SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - Autobots Inferior. Soundwave INFERIOR??!!

Posted: Feb 02 2009 01:56 am

Pics of Soundwave and Bumblebee for the TF: RoTF toyline.

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=24073

Not even something remotely music related, unless he's some supersonic jet. UGH.

Posted: Feb 02 2009 12:37 pm

lordsathien wrote:

Pics of Soundwave and Bumblebee for the TF: RoTF toyline.

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=24073

Not even something remotely music related, unless he's some supersonic jet. UGH.

Once again they have failed. I think they just like to see how hard they can kick G1 fans in the nuts.

Posted: Feb 02 2009 06:21 pm

lame.

Posted: Feb 02 2009 07:42 pm

At this point the studio and Hasbro aren't going to veto any of Michael Bay's ideas. His first Transformer film made an ass load of money, which pretty much gives him free reign to do whatever he wants for the sequel. And, this as history as shown us, cough*, *cough*, Matrix *cough*) isn't a good thing.

Posted: Feb 02 2009 08:34 pm

Yeah well, he's turning into a pickup truck halfway through.

And Ravage is his engine.

I'm not kidding.

Posted: Feb 02 2009 09:41 pm

Instead of a jet how about like a PA system for an auditorium so it ties in with the boom box angle? He could totally transform in the middle of a concert and destroy it.

Posted: Feb 02 2009 09:52 pm

......... gay

Posted: Feb 02 2009 10:21 pm

Knyte wrote:

At this point the studio and Hasbro aren't going to veto any of Michael Bay's ideas. His first Transformer film made an ass load of money, which pretty much gives him free reign to do whatever he wants for the sequel. And, this as history as shown us, cough*, *cough*, Matrix *cough*) isn't a good thing.

He'll probably turn Unicron into a Bus or something...

Posted: Feb 02 2009 10:21 pm

Ba‘al wrote:

Knyte wrote:

At this point the studio and Hasbro aren't going to veto any of Michael Bay's ideas. His first Transformer film made an ass load of money, which pretty much gives him free reign to do whatever he wants for the sequel. And, this as history as shown us, cough*, *cough*, Matrix *cough*) isn't a good thing.

He'll probably turn Unicron into a Bus or something...

or an electric razor

Posted: Feb 03 2009 01:59 am

I found out the reason that Bumblebee was a Camaro instead of a VW Beetle has to do with Volkswagon not liking their machines used as instruments of war (what with being partly founded with Hitler/'s money) and all.

Posted: Feb 03 2009 06:08 am

Did Michael Bay actually watch Transformers when it was on? It's like he is intentionally trying to fuck up the franchise as much as he can while he can. I hope the fucker gets a real nasty VD. Fuck Michael Bay.

Posted: Feb 03 2009 01:36 pm

Michael Bay was actually quoted during production of the first movie that he had never watched Transformers, didn't know anything about them and didn't want to do a toy movie at first and only decided to do it because he could do whatever he wanted to it.

He's also a total dickbag concerning 2: He's been feeding fans misinformation since day one to try to keep things in the dark, which would be fine if he weren't terrible at it. Like he keeps claiming Megatron won't be in it and "The Fallen" refers to a new character called The Fallen who appeared in one short story arc of the Dreamwave TF comics before Dreamwave went under. Which is complete bullshit because Megatron's fully rendered design leaked almost immediately, then a prototype of his toy, then he appeared on packaging for several different items and now has been glimpsed in the trailer shown during the Superbowl. And it's not just Megatron from the first one being reused on box art to save money; he has a brand new form and alt mode and it's very easy to differentiate between this one and the first movie form. Whereas there hasn't been a single bit of anything seen concerning "The Fallen."

Posted: Feb 03 2009 04:02 pm

Megatron is some kind of tank thing now.

Joined: Feb 24 2006 Posts: 2578

See, here's the thing. Complaining that Michael Bay's "Transformers" is nothing like the cartoon is like complaining that Francis Ford Coppola's "Dracula" is nothing like the Bela Lugosi version. They're not remakes -- they're different takes on a common source material. In the case of "Dracula," it's Bram Stoker's novel. In the case of Transformers, it's a line of goddamn toys.

Seriously. It's not like the toys were based on the cartoon. The toys came first. Same thing with He-Man. And any reference the movie makes to the cartoon is essentially "shorthand" -- familiar -- like a mute, gruting Frankenstein's Monster even though he was no such thing in the novel (I know, that's two gothic horror novel/movie references in as many paragraphs).

So you don't like Michael Bay's big budget film adaptation of a line of toys. Okay. But why not complain that it's a horrible film with lousy storytelling and unlikeable characters, rather than it being unlike the cartoon series?

Very few people bitch that "The Dark Knight" wasn't enough like the Bruce Timm "Batman" animated series.

Posted: Feb 03 2009 05:13 pm

Uh, actually that is what I've been complaining about; it's a terrible movie with terrible characters, acting, plot, etc. I've said before that the only good TF series is Beast Wars and my only real interest in anything beyond that is the toylines themselves. And Coppola's Dracula may be very different than the original material, but I'd bet a lot of money he was at least FAMILIAR with the story before writing it, like I said Bay knew absolutely nothing about Transformers when he took the project and treated it like any other of his shitty action movies.

Joined: Feb 24 2006 Posts: 2578

My comments weren't particularly directed at you, BZ. Although again, technically the film was under no obligation to be anything like the animated series. Coppola (or really James Hart, who wrote the screenplay) would certainly have had to be very familiar with the "Dracula" novel to adapt it because that was the source material. But in the case of "Transformers," the toys were the only source material. The cartoons were just a different adaptation of them.

And while it might have been silly for Coppola/Hart to not be familiar with the Lugosi version of "Dracula", they were certainly under no obligation to be. (And surely they weren't familiar with every film adaptation). Same with Bay's knowledge of the animated series. But, agreed, it shows an awful lot of gall for that kind of intentional ignorance for a well-loved franchise.

However, if one really wanted to fault the film for being unlike the cartoon series, then perhaps more of the blame should fall on writers Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman. If you have a crappy script to start with, no director in the world can fix it.

And hey, don't get me wrong, I'm neither a Michael Bay apologist nor a fan of his "Transformers" film, but I do want to direct the blame (and the credit) where it's due.

Posted: Feb 03 2009 08:40 pm

...
From what I heard when SW new fig first appeared on the internet a while back was he was supposed to be a satellite type guy. A media satellite. I don't know where the jet is from. That's horrible.

:/

God damn you internet.

God damn you.

Posted: Feb 04 2009 12:13 am

Well, he's listed as a "triple changer" which probably means "move a couple wings panels around and now he's a satellite."

Posted: Feb 04 2009 03:08 am

...
I can buy that.

Possibly literally. Did you see the New Ravage? Looks friggin' sweet.

I hope it'd fit.

I know it won't but...

Posted: Feb 04 2009 07:25 am

DarkMaze wrote:

See, here's the thing. Complaining that Michael Bay's "Transformers" is nothing like the cartoon is like complaining that Francis Ford Coppola's "Dracula" is nothing like the Bela Lugosi version. They're not remakes -- they're different takes on a common source material. In the case of "Dracula," it's Bram Stoker's novel. In the case of Transformers, it's a line of goddamn toys.

Seriously. It's not like the toys were based on the cartoon. The toys came first. Same thing with He-Man. And any reference the movie makes to the cartoon is essentially "shorthand" -- familiar -- like a mute, gruting Frankenstein's Monster even though he was no such thing in the novel (I know, that's two gothic horror novel/movie references in as many paragraphs).

So you don't like Michael Bay's big budget film adaptation of a line of toys. Okay. But why not complain that it's a horrible film with lousy storytelling and unlikeable characters, rather than it being unlike the cartoon series?

Very few people bitch that "The Dark Knight" wasn't enough like the Bruce Timm "Batman" animated series.

To start off with, you are absolutely right on pretty much everything you said in both your posts.

I should say that all of my complaints is from my point of view. I know plenty of people who do adaptations make drastic changes. The fact that I am so familier with Transformers is why it bothers me so much. Well, I guess it doesn't bother me too much, I just can't understand the reasoning behind what they are doing. I suppose if I were a big fan of the Lord of the Rings novels, I would be complaining about certain changes they made in the movies (if there even were any. I never read the books).

I'm not even saying my complaints have any merit. Maybe my reasons are silly. I'll even contradict myself. For example, I enjoy watching the Masters of the Universe movie. Logic would tell you that if I don't like Transformers for those reasons, I shouldn't like MOTU either. But emotion sometimes has little to do with logic. So if I'm a hypocrite, so be it.

If I actually liked the movie, maybe I would be more willing to accept it. But the fact that it's a horrible film with lousy storytelling and unlikeable characters truely isn't what bothers me so much. So much was changed that it has little to nothing to do with the franchise other than in name. If you took out references like "autobot", or "Megatron, etc, it could be a Go-Bots movie. It could be about neither. It could be just a generic movie about any space robots who can take on the shape of anything mechanical.

I will admit that the movie was a success. But with all of the adaptations and remakes ending up either being flops or outright garbage, I would think my target audience would be the current fanbase. The largest of which is the fans of G1. I would think by making changes to appeal more to the mainstream would turn off a lot of the fans you would have already been guaranteed. Then you would have to keep your fingers crossed that casual fans and potential new fans will make up for the more serious fans that you pissed off. In this case, it looks like it worked out. But why risk it? I'm not in the business, so I could be way off on this

I guess it just feels like he wasn't even trying to do the franchise any justice.

Posted: Feb 04 2009 01:55 pm

Lottel wrote:

...
I can buy that.

Possibly literally. Did you see the New Ravage? Looks friggin' sweet.

I hope it'd fit.

I know it won't but...

The one that comes with Hound? Nay, sir. Movie Soundwave doesn't have an opening chest compartment, but that Ravage will actually fit in a G1 Soundwave (or so I've heard, I didn't get Hound/Ravage so I don't know.)

scamrock wrote:

I should say that all of my complaints is from my point of view. I know plenty of people who do adaptations make drastic changes. The fact that I am so familier with Transformers is why it bothers me so much. Well, I guess it doesn't bother me too much, I just can't understand the reasoning behind what they are doing. I suppose if I were a big fan of the Lord of the Rings novels, I would be complaining about certain changes they made in the movies (if there even were any. I never read the books).

Now that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about; Peter Jackson made a lot of changes to the LOTR movies that weren't in the books, but it's obvious that he's read the books and has a lot of love for the story so very little of what's changed is worth complaining about (except for the end of Return of the King.) Bay, again, doesn't know anything about Transformers, doesn't care and doesn't care that he's enraging fans of the series and NOT just G1, fans of the over-arching series in general.

Joined: Feb 24 2006 Posts: 2578

Black Zarak wrote:

Now that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about; Peter Jackson made a lot of changes to the LOTR movies that weren't in the books, but it's obvious that he's read the books and has a lot of love for the story so very little of what's changed is worth complaining about (except for the end of Return of the King.) Bay, again, doesn't know anything about Transformers, doesn't care and doesn't care that he's enraging fans of the series and NOT just G1, fans of the over-arching series in general.

But you're still missing my point. The LOTR movies were based on a series of books. So yes, you have to understand those books to make movies based on them.

But you're assuming that, similarly, the Transformers movie is based on a cartoon series and its storyline (i.e. G1). But it's not. It's based on the line of toys that came first. A line of toys has no story.

Also, I'm saying if you are going to make that argument anyway, throw some blame on the people who wrote the godawful script. As much of a hack as he is, Bay didn't write it.

Posted: Feb 04 2009 03:12 pm

No, my point is Jackson cared about the source material and it shows; Bay does not at all. And you can say that it's not the same because there is no original source material but at this point, there IS 25 years of established backstory that every single incarnation of Transformers has at least paid homage to; Bay's Transformers is literally just a couple names and robots from space, it could just as easily be called Gobots: The Movie like Scamrock said. And the toys very much did have a storyline, not a very fleshed out one, true but a story still. It was still Autobots and Decepticons crashed on Earth, took earth forms and continued their centuries long war there; Starscream was still a slippery, treacherous second in command, Prime was still a paragon of heroism, Megatron of evil, the Dinobots were still stupid but powerful, etc. They had bio cards right on their boxes that in many cases gave them more personality than the actual series did. So it's not just a jumble of robots that turn into cars with zero backstory at all which would give Bay the right to do whatever he wanted with it; there's established info and characterization whether you consider it to be legitimate or not.

And even if we go past that argument; again, with 25 years of fandom behind it, it would be movie suicide to completely ignore everything that's already established. You turn away every fan who loved the original series and every casual fan who remembers certain things about it from their childhood and is then surprised to see, say Frenzy being a boombox that turns into a robot skeleton instead of a little guy with hammer arms. Of course, that's exactly what Bay's doing, but I guess some people just don't care these days.

Joined: Feb 24 2006 Posts: 2578

Black Zarak wrote:

And even if we go past that argument; again, with 25 years of fandom behind it, it would be movie suicide to completely ignore everything that's already established.

And that is certainly a valid argument. My point was to differentiate between an obligation to stay true to source material (like adapting a book) and making the decision to cater to a pre-existing audience by including relevant-but-not-required material (as in this instance).

With the latter, the important questions are usually something along the lines of "By staying true to the pre-existing material, will we alienate a potential new audience? And will we be telling a solid standalone story?"

For example, if Bay's movie was a live action version of "Transformers: The Movie," it would likely have been a disaster. While it would cater to fans, it wouldn't appeal to newcomers because they would have no idea what it was about, what was going on, and who the characters were.

SHOULD it still have been more like the cartoons? Of course it should have. Because for all of my talk that it wasn't required, why the hell else are they making it if not for brand recognition? It's when they think that that's enough -- like Uwe Boll does -- that things start to go to hell.

But here's the very bottom line. You and I say it's an awful film, right? Well, the studio spent $150 million on it, and so far they've made $700 million on it worldwide. You're going to have a hard time convincing them they did anything wrong.

Posted: Feb 04 2009 11:58 pm

I know, that's indeed the problem. And as much as most of the TF fandom community dislikes it, our voices are just a bare whisper when compared to the numbers it pulled in which shows that the general public seems not to care...