Next Transformers Film Won't Be A Reboot

[individual11]

Let Uwe Boll direct it, I mean, it couldn't be any worse than Bay.

Am I trolling? I can't tell anymore.

 

[Frostbite3789]

I never understood the whole "not enough robots" complaint. The movie happens on Earth, and is about a young man that happens to discover a robot alien, and his adventures that follow. It isn't about a bunch of giant robots fighting each other. That's the sub plot

Well that's the problem. I would have to say that a Transformers film based on Transformer toys shouldn't make the Transformers the subplot.

Sure, it's the problem if you wanted the original cartoon to be remade into a set of boring two-and-a-half-hour long movies where there's only a vague plot, and absolutely zero depth.

There's a reason the films are so popular, and it isn't because everyone that goes to see them is mentally handicapped. It's because they work. If people really didn't like the fact that the robots aren't constantly on screen, a second and third movie would have never been made.

That's very easily falling right into the pitfall of popular=good.

Jersey Shore has millions of viewers for every episode. Does that make that show good? Your logic says yes.

 

[uguito-93]

Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon

Come to think of it, Pink Floyd could be just the thing to save the Transformers movies.

 

[huser]

Seriously, any person that truly believes that regardless of SCIENTIFIC FACT we aren't the product of the development of a lesser species just needs to die.

hmmmm im pretty sure its still called the theory of evolution which would mean that it is not considered fact yet

Yes just like the theory of gravity or cell theory are not considered facts... Or at least as much of one as can be expected for a governing set of rules for a broad set of phenomena.

Just for edification, the term "theory" in science (regardless of how Spock and others in sci-fi might use it) means a whole heck of a lot more than what the layman means when they use it.

Typically what is meant by Joe Blow is hypothesis. IE I see these things, and I have an idea of what is happening. It's explanatory, but can't be taken as fact as it is in no way proven and that is what must be done (multiple times independently) before it can even be tacitly accepted as a scientific finding. This is most definitely NOT what a scientist means in the rigorous use of "theory".

Theories explain without contradiction what is known, and make testable predictions. If they hold up again, and again, and again, they are accepted as theory. IE you don't just get to claim your idea is a theory because you thought it up logically. You don't even get to claim an idea is a theory if it explains EVERYTHING that is currently known. You only get to call something a theory when it can make a series of predictions, and EVERY TIME it comes out positive. Einstein had to wait more than a decade before telescopes advanced enough and various environmental conditions were appropriate to test his theory of special relativity which beyond explaining certain known aspects of the universe, predicted that since energy and mass can be interchanged, then light must be affected by gravitation. Which was then proven by gravitational lensing where light was bent by the sun. This and other findings led to the final acceptance of his theory. It wasn't until the late 1950's that ether (a supposed medium that could explain light wave motion through a vacuum) was finally eliminated.

Evolution has equally made countless predictions that again and again are proven out. It most definitely has been refined since its inception, but it hasn't been meaningfully challenged as an explanatory mechanism.

 

[Omechron]

Excuse me, we're arguing about robot movies here. Could you take your political/philosophical/religious debate outside? Or at least relate them to Optimus Prime in some way?

 

[huser]

Excuse me, we're arguing about robot movies here. Could you take your political/philosophical/religious debate outside? Or at least relate them to Optimus Prime in some way?

Well I never liked how overly complicated and "geary" the Transformers were. They were shown to grow and even spawn, indicating some type of reproduction outside of being "built" to spec. I would think beings fighting endless battles for however long would, one way or another seek to be less vulnerable.

I mean they had so many whirring gizmos a ball bearing would give them a stroke. And given bullets from rifles could kill them, can't even invoke Unobtanium uber metal construction to justify invulnerability.

Heck DUST ought to be a far bigger killer of Transformers than energy axes.

 

[PrinceofPersia]

Transformers gets slammed because it's popular. Michael Bay gets slammed because he made something popular, and is successful. The general public isn't stupid. If the movies were half as bad as the band wagon haters say, there never would have been a second one made.

I'd like to disagree on the basis that the general populace are an ignorant bunch of tools that can be outsmarted by a dog in a silly hat. X-Men Origins Wolverine did incredibly well and was generally popular but we don't slam Wolverine because we're jealous, we slam it because if we don't then they'll idealize it as a movie.

Also the general populace thinks that "The Hurt Locker" was the best movie of 2010. It was a mediocre-at-best war drama with no relatable characters.

As the killing blow, the general populace is stupid because they can be convinced that evolution is a lie. Seriously, any person that truly believes that regardless of SCIENTIFIC FACT we aren't the product of the development of a lesser species just needs to die.

Did I mention I really like your avatar and name? Freaking sweet! To add to your points is the ever stated: "But I go to the movies to turn off my brain and enjoy some entertainment" argument which seems to be a popular chant to defend bad movies. Unfortunately is also shows that the general population of film watchers want to be stupefied while their entertained. Getting things past this mind numbed audience is so easy an eight year old can do it. The thing is not everyone goes to the movies for this reason. A sizable minority want plot, story, actual characters you can care about/empathize with, and something that gets them thinking about things they normally overlook. That is something only good movies can do not same old formula cash grab salutes to the U.S. military like the Bayformers turned into.

Well I am not watching Transformers 3 or any other films in this 'trilogy'.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Wha? What?

Where do they even go from there? They could do a prequel, but that would contradict the whole "It won't be all bots" thing. The ending seemed pretty final, does anyone else feel the same way?

Well, they could do a prequel. Set it in prehistoric times and have elite teams of cave-men troopers helping out the Maximals in their war against the Predacons! It could end with the actual Dinobots coming in and wreaking up everyone but I don't think that would happen.

Hey, maybe Marvel can use their sweet Avenger money to buy back the Transformers and have a series about them fighting the Skrull, Kree or just fighting Galactus and/or Unicron.

 

[MajorDolphin]

Maybe they'll base the story around say... the Transformers themselves or around interesting characters of some sort.

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

Oh, hey, let's get rid of Bay and then immediately antagonize our fanbase.


You raised my hopes and then dashed them quite expertly, sir.

Wha? What?

Where do they even go from there? They could do a prequel, but that would contradict the whole "It won't be all bots" thing. The ending seemed pretty final, does anyone else feel the same way?

Well, they could do a prequel. Set it in prehistoric times and have elite teams of cave-men troopers helping out the Maximals in their war against the Predacons! It could end with the actual Dinobots coming in and wreaking up everyone but I don't think that would happen.

Hey, maybe Marvel can use their sweet Avenger money to buy back the Transformers and have a series about them fighting the Skrull, Kree or just fighting Galactus and/or Unicron.

The Transformers were never a Marvel property. Marvel had the rights to make Transformer comics for a bit, but nothing else. Hasbro owns the Transformers. What you just said is like saying that the Power Rangers were a Marvel property simply because Marvel got the comics rights from Saban.

 

[thom_cat_]

Next Transformers Film-

bad news.

 

[digital warrior]

Excuse me, we're arguing about robot movies here. Could you take your political/philosophical/religious debate outside? Or at least relate them to Optimus Prime in some way?

Optimus died for our sins and on the third season he did raise.
All are Welcome in the church of Optimus. All hail the allspark.

 

[Cowabungaa]

*sigh*

Come on guys, making a decent enough Transformers flick isn't difficult! Why on earth must you keep insisting on stupid and completely unnecesary additions like giving excessive screentime to the non-robot characters during the big freakin' robot fights. Why do you have to insist on pre-teen humour. And why the fuck do you think your target audience would find American soldiers cooler than huge robots duking it out?

Dammit, just make some generic military flick if you want to, leave the huge robot fights to someone else then.

Wait, Shia Labeouf made Indiana Jones seem uncool? is this what people think?

Making a new Indiana Jones movie with Harrison Ford looking older than most of the artifact made Indiana Jones seem uncool. That wasn't really Shwarza The Beef's fault but you know... he was there.

Yeah, that and the Aliens. I was like, "What? This is Indiana Jones! What the hell are Aliens doing here?!? This isn't right!!"

*sigh* One Indy film had a centuries old Templar knight that didn't die and another had a box that melted faces off. People should stop bitching about the damn aliens, Indy flicks have weirder shit than that.

If the movies were half as bad as the band wagon haters say, there never would have been a second one made.

It doesn't even have that much to do with 'bandwagon haters', the flicks are getting bad reviews everywhere, and not just by nerds who grew up in the 80's, yet they make craptons of money.

Thing is, all this crap simply doesn't have any place in a Transformers movie. It's a freakin' Transformers movie, and the Transformers franchise is not about post-teens struggling to have a relationship with some one-dimensional picture-perfect model while making stupid masturbation jokes and having awful racial jokes.

What makes this a bad Transformers product is that you can leave the Transformers out of it, insert generic aliens/angels and demons/killer koalas and still have have the majority of the movie standing. It's like Bay wanted to make some military and romance epic and reluctantly accepted that yeah, you guys can put the giant robots in, whatever...

 

[Wintermoot]

can we please have normal mech designs in the next movie?
the current ones look like a tornado ran over a scrapyard!

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

[HEADING=1]WHY?[/HEADING]

You WON'T reboot this monstrousity but you'll reboot anything that has even an ounce of artistic merit yet?

Do you have any conscience? Oh wait...do News International own you?

 

[Jandau]

We don't hate it because "it's not all bots", we hate it because it's too little bots and the human characters are about as interesting as watching a snail crawl up a wall of drying paint...

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

*sigh* One Indy film had a centuries old Templar knight that didn't die and another had a box that melted faces off. People should stop bitching about the damn aliens, Indy flicks have weirder shit than that.

There's a big difference. If they were Nazis pretending to be Aliens (which would be sillier) then it might have worked.

It's all a question of keeping within the genre. Once you're within the genre walls, anything is feasible. Step outside, and people demand realism.

(See the latest James Bond movies, where it's more realistic than Goldfinger, say, but less believable)