quote:

ORIGINAL: pete_traynor

It really makes little to no difference no? There really is pretty much no story to speak of anyway here. And given some of the talent that is now in this (god alone knows why. Kerrrrrrching I should think) she would have come across as even more of a talentless flesh puppet than she did in the other two. Truly one of the worst actresses currently working. In fact, purging her uselessness is, if anything, a step in the right direction. Sincerely disappointed that we will not be granted an incredibly graphic death scene on film though. Oh well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beno

quote:

ORIGINAL: pete_traynor

It really makes little to no difference no? There really is pretty much no story to speak of anyway here. And given some of the talent that is now in this (god alone knows why. Kerrrrrrching I should think) she would have come across as even more of a talentless flesh puppet than she did in the other two. Truly one of the worst actresses currently working. In fact, purging her uselessness is, if anything, a step in the right direction. Sincerely disappointed that we will not be granted an incredibly graphic death scene on film though. Oh well.

You see ... i accept things for what they are . Sure Transformers is daft and silly but just take it as that and enjoy its level because there is entertainment and there is story within its blinkered scope . I mentioned continuation in my previous post and i meant Fox as a character and her role as Shia's girlfriend . In the first movie - very simply - she was the hottie who hung around with Jocks but found them shallow until she fell for Shia . In the second movie they told each other they loved each other ..... again a simple progression with no frills . Now in the next there was the chance of real love in major jeaprody due to extreme goings on with the Transformers .... be it war or whatever . But now that cycle is broken and we are to belive that the donkey that is Mr Labeouf can pull another hottie .
I'm trying to simplify what is already very simple but also very marketable . I think this movie could suffer from her loss because of the reasons stated . Sure shes not the best actress but it didnt matter .

quote:

ORIGINAL: darth silas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beno

quote:

ORIGINAL: pete_traynor

It really makes little to no difference no? There really is pretty much no story to speak of anyway here. And given some of the talent that is now in this (god alone knows why. Kerrrrrrching I should think) she would have come across as even more of a talentless flesh puppet than she did in the other two. Truly one of the worst actresses currently working. In fact, purging her uselessness is, if anything, a step in the right direction. Sincerely disappointed that we will not be granted an incredibly graphic death scene on film though. Oh well.

You see ... i accept things for what they are . Sure Transformers is daft and silly but just take it as that and enjoy its level because there is entertainment and there is story within its blinkered scope . I mentioned continuation in my previous post and i meant Fox as a character and her role as Shia's girlfriend . In the first movie - very simply - she was the hottie who hung around with Jocks but found them shallow until she fell for Shia . In the second movie they told each other they loved each other ..... again a simple progression with no frills . Now in the next there was the chance of real love in major jeaprody due to extreme goings on with the Transformers .... be it war or whatever . But now that cycle is broken and we are to belive that the donkey that is Mr Labeouf can pull another hottie .
I'm trying to simplify what is already very simple but also very marketable . I think this movie could suffer from her loss because of the reasons stated . Sure shes not the best actress but it didnt matter .

I just want to say Beno that your last post made me LOL when i realised you were being serious! Not a fan of these movies(only barely managed to finish watching the first one,didnt bother with the second).Glad to hear Bay has finally ditched the bitch that is Megan Fox though.They just get another hottie to play the Mikaela role(people will hardly notice anyway).

quote:

ORIGINAL: suleiman

This comment hasnt got much to do with the thread but I just wanted to say I 99% agree on Bays comment that his films are Technically correct, i would go to the point of saying his films are technically amazing (usually)

One thing i really hate about reviewers and people that do awards is that they dont have a clue when it comes to technique.
The thing i hate most is when ever i go on sites to look for best looking films, or most sylised films or best technical films i keep seeing Lord of the Rings near the top, and people keep siting it as being breathtaking when you watch it but to be honest if you directly compare it to other films its pretty meh!

I dont mind if you think these films are terrible or you absolutely hate them but if were just to go by style compared to LOTR they are at least on par if not much better
300, Chronicles of Narnia: The lion the witch and the wardrobe, Transformers, Speed Racer, Star Trek, Watchmen, War of the Worlds (all speilberg films even Indiana Jones 4), TMNT, Beowulf, Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions, and some others that i cant think of right now
all of these films have a better score, better visual effects, better constumes, better compositing, better created worlds (setting, life forms), better cinematography, better choreography, better editing, better sound, better art, dialogue (some), better action yet they have nothing to show for it. Some of them got mauled critically,and i wouldnt mind however the critics didnt even bother to take them seriously like they did LOTR, they just thought fuck it its by that director. Then you see films which are probably worse in terms of story and 50x worse in terms of execution getting better ratings because the reviewer didnt have his head up his ass and actually tried to enjoy it because it wasnt by someone he detested or wasnt threatend by.

Like how on earth did Star Trek not get nominated for best art direction, cinematography, costume design, film editing or score? what the hell is the point of having these awards if your just going to give them to the wrong people. How did Tranformers not win Special Effects? How was 300 not nominated for cinematography?

Then people say that the directors are bad when they have done Everything right and noobs like James Cameron and Del Toro who only have CGI/ Costumes and NOTHING ELSE, suckish music, averagly directed action, random direction in terms of shots (avatar), the least effective action scenes ever (hell boy 2), terrible dialogue, but yet get amazing praise for thier one gimick,. if avatar and hell boy 2 had good characters, and dialogue i could understand the praise but they are both pretty average (bad) when it comes to story telling,

Basically Im happy for someone to say the lord of the rings are the best films ever, but not saying some stupidity like OOOOHHHHHH its amazing to look at OOHHH its epic OOOHHHH special effects, when there are 10x (literally) better films in that category. Say you like the story, but dont say 300 and Beowulf are dumb because the main character shouts too much, when in lord of the rings you have Frodo- NOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, and Gandalf - YOUUU SHALLLL NOT PASSSSS.

The thing I hate most though is that the films I mentioned then get grouped with other films that on top of being "bad" are not even of a decent technical quality, and the directors work which is a technical masterpeice never has anything to show for it

Micheal Bay is so right when he says at least his films are technically correct, it gives me comfort to know that at least the people that make the films know them selves that theyve done a good job, not just the director but every one involved

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sexual Harassment Panda

quote:

ORIGINAL: suleiman

This comment hasnt got much to do with the thread but I just wanted to say I 99% agree on Bays comment that his films are Technically correct, i would go to the point of saying his films are technically amazing (usually)

One thing i really hate about reviewers and people that do awards is that they dont have a clue when it comes to technique.
The thing i hate most is when ever i go on sites to look for best looking films, or most sylised films or best technical films i keep seeing Lord of the Rings near the top, and people keep siting it as being breathtaking when you watch it but to be honest if you directly compare it to other films its pretty meh!

I dont mind if you think these films are terrible or you absolutely hate them but if were just to go by style compared to LOTR they are at least on par if not much better
300, Chronicles of Narnia: The lion the witch and the wardrobe, Transformers, Speed Racer, Star Trek, Watchmen, War of the Worlds (all speilberg films even Indiana Jones 4), TMNT, Beowulf, Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions, and some others that i cant think of right now
all of these films have a better score, better visual effects, better constumes, better compositing, better created worlds (setting, life forms), better cinematography, better choreography, better editing, better sound, better art, dialogue (some), better action yet they have nothing to show for it. Some of them got mauled critically,and i wouldnt mind however the critics didnt even bother to take them seriously like they did LOTR, they just thought fuck it its by that director. Then you see films which are probably worse in terms of story and 50x worse in terms of execution getting better ratings because the reviewer didnt have his head up his ass and actually tried to enjoy it because it wasnt by someone he detested or wasnt threatend by.

Like how on earth did Star Trek not get nominated for best art direction, cinematography, costume design, film editing or score? what the hell is the point of having these awards if your just going to give them to the wrong people. How did Tranformers not win Special Effects? How was 300 not nominated for cinematography?

Then people say that the directors are bad when they have done Everything right and noobs like James Cameron and Del Toro who only have CGI/ Costumes and NOTHING ELSE, suckish music, averagly directed action, random direction in terms of shots (avatar), the least effective action scenes ever (hell boy 2), terrible dialogue, but yet get amazing praise for thier one gimick,. if avatar and hell boy 2 had good characters, and dialogue i could understand the praise but they are both pretty average (bad) when it comes to story telling,

Basically Im happy for someone to say the lord of the rings are the best films ever, but not saying some stupidity like OOOOHHHHHH its amazing to look at OOHHH its epic OOOHHHH special effects, when there are 10x (literally) better films in that category. Say you like the story, but dont say 300 and Beowulf are dumb because the main character shouts too much, when in lord of the rings you have Frodo- NOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, and Gandalf - YOUUU SHALLLL NOT PASSSSS.

The thing I hate most though is that the films I mentioned then get grouped with other films that on top of being "bad" are not even of a decent technical quality, and the directors work which is a technical masterpeice never has anything to show for it

Micheal Bay is so right when he says at least his films are technically correct, it gives me comfort to know that at least the people that make the films know them selves that theyve done a good job, not just the director but every one involved

Wow. Just... Wow.

Is your fanboy rant over yet? Transformers and it's sequel both got ignored because they were technically rather poor. The CGI in the first was actually quite cagey, the plots were full of holes, they strayed too far from the source material and they introduced crap like the twins. They're enjoyable enough as popcorn flicks, nothing more, nothing less.

Getting rid of Megan Fox is a good idea and a step in the right direction, but how they're going to explain that I don't know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JoeyPottr

Hopefully they'll concentrate more on the human element and less on robots fighting each other every five seconds. The robot fights were cool in the first one because they weren't happening every five minutes and they were between the main bots Optimus and Megatron pretty much. There were no sidekicks either, the Leo character bugged me in the last film I didn't feel he was needed for any of the scenes and I laughed my ass off when Jon Turturro's character tasered his ass to get him to shut up. No more Mikaela either, so the story can concentrate on Sam again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edward Nygma

Here are three things which I am POSITIVE will be in TF3:

1/ Racially insensitive (read Racist) Asian robots who, of course, know Karate.
2/ Female Transformer (not the Decepticon human chick from TF2, an actual Transforgirl)
3/ Robot on Robot ACTION. And I don't mean fighting. I mean robots getting jiggy with it, sharing fluids (oil?) etc.

If all three end up being in the film...not only will it prove once and for all that I am a human GOD but also that Bay is actually 5 years old because I had to mentally regress 20 years to come up with these three potential scenes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edward Nygma
..I am a human GOD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King




So Rosie ad infinitum is playing Mikaela Banes yet there's a Micaela Johnson playing a character named "Sam's girl"? I've seen the name Carly being bandied around the place. Does she have any history in the Transformers comics and/or animated series or film?

quote:

ORIGINAL: hpmoviefan777

i saw both of the transformers movies and liked them but i enjoyed the first one more,the no. 2 was .....good.but i dont see a BIG plot point opining for a third.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hpmoviefan777

i saw both of the transformers movies and liked them but i enjoyed the first one more,the no. 2 was .....good.but i dont see a BIG plot point opining for a third.

quote:

ORIGINAL: darth silas

This will suck every bit as much as the first two movies and you all know it.