecticons from somewhere, I'm sure.

Comics and cartoons had some differences. Some huge. So it is possible. They also interacted with GI Joe in one series.

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

Looked it up on Wikipedia, looks like he was right...

Marvel Comics

In the various Marvel comics series the Insecticons could shrink down to real insect size in beast mode. However, they did not exhibit the cartoon Insecticons' ability to create clones.

Farther reading indicates a few other differences, but those being the main two. Good memory. 👍

 

[MatskiMonk]

Well, at the end of the day, it's less important than Bumblebee becoming a Camaro.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

New trailer:

 

[RACECAR]

I tell you what, I have never been more excited for a movie then I am now. I'm very eagar to see how this plays out.

 

[Ru-fus]

New trailer looks nice

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm very eagar to see how this plays out.

The problem is that we've had a run of dud alien invasion films - SKYLINE and BATTLE: LOS ANGELES were both horrid films. That said, Michael Bay is apparently one of the first to admit that REVENGE OF THE FALLEN was a terrible film (I honestly believe that if you strip it down and get rid of some of the silliness, there's a decent film in there, and with a little bit of work, it would actually be quite good), so I think he's eager to make a film that makes up for its predecessor. Part of me kind of hopes he pulls a HIGHLANDER 3 and just ignores the previous film altogether and retcons the lot.

One thing I will say, though: the man does know how to direct action. Ignoring the mess that was REVENGE OF THE FALLEN, Bay does have an eye for making action sequences play out. One of the high points in REVENGE was the fight in the forest - even the critics that absolutely despised the film mentioned that sequence as an example of what the film could have been. I particularly liked the special features with the original film that showed some of his methods (like the camera-mounted all-purpose buggy that was basically designed to drive through anything). He's the ultimate second unit director.

EDIT: Just found the first full poster:

 

[RACECAR]

The problem is that we've had a run of dud alien invasion films - SKYLINE and BATTLE: LOS ANGELES were both horrid films.

I saw trailers for both those movies, but never saw them. Guess from what little you tell me, its better that I didn't see them.

That said, Michael Bay is apparently one of the first to admit that REVENGE OF THE FALLEN was a terrible film (I honestly believe that if you strip it down and get rid of some of the silliness, there's a decent film in there, and with a little bit of work, it would actually be quite good), so I think he's eager to make a film that makes up for its predecessor. Part of me kind of hopes he pulls a HIGHLANDER 3 and just ignores the previous film altogether and retcons the lot.

That movie did kind of feel like it was missing quite abit (and those two small & useless Autobots didn't help at all). I'm still left wondering why they were even necessary along with how Wheelie's characther was (Humping a girl's leg = not funny anymore).

One thing I will say, though: the man does know how to direct action. Ignoring the mess that was REVENGE OF THE FALLEN, Bay does have an eye for making action sequences play out. One of the high points in REVENGE was the fight in the forest - even the critics that absolutely despised the film mentioned that sequence as an example of what the film could have been. I particularly liked the special features with the original film that showed some of his methods (like the camera-mounted all-purpose buggy that was basically designed to drive through anything). He's the ultimate second unit director.

Funny enough, the forest fight scene was my favorite scene of the movie and I thought to myself "Why couldn't the other scenes have been like that?"

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I saw trailers for both those movies, but never saw them. Guess from what little you tell me, its better that I didn't see them.

I've just remembered - there's also COWBOYS AND ALIENS coming out this summer, so that means there will have been four alien invasion films in one year. DARK OF THE MOON is coming off the back of a dud film in the shape of REVENGE, so expectations are already fairly low. I think the most a lot of people are hoping for is a film that is at least half a decent as the first one. I don't think DARK OF THE MOON will be able to launch a serious run at COWBOYS AND ALIENS simply because COWBOYS is helmed by Jon Favreau and has a very strong cast in the form of Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford (who for once seems to have a role where he's allowed to be grouchy and despondant). DARK, on the other hand, has Shia la Beouf, which means it's going to be practically impossible to overcome the terrible casting.

That movie did kind of feel like it was missing quite abit (and those two small & useless Autobots didn't help at all). I'm still left wondering why they were even necessary along with how Wheelie's characther was (Humping a girl's leg = not funny anymore).

I blame the script. The single biggest problem with REVENGE was the scene where Jetfire explains the Sun Harvester. All the exposition for the film was crammed into a single monologue, which is always a bad sign. The plot, I think, had potential; a little embellishment of the Fallen character would have done wonders - for example, rather than having him simply want to wipe humanity out, he should have been one of the Primes sent to seed the galaxy with Sun Harvesters and he set one up on Earth before life appeared, but the other Primes didn't find out until life had evolved and cast him out for it; he should have been an anti-hero rather than a psychotic villain.

Funny enough, the forest fight scene was my favorite scene of the movie and I thought to myself "Why couldn't the other scenes have been like that?"

I ntoiced there's a scene in the trailer just like it where Optimus attacks everything while running across the concourse. Bay obviously knew the forest fight was one of the few parts of REVENGE that worked.

 

[FoolKiller]

One of the high points in REVENGE was the fight in the forest - even the critics that absolutely despised the film mentioned that sequence as an example of what the film could have been.

I agree. The first time I saw that scene, when King Kong fought off three Tyrannosaurus Rex's was incredible.

And I agree with the Riff Trax take on that scene in Transformers 2 - "This would be incredible...IF I COULD SEE WHAT'S GOING ON!"

The number one sign that Michael Bay has a problem is that people who like his work, or want to like his work, have to admit to his shortcomings, and sometimes even make excuses for him. I have suspected the writers of being a huge part of the problem, but their other work doesn't show the same signs. It looks more like Transformers have all the trademarks of a Michael Bay film. The one Orci/Kurtzman trademark I see is a backstory that needs too much exposition to explain. But if you look at other films they have written it is worked into the story better, and directors have cut scenes that get to drawn out in favor of allowing the information to be gathered from the main story. There is a point where the director has to ask for a rewrite because something doesn't work right once you see it. Bay doesn't seem to do that, or he asks for rewrites that make things worse.

 

[sems4arsenal]

Exciting Trailer .Oh and not very Important for some but I hope they don't ditch the Scorponok Score (Epic Music)