PDA

View Full Version : Transformers: Dark of the Moon



Hazekiah
12-08-2010, 09:38 PM
FIRST TRAILER:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnozvCsnUIU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnozvCsnUIU

LOVE IT.

\m/ \m/

I actually went to the giant casting call for extras before they started filming in Chicago throughout all of last Summer. Never got my callback but it was fun and just freed me up to ride around downtown on my bike and watch invisible Decepticons destroy Chicago and chase Autobots ALL SUMMER LONG.

CAN'T FUCKING WAIT TO SEE THE TRAILER IN 3D.

CAN'T FUCKING WAIT TO SEE THIS MOVIE IN 3D.

O_O

Hexon.Arq
12-08-2010, 09:41 PM
I preemptively offer my response to the previous film:

NO, NO, NO, NO.... Just.... NO!!!! >:O

Emma
12-09-2010, 02:25 AM
Certain looks interesting. Thing is I now have "Bark at the Moon" in my head - keep misreading the title.

Hazekiah
12-09-2010, 05:43 AM
NO, NO, NO, NO.... Just.... NO!!!

Haha, you sound like Shia as Sam, lol.

"Nonononononono..."

;)

Certain looks interesting. Thing is I now have "Bark at the Moon" in my head - keep misreading the title.
Yeah...that annoys me, too.

Not too happy about what happened with the title.

The "dark of the moon" IS an actual name for an actual phase of the moon, but it's CLEARLY not the title they wanted.

If you go to www.transformersdarkSIDEofthemoon.com (http://www.darkSIDEofthemoon.com) it instantly re-routes you to Michael Bay's professional weblog/site.

[EDIT: ^ Whoa, it TOTALLY did for the past few months, as recently as a week or two ago!!! Guess they went ahead and sold it off or whatever. But still.]

I guess whatever deals they had underway fell apart and Transformers: Dark of the Moon was just their legally-different-enough option.

Personally, I'd have preferred that they just go a different direction altogether with the title rather than using truncated and awkward-sounding, compromised version...but whatever. As long as the movie kicks ass they can call it whatever the hell they want, I guess.

:-\

Mi-CroMartie
12-10-2010, 02:57 AM
I preemptively offer my response to the previous film:

NO, NO, NO, NO.... Just.... NO!!!! >:O

The only thing that's a NO NO in this movie is fucking 3-D shit... 3-D is just an excuse to rake in more money. Transformers was good in 2-D. And I'm surprised Megan Fox wasn't on the cast list on IMDB. Transformers 3 wasn't on her IMDB profile. I think Michael Bay came to his senses about her being a total bitch egotistic moron on set when she called him "Hitler of Hollywood."

P.S. who's the new transformer on the moon? It looked like a relative of Bumblebee hence the colored yellow on its armor... Or could be Optimus Prime's long lost REAL PRIME OF THE AUTOBOTS? And wtf is up with the Neil Armstrong landing? Oh I get it. Remember in the 2nd one where Jetfire said, Transformers have been hiding on earth for millions of years till now Right?

secretsquirrely
12-10-2010, 03:15 AM
And I'm surprised Megan Fox wasn't on the cast list on IMDB. Transformers 3 wasn't on her IMDB profile. I think Michael Bay came to his senses about her being a total bitch egotistic moron on set when she called him "Hitler of Hollywood."

This is rather old news actually. It was stated when this was announced over the summer that Megan had officially let go.

And I have to say I'm not impressed at all. I still haven't seen the second one since it had this build up of mammoth proportions, but then I saw a clip of some ghetto little twins and The Fallen running aorund in the desert with a giant thing with wrecking balls. Not at all what the first trailers had promised. The Fallen should have been handled with a bit more seriousness and a darker edge...and this one isn't looking like it will deliver much new anyway.

In fact I love the concept of the whole moon landing being for different motives, just a shame this series had to be the one to snag that idea instead of something intense like the Alien franchise (AvP excluded) or just something entirely original.

Hazekiah
12-10-2010, 03:35 AM
^ So you are KIND OF impressed with the set-up, at least...just doubtful about the follow-through?

That's understandable, I suppose. Except this time Michael Bay really has something to prove after the fallout over TF:RotF rather than just coasting along with a bigger budget after the success of the first film.

Also, most importantly I think, THIS film will not be hamstrung by a writer's strike.

You've got to admit, with the 2nd TF film Bay was in a HORRIBLE position and was basically forced to limp along to the finish line on Devastator-sized balls alone, almost completely hobbled by circumstances beyond his control. The basic premise for TF:RotF was fine -- which is probably one of the reasons it seemed so great in the trailers -- but not having ANY writing staff is a BIT of a roadblock on the way to fleshing it out properly, lol.

So I've got extremely high hopes for this one and think there's a very reasonable chance he'll make good on 'em this time around.

:)


The only thing that's a NO NO in this movie is fucking 3-D shit... 3-D is just an excuse to rake in more money. Transformers was good in 2-D. And I'm surprised Megan Fox wasn't on the cast list on IMDB. Transformers 3 wasn't on her IMDB profile. I think Michael Bay came to his senses about her being a total bitch egotistic moron on set when she called him "Hitler of Hollywood."

P.S. who's the new transformer on the moon? It looked like a relative of Bumblebee hence the colored yellow on its armor... Or could be Optimus Prime's long lost REAL PRIME OF THE AUTOBOTS? And wtf is up with the Neil Armstrong landing? Oh I get it. Remember in the 2nd one where Jetfire said, Transformers have been hiding on earth for millions of years till now Right?

Ah, so you're "Raven Reaper." Got it. Just for the sake of being thorough...


This movie's 3D is going to be INSANE.

Megan Fox was either fired or quit at basically the last moment, the details remain unclear.

The Transformer seen at the end of the trailer bears a STRIKING resemblance to Alpha Trion, but there was also a new vehicle on set during filming which was alternately referred to as "Sentinel Prime" and "Optimus Prime's father."

Since Alpha Trion (re-) built Optimus Prime (in the original cartoon's variation of his origin) he would essentially be his father but since a name like Sentinel Prime sounds more like a "relative" of Optimus (and since Sentinel Prime was mentioned briefly in TF:RotF), it'll probably end up being an amalgam combining Alpha Trion AND Sentinel Prime into one character or something to that effect. I don't know...just educated guesswork here, of course.

For all we know it's supposed to be some bastardized midget version of Unicron, lol.

(Except he has the symbol of the Primes on his chest.)

spaceSuicide
12-10-2010, 06:04 PM
hate to step on anyone's feelings but I fucking hate these movies. they're terrible. I've only ever watched the first and it wasn't by choice either.

Angeles
12-11-2010, 01:23 AM
hate to step on anyone's feelings but I fucking hate these movies. they're terrible.

^Seconded.

I love Transformers. I've loved them for over 20 years. I have watched them all so many times that I literally can recite the entire series of G1, Beast Wars and Beast Machines word for word when I watch them. I even have both a Decepticon and a Predacon insignia tattoo.

I'll of course be going to see TF3 on opening day, but more out of a sense of hope. That hopefully there can be some redeeming quality, something I can like about the Bay TF franchise, something I can enjoy, but honestly I doubt that'll happen, even though I really want it to.

I know that a lot of people enjoy these films but I think that until I saw the first film in this trilogy I never fully understood what people were on about when they talked about someone 'raping thier childhood memories'.

Dronepool
12-11-2010, 02:03 AM
I'm not fan of the "old school" cartoon but I enjoyed the movies for what they were- robots and explosions. I mean what do people expect with something like Transformers from a guy like Bay?

Norsefire
12-11-2010, 04:50 PM
I like the Transformers movies, I'm totally excited to see the third film next year.

As for 3D I really don't care, I'm happy with 2D and the past two films have been awesome in 2D. Whatever though, as long as I see it I don't really mind what it's in.

Hexon.Arq
12-12-2010, 12:51 PM
I'm not fan of the "old school" cartoon but I enjoyed the movies for what they were- robots and explosions. I mean what do people expect with something like Transformers from a guy like Bay?

It's not about them not being "great" or even "good". The second one was just a wholly unpleasant experience from start to finish--from stupid gags to incessant music to cheap (non-fiscally) song choices injected for no reason other than to paint over weak dialogue, delivery and editing, to the coke-paced editing itself to just... UGH. In anyone else's hands it probably could have at least been tolerable. ROTF was like having a kid with ADHD screaming into your ear. I don't even consider it a movie; it's an endurance test.

The first one was just so-so. It had some neat parts, which were at least noticeable before every square inch of everything had to be injected with steroids from Hell in the sequel.

Hazekiah
12-29-2010, 06:14 AM
I even have both a Decepticon and a Predacon insignia tattoo.

Pix, plz!!!


I like the Transformers movies, I'm totally excited to see the third film next year.

As for 3D I really don't care, I'm happy with 2D and the past two films have been awesome in 2D. Whatever though, as long as I see it I don't really mind what it's in.

Personally, I'm really hoping they go back and convert the first two films to 3D like George Lucas is talking about doing with the two Star Wars trilogies soon. It would be nice to have them all as a 3D set eventually. The first two films have some incredible shots that would be AMAZING in 3D (the "camera" sweeping under Bonecrusher as he transforms before crashing through the bus on the highway, Optimus ripping Grindor's face in open during the forest fight, the "camera" panning in a 360 shot through the hole Sam pokes in the wall in the desert to see all the Decepticons hunting for him before it re-enters the hut through a keyhole and returns to where the shot started as Sam finds the Insecticon who locates him, etc. -- those and others would be fucking fantastic in 3D, imho.)

That said, this third film promises to be QUITE a treat for 3D viewers. Firstly, it's ACTUALLY being filmed with ACTUAL 3D cameras (i.e. not just some shitty, cheap-o conversion a la Clash of the Titans or Alice in Wonderland) and -- as mentioned above -- Bay's style of choreography/camera movement should truly, TRULY capitalize on the more extreme, "poking-you-in-the-eye" possibilities of the format generally eschewed by James Cameron in Avatar, for instance.

One of the shots I've been hoping for and DYING to see is a first-person P.O.V. shot of a vehicle or whatever transforming around the viewer...and the shot in the trailer of the camera going RIGHT into the 'bot's eye as it boots up seems to promise similar awesomeness.

So I'd REALLY recommend checking it out in 3D.

That's how it's INTENDED to be seen, after all, and you can always check out the 2D version later.

I mean, Avatar is still great in 2D but passing up the chance to see it in 3D would really be a bit of a shame, imho.


The first one was just so-so. It had some neat parts, which were at least noticeable before every square inch of everything had to be injected with steroids from Hell in the sequel.

While I disagree with the bulk of your post, I actually DO appreciate that description at the end, lol.

I really think that's one of the 2nd film's strengths...sort of a "if it ain't broke don't fix it" kinda thing. The 1st film did well so they basically made the 2nd movie more of the same but taken to extremes and amped-up to the Nth degree. It's even pretty much the same movie, really. "Autobots insinuate themselves into Sam's life and give him something to protect and run with while they try and keep the Decepticons off his back" could easily work as a serviceable synopsis for either film.

They basically just added another $50 million to the 1st film's budget and cranked everything to 11.

Or "injected it with steroids from Hell," as you say, lol.

;)

Dronepool
12-29-2010, 12:30 PM
It's not about them not being "great" or even "good". The second one was just a wholly unpleasant experience from start to finish--from stupid gags to incessant music to cheap (non-fiscally) song choices injected for no reason other than to paint over weak dialogue, delivery and editing, to the coke-paced editing itself to just... UGH. In anyone else's hands it probably could have at least been tolerable. ROTF was like having a kid with ADHD screaming into your ear. I don't even consider it a movie; it's an endurance test.

The first one was just so-so. It had some neat parts, which were at least noticeable before every square inch of everything had to be injected with steroids from Hell in the sequel.


I saw each of them once but I didn't even notice that stuff didn't bothering me. I liked this because the main reason I was watched it was to see huge robot battles and it delivered. It amused me for 2 hours while I was smoking pot and for that, I'm happy. If you're looking for a decent popcorn flick, Transformers works. If you're looking for anything deep, I don't know, maybe Haz noticed something, he's good at that.

Transformers isn't something I'd *need* to buy on DVD, it's one of those movies that I watch once and simply get entertained by 2 hours.

Hexon.Arq
01-07-2011, 07:28 AM
Meeeeh... :/

Hey TJ, what did you think of the second one?




This (Part 01) (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/dw/topten/19433-top-ten-worst-moments-in-transformers-2-01)
This (Part 02) (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/dw/topten/19609-top-ten-worst-moments-in-transformers-2-02)



:p

ImNotJesus
01-07-2011, 09:28 PM
Number 1 was a semi-decent mindless action flick.

Number 2 was terrible. FUCKING TERRIBLE! Nobody can convince me otherwise. Blargh.


Steven S. might be the only saving grace for this film. Not anticipating, but I guess I'll see it.

Peaches
01-08-2011, 01:58 PM
I didn't like any of them and I feel this one is going to be the worst. *hides*

Hazekiah
02-06-2011, 05:40 PM
OMFG.

Fucking BRUTAL.

This movie is going to be SO FUCKING FULL OF WIN.

O_O


http://vimeo.com/19625497

ThreeEyedGod
02-06-2011, 06:45 PM
Transformers...movie? Wha

Dronepool
02-06-2011, 06:56 PM
It does look cool.

Hazekiah
04-28-2011, 03:58 PM
NEW TRANSFORMERS TRAILER = FUCKING AWESOME.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zODq3fd5Y90

:)

Mi-CroMartie
04-28-2011, 04:42 PM
Ha, like I said, I could care less if his new girlfriend is not Megan Fox anymore.. The transformer ships looked alot like the Skyline ones or what? O_________O

I'm in!!!

Hazekiah
08-03-2011, 05:42 AM
Transformers: Dark of the Moon 3D officially reached ONE BILLION DOLLARS as of yesterday.

http://i.imgur.com/gFwmc.jpg

You're welcome, btw.

:)

Hazekiah
12-30-2011, 08:49 AM
hate to step on anyone's feelings but I fucking hate these movies. they're terrible. I've only ever watched the first and it wasn't by choice either.


^Seconded.

I'll of course be going to see TF3 on opening day, but more out of a sense of hope. That hopefully there can be some redeeming quality, something I can like about the Bay TF franchise, something I can enjoy, but honestly I doubt that'll happen, even though I really want it to.

I know that a lot of people enjoy these films but I think that until I saw the first film in this trilogy I never fully understood what people were on about when they talked about someone 'raping thier childhood memories'.


I'm not fan of the "old school" cartoon but I enjoyed the movies for what they were- robots and explosions. I mean what do people expect with something like Transformers from a guy like Bay?


I didn't like any of them and I feel this one is going to be the worst. *hides*

Haha, to each their own...but when people start trolling this movie (or any other) for not being what it isn't, I generally just refer them to this hilariously badass and poignantly insightful rebuttal:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTWZhu3BugQ&feature=youtu.be

Hazekiah
01-02-2012, 08:42 AM
First TF Commercial Ever
(For the '84 Marvel Comics Debut)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9-7RjhFzpM&feature=BFa&list=FL9HZDZmK6NyUozEBpf5H87A &lf=plpp_video

Every TF TV Intro
(Part One of Four)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZuzP_JANkw&feature=BFa&list=FL9HZDZmK6NyU ozEBpf5H87A&lf=plpp_video

TF: Rescue Bots Intro
(Brand New Cartoon for Kiddies)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGQle0Zo7Mw&list=FL9HZDZmK6NyUozEBpf5H87A& index=1&feature=plpp_video
TF: Kiss Players
(Transform and Perv Out!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZvUg2c649Y&feature=BFa&list=FL9HZDZmK6NyU ozEBpf5H87A&lf=plpp_video

Instruments of Destruction
(G1/Movieverse Decepticon Tribute)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gl0qvaSWwo&feature=BFa&list=FL9HZDZmK6NyUozEBpf5H8 7A&lf=plpp_video
Ironhide Tribute
(TF:DotM SPOILERS!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OaSGN5rloE&feature=BFa&list=FL9HZDZmK6NyU ozEBpf5H87A&lf=plpp_video

Hazekiah
02-05-2012, 11:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljlHOZ9GVCQ

Hazekiah
02-10-2012, 02:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FUxZ9edjXA




Cost of Ride: 150 Dollars

Length of Ride: 5 Minutes

Average Cost: 30 Dollars per Minute

Getting Shit Out of Devastator's Ass in 3D:



PRICELESS

Hazekiah
02-13-2012, 12:14 AM
TRANSFORMERS POLITICAL CARTOON
IN THIS WEEK'S
WALL STREET JOURNAL

http://i.imgur.com/nFho9.jpg

TRANSFORMERS



By Daniel Henninger


Pope John Paul II, surveying from his seat in the eternal hereafter the battle between the American Catholic Church and the Obama administration over mandated contraception services, must be permitting himself a sad smile. The pope knew more than most about the innate tensions between the state and its citizens.

The Obamaites will object that it is unfair to liken their government to the Communist Party of Poland. That is not the point. What the former Karol Wojtyla knew is that any state will claim benevolence on behalf of doing whatever it thinks it needs to do in pursuit of its goals.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney invoked the good in defense of the Obama law's universal reach: "The administration decided—the president agrees with this decision—that we need to provide these services that have enormous health benefits for American women and that the exemption that we carved out is appropriate."

The American Catholic Church, from left to right, is now being handed a lesson in the hierarchy of raw political authority. One hopes they and their supporters will recognize that they have not been singled out. The federal government's forcings routinely touch other groups in this country—schools, doctors, farmers, businesses. The church's fight is not the whole or the end of it.

Since he appeared, no other word has been invoked more often to describe Barack Obama's purposes than "transformative." Last year, Mr. Obama began to be criticized by some of his supporters for being insufficiently transformative while holding the powers of the presidency—this despite passing the biggest social entitlement since 1965, an $800 billion stimulus bill, raising federal spending to 24% of GDP and passing the Dodd-Frank restructuring of the U.S. financial industry. Naturally an interviewer this week asked Mr. Obama why he hadn't been more "transformative." The president replied that he deserved a second term, because "we're not done." In term two, it will be Uncle Sam, Transformer.

For many years, Catholic Charities U.S.A. has taken federal money to enlarge its budget. The people who run the Catholic Church, though not everyone in the pews, thought this was a good bargain. Here is the head of Catholic Charities, in 1997, describing the relationship: "We have been partners with government to help government do what it wants to do and what we believe it should do."

This 1997 statement was in response to criticism leveled at Catholic Charities back then by freshman U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who attacked the organization for its opposition to welfare-reform legislation. Mr. Santorum said welfare hurt rather than helped poor families.

Over decades, this deal with the federal government didn't change, even as Catholic bishops closed churches and parochial schools across the country for lack of funds. Here is Sr. Carol Keehan's statement when the House in 2009 passed the Obama health-care bill with only one Republican aye vote: "The Catholic Health Association applauds the U.S. House of Representatives and President Obama for enacting health care legislation that will bring security and health to millions of American families." Let the record show that the Catholic bishops opposed the legislation, fearing a conflict with the church's beliefs.

So here we are, with the government demanding that the church hold up its end of a Faustian bargain that was supposed to permit it to perform limitless acts of virtue. Instead, what the government believes the deal is about, more than anything else, is compliance.

Politically bloodless liberals would respond that, net-net, government forcings do much social good despite breaking a few eggs, such as the Catholic Church's First Amendment sensibilities. That is one view. But the depth of anger among Catholics over this suggests they recognize more is at stake here than political results. They are right. The question raised by the Catholic Church's battle with ObamaCare is whether anyone can remain free of a U.S. government determined to do what it wants to do, at whatever cost.

Older Americans have sought for years to drop out of Medicare and contract for their own health insurance. They cannot without forfeiting their Social Security payments. They effectively are locked in. Nor can the poor escape Medicaid, even as the care it gives them degrades. Farmers, ranchers and loggers struggled for years to protect their livelihoods beneath uncompromising interpretations of federal environmental laws. They, too, had to comply. University athletic programs were ground up by the U.S. Education Department's rote, forced gender balancing of every sport offered.

With the transformers, it never stops. In September, the Obama Labor Department proposed rules to govern what work children can do on farms. After an outcry from rural communities over the realities of farm traditions, the department is now reconsidering a "parental exemption." Good luck to the farmers.

The Catholic Church has stumbled into the central battle of the 2012 presidential campaign: What are the limits to Barack Obama's transformative presidency? The Catholic left has just learned one answer: When Mr. Obama says, "Everyone plays by the same set of rules," it means they conform to his rules. What else could it mean?

Anyone who signs up for more of this deal by assuming that it will never force them to fall into line is getting what they deserve.

Write to henninger@wsj.com










So.

I'm a member of a TF fansite that doles out "News Credit" points to its members for referring them to TF-spottings to post on their TF news-site, so when my dad, who subscribes to the WSJ, showed me this article I thought FOR SURE I'd get my first News Credit.

I wound up with an fucking INFRACTION instead, the ungrateful assholes!

I'm a fucking n00b there and it was my first stab at contributing to the news forum, but they brought the banhammer down anyway.

Apparently, there's an obscure, site-specific rule there about NO DISCUSSION OF POLITICS, RELIGION, OR ABORTIONS.

D'oh! Triple-Whammy!

We're talking about a movie with a cameo from BILL FUCKING O'REILLY, mind you.

Haha.

Norsefire
02-13-2012, 07:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FUxZ9edjXA




Cost of Ride: 150 Dollars

Length of Ride: 5 Minutes

Average Cost: 30 Dollars per Minute

Getting Shit Out of Devastator's Ass in 3D:



PRICELESS


Is that really $150 a ride?

The video was fucking awesome though, would love to go on that!

Hazekiah
02-13-2012, 08:28 PM
MICHAEL BAY CONFIRMS TRANSFORMERS 4
for JUNE 29, 2014!!!

CANNOT FUCKING WAIT.

O_O






There has been a lot of speculation about what I'm going to do next and when or if I will do another Transformers. So let me set the record straight.
I have just concluded a deal with Paramount to do two movies, but it won't be two Transformers.

I will first do 'Pain & Gain' with Mark Wahlberg and Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson.

Then I will do the next Transformers for release on June 29, 2014.

-Michael Bay





http://www.michaelbay.com/blog/files/1151a5b01c72685dd3aec0809b964f31-749.php (http://www.michaelbay.com/blog/files/1151a5b01c72685dd3aec0809b964f31-749.php)





MUST. NOT. DIE. (http://daycalc.appspot.com/06/29/2014)

Mi-CroMartie
02-13-2012, 08:38 PM
Never have I seen such nerdiness bursting out of you Hazzy. :p Me neither.. Although Shia's not gonna be in the 4th. He's calling it quits to play Sam. hah. I'm ok with that.

Hazekiah
02-13-2012, 08:55 PM
Haha...you haven't seen my TF:DotM/Interpretation threads yet, lol.

And Bay said he'd be out for TF3 and then again for TF4.

But here we are!

We'll see.

;)

Hazekiah
03-15-2012, 03:37 AM
Haha...you haven't seen my TF:DotM/Interpretation threads yet, lol.


If you're looking for anything deep, I don't know, maybe Haz noticed something, he's good at that.

SO glad you brought it up...and THANKS, btw!

I've recently been temp-banned by the thought-police at the Heirophant-of-TF-fansites (in SO many ways, lol) for my controversial interpretations of various elements of this film, but it was likewise recently lifted and I came out swingin' and, imho, UTTERLY DESTROYED the opposition with my rebuttal:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee8E1I6vn5g



As I've already established within my earlier thread, The Red Cup FREAKOUT Scene is THE CORE OF THE MOVIE (http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-movie-discussion/510454-red-cup-freakout-scene-core-movie.html), John Malkovitch's character of Bruce Brazos is not only clearly a symbolic cipher for Bumblebee (http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-movie-discussion/510437-bruce-brazos-bumblebee-100-serious.html) but is ALSO a character who serves as a literary device for delivering KEY bits of foreshadowing which encapsulate CORE elements of the movie in a nutshell with his extremely subtle and cleverly conceived dialogue.

Yet another clear-cut example of this is to be found in his lesson to Sam about the importance of choosing the correct career path following one's graduation from college. As the second Transformers film dealt with his collegiate matriculation and the third film begins with his subsequent job search after completing his college studies, Bruce Brazos' brief yet overwhelmingly poignant life-lesson for Sam may likewise be seen as an overview of the entire third film itself, in terms of the overall moral of its story and the film's lessons to its own audience.

And what ARE these lessons?

I hereby submit that the bulk of the film concerns itself with the importance of dealing properly with the "hard decisions" in life, a point readily visible at the very center of the film's primary conflict between Optimus and Sentinel Prime, for example.

One of this film's most controversial masterstrokes is the liberation of Optimus' character from the constant dithering and self-doubt which had so often plagued him in past incarnations, as well as his idealism-to-a-fault which had painted the character into so many corners and kept him from finally winning the war for Cybertron, a problem from which Sentinel clearly did not suffer. As Optimus himself confesses to Sentinel, "I've wondered what might have been if you had fought the final battle instead of me."

The animated 1986 Transformers film even went so far as to kill off Optimus entirely and replace him with the far more rash and impulsive yet likewise definitively more decisive Hot Rod to circumvent this problem, whose ascension as leader of the Autobots as Rodimus Prime even suggested that all previous Primes were mere warm-up acts for he, "the chosen one," who would lead the Autobots to ultimate victory and finally save Cybertron from complete destruction.

In the absence of that role, however, the live action films instead resolve this issue by teaching Optimus himself to settle and work through his doubts for the sake of the greater good by forcing himself to commit to making these hard decisions on his own; in a way the final, greatest, and most morally complex lesson taught to him by his wayward mentor Sentinel.

At the heart of their philosophical battle, of course, was the choice to either forsake their homeworld entirely in favor of adopting Earth as their new home, or else to forsake their ideals as Primes -- "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" -- and to indeed forsake Earth itself in favor of rebuilding Cybertron with the enslavement of humanity, the age-old war over which had claimed countless Cybertronian lives over thousands of years, ravaged Earth, and indeed rendered Cybertron itself a dead world.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...

Hazekiah
03-15-2012, 03:38 AM
CORRECT PATH vs. LIFE-SUCKING ABYSS




http://i.imgur.com/pNlhp.jpg



Absolute filmmaking GENIUS!!!

O_O

Furthermore, one might easily extrapolate from this primary visual and thematic motif a greater sense of understanding for the moral dilemmas faced by the rest of the principle characters as well.

The stunted-yet-ultimately-rekindled romance of Simmons and Mearing and his played-for-a-laugh punishment for being so bold may seem like a strange endpiece for the entire film -- and it certainly is, lol -- but as it directly echoes this same overall moral with its resolution of the choice he makes to pursue and reignite the passion they shared in Quantico rather than remaining mired bitterness in the wake of having had his heart torn out by her when she left him, I believe it begins to make a bit more sense as a celebratory emphasis of this central idea. Their smiles say it all. CORRECT PATH.

Sentinel Prime, obviously, chose wrongly and betrayed his own idealism and consequently paid dearly. He sided with the Decepticons rather than the Autobots and chose Cybertron instead of Earth and paid the ultimate price for it, even spending untold hundreds of years in stasis and half-dead on the Moon before being revived and finally executed for his betrayal by Optimus. LIFE-SUCKING ABYSS.

Optimus Prime, conversely, faced his dilemma and maintained his ideals as a Prime courageously, earning his final reward of a new home and, ultimately, victory and peace at last, following his finishing off of Sentinel and rejection of Megatron's too-little-too-late and disingenuous offer of a truce. CORRECT PATH.

Even Megatron himself was originally able to see the ultimate folly of his ways in the original script (until his fate was reconsidered, of course) and set aside war to instead strive for peace and harmony. Elements of this change-of-heart remain in the film and are front and center in the comic and novel adaptations despite the more violent and decisive end of the finished film...but still. CORRECT PATH.

Well, almost anyway...haha.

Nonetheless, Megatron finds himself in either case also faced with the realization that his plans to rule over all of Cybertron AND Earth have been subverted and that he will no longer be master of both planets but rather "nothing more than Sentinel's bitch." A bit of a darker spin on it, lol, but still. CORRECT PATH.

Up until the new, more violent and decisive conclusion of his battle with Optimus, that is!

Wisely, I think, the filmmakers chose to downplay Megatron's honor and instead gave Optimus the chance to make another hard decision and redeem himself while also acknowledging Megatron's historically all-or-nothing, war-mongering evilness. LIFE-SUCKING ABYSS.

Speaking of which, Carly begins the film utterly unable to cope with Sam endangering himself, even for the sake of saving the world, due to the trauma she suffered at the loss of her brother. Yet by its conclusion she ultimately redeems herself from this mistake by seeing the virtue and wisdom involved in Sam's decision and likewise heroically throws herself into danger by facing down and outwitting Megatron himself to trick him into saving Optimus and, ultimately, the entire planet Earth. CORRECT PATH.

And Dylan of course had multiple opportunities to redeem himself and return to the side of good, particularly once he was no longer forcibly rendered subservient to the Decepticons after passing his wristwatch-bot torture/control device off to Sam and after the Autobots were clearly en route to victory, but instead he chose to maintain his turncoat allegiances and remain enslaved to evil all the way up to his painful and inglorious death. "You chose sides? You chose wrong!" ORLY? Bam. LIFE-SUCKING ABYSS.

Even NEST and the Autobots themselves are forced to decide between honoring the commands of Earth's leaders or -- in their own, more noble way -- to essentially turn traitor themselves and act against those orders for the greater good. CORRECT PATH.

Which leads me to Sam Witwicky.

In many ways he starts the film facing the same dilemmas of maturity most youths are faced with in the real world. He and Bumblebee are old friends with a bond literally beyond words, yet in the wake of their parting for Sam to go to college and the responsibilities they both face with their respective jobs they inevitably grow apart and see less and less of each other. Sam, of course, tries to deal with his abandonment issues and fill this void with surrogates (echoing the Autobots' own abandonment issues and their newfound home on Earth and *ahem* NEST) by attempting to replace his missing pal Bumblebee with his lackluster Datsun and a new job and even his new girlfriend Carly (http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-movie-discussion/510437-bruce-brazos-bumblebee-100-serious.html), to varying degrees of success.

But, naturally, the principal dilemma he faces in this film is dealing with recapturing his former status as HERO versus the more ignoble and unfavorable role of MESSENGER, neatly and cleverly echoed and reinforced by Sam's OTHER dilemma of figuring out a way around the wristwatch-bot torture/control device which forces him to turn traitor against the Autobots and aid in Sentinel Prime's enslavement of humanity by essentially turning him into a human wiretap-spy who's forced to comply under the threat of grievous physical agony (*ahem* "Visceral betrayal (http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-movie-discussion/510454-red-cup-freakout-scene-core-movie.html)," anyone?).

Of course, in the end he's able to outwit his evil new masters by subtly hinting to Optimus that his worthiness of trust has been bitterly compromised -- "No other HUMAN will ever know," he says...and just check out that telling reaction shot of Optimus' face upon hearing it -- and Sam is able to once more save the day and indeed the entire planet Earth for a third time, ultimately reclaiming his status as hero and returning to the arms of his newly-freed lover.

"If we just do what they want, how will we ever live with ourselves?" he asks Optimus, himself, and indeed the very audience of the film.

And the entire film demonstrates to us all how to overcome this dilemma; by making the hard decisions and never forsaking your ideals.

CORRECT PATH.

That's how I see the whole thing anyway, and furthermore PRECISELY what I believe the filmmakers intended throughout.

Sure, there's a ton of spectacle to help the medicine go down and some ham-fisted delivery here and there, but I feel it is indeed the overall message of the film and -- surprise, surprise -- that message is either blatantly supported by or otherwise subtly hinted at by almost every single element along the way.

Thank you, Bruce Brazos!

\o/




Hope that helps clarify a few things for everyone.

:)

Hazekiah
03-27-2012, 05:18 AM
Arise, SPOCKTIMUS PRIME!!!





While Star Trek and Transformers fans seem to have greatly enjoyed Leonard Nimoy's work within BOTH franchises, I don't think it's generally appreciated just HOW cleverly his character's role in Star Trek has been woven into Transformers: Dark of the Moon, an oversight this topic aims to resolve.

Firstly, Nimoy's no stranger to the Transformers franchise, having already voiced the character of Galvatron in the animated '86 movie. But that correlation extends beyond simply voicing Galvatron then and Sentinel Prime now.

Galvatron, of course, was simply Megatron after he'd been saved from the brink of death by an unimaginable power, a situation clearly echoed by Sentinel's resuscitation with the energies of the Matrix, the energy from which was established in the same animated film as being equal to or mightier than the powers of Unicron, Megatron's savior and the creator of his "reformatted" new self as Galvatron. Naturally, Galvatron rebelled against his master to serve his own interest, an overall dynamic similar to Sentinel's rejection of the tenets of the Primes and their belief in never exploiting or sacrificing other sentient life forms, not even for the sake of their own survival or Cybertron's.

Some might call such parallels "reaching." I would however readily counter that if one can accept that the "helmet" of Sentinel Prime was clearly designed to resemble the "helmet" of Rodimus Prime -- and it most certainly was -- and that considering casting Nimoy as The Fallen and later Sentinel stemmed largely from his previous work on the animated film rather than simply his availability to Bay through familial relations, then one must also consider the likelihood that the intentional connections DO NOT simply end there.

If they were going to go through the trouble of courting him for the role of Sentinel Prime in the first place, then they were damned sure going to make it something interesting and worth his while. A feat I believe they've achieved to a superlative degree.

However, those elements merely demonstrate some degree of general correlation between both of his roles in the Transformers franchise. Interesting as that may be, it all positively pales in comparison to the extent to which they've played upon his past in the Star Trek franchise with his role as Sentinel Prime.

Regarding those particular further parallels, their strong facial resemblance to one another is a good place to start.

Yes, the character design for Sentinel began with the directive to re-imagine the face of Sean Connery as that of a Cybertronian. However, many fans have likewise noticed striking similarities to Peter Cullen's and Leonard Nimoy's faces in Sentinel's as well. Certainly, a visual homage to the voice actor of Sentinel's protege Optimus isn't out-of-the-question any more than the possibility of CGI animators referencing video footage of Nimoy's voice-acting sessions for the finished film's facial animation, a very common and effective practice in the field. Yet one must similarly accept that the faces of any number of dour and stern-looking old men could likewise be found to resemble Sentinel's own.

However, it is by the same token worth pointing out that only Nimoy had previously played Spock. Bearing that in mind, I believe that the "antennae" above Sentinel's "eyebrows" resembling exaggerated versions the world-famous Vulcan eyebrows of Spock is by no means coincidental.



http://i.imgur.com/neIsW.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/llCYu.jpg





And then there's the matter of Sentinel's goatee.

While Sean Connery and Peter Cullen have both had some interesting facial hair over the years, it is again Nimoy who most famously wore a goatee. More to the point, he even did so specifically for an extremely popular and well-known episode of "Star Trek," entitled "Mirror, Mirror," in which we meet Spock's evil doppelganger from a parallel universe gone sour. This of course is echoed by his turn as Sentinel, himself essentially an evil Prime who just so happens to wear his facial "hair" in a style noticeably reminiscent of "Evil Spock's" own primary distinguishing feature:



http://i.imgur.com/DWuEN.jpg






Which leads me to Spock's dark side, so to speak.

In the reboot/sequel film Star Trek, we meet yet another Spock from a parallel universe, who himself meets his own counterpart...the Spock from the original series!

Following this revelation, Spock reveals to his younger, parallel-universe-self that back in the continuity of the original Star Trek shows and movies he'd embarked upon a quest to save an entire planet using his species' advanced technology. In the course of this failed attempt, however, he was tragically responsible for setting in motion the events which led to the destruction of his own homeworld.

This very same Star Trek film was also written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the same two writers who were the principle writers of the first two live-action Transformers films. Intriguing! Furthermore, in an attempt to more easily distinguish the two Spocks within the same film, they were forced to create a more specific name for the original Spock. In keeping with the idea of a reboot, of course, their parallel universe Spock was simply the new "Spock."

And, that same film also being a sequel, what did they come up with to call the original "Spock" in this new continuity...?



SPOCK PRIME

http://i.imgur.com/I6NQf.jpg





Haha, that's a pretty fun play on the new Star Trek writers' collective background as "the Transformers guys," obviously. I'm sure Ehren Krueger (their co-writer for TF:RotF and principle writer for its sequel, of course) and the rest of the crew thoroughly enjoyed incorporating so many Star Trek-related winks-and-nods into their Transformers film as much as Orci & Kurtzman enjoyed their own subtle little wink-and-nod to Transformers fans in their Star Trek film, albeit one glimpsed only briefly in the end credits.

And the winks-and-nods don't end there!

One could likewise easily make the case for the ultimate destruction of Sentinel's homeworld bearing a purposely distinct resemblance to the ultimate destruction of Spock's homeworld:



http://i.imgur.com/HWqjB.jpg?1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wVEhafuF7A

Hazekiah
03-27-2012, 05:19 AM
Which leads me to the subject of space bridges.

Yes, the space bridges of the Transformers franchise were rather clearly inspired by the transporter beams of the Star Trek franchise. They do originate from the same Transformers cartoon which even recycled the sound effect of Star Trek's doors, after all! Of course, the idea of teleportation as a trope of science fiction predates both franchises, but the transporter beams of Star Trek are by far the most famous and well-known example of the concept.

So one can't help but appreciate the absolutely wonderful congruence of a character with the voice of Spock having invented the pillars to form a space bridge! Genius!

And speaking purely in terms of visuals, the space bridge of TF:DotM is also a rather striking departure from the appearance of Jetfire's space bridge from TF:RotF. However, there IS an altogether different and, I believe, tellingly revealing visual connection to be made with the newer visualization of the space bridge instead...

http://i.imgur.com/acqGV.jpg?1




http://i.imgur.com/10STO.jpg





In fact...




ENERGIZING TRANSPORTER
http://i.imgur.com/AxF9m.jpg

COMMENCING TRANSPORT
http://i.imgur.com/lyU4s.jpg?1





I could also almost SWEAR I've heard Spock, or someone from Star Trek anyway, actually say "commencing transport" in some place or another...but with all the episodes of all the shows (creeping up on 1,000!) not to mention soon-to-be TWELVE movies, I'm expecting to be looking for that one for quite some time, lol. But still. Given the numerous instances of Star Trek references pervasive throughout the Transformers franchise and TF:DotM specifically, I don't particularly think it's getting ahead of myself to chalk this one up as yet another intentional reference, particularly in light of its context.

Haha, I can easily see Nimoy having a good chuckle to himself over THAT line in the recording booth for Sentinel's dialogue!

Speaking of which...

Aside from the more overt Star Trek references in TF:DotM -- Wheelie watching "Star Trek" on TV, Sam describing Dylan's office with "It looks like the Starship Enterprise in here," Bumblebee sampling Spock's dying words to Kirk -- there are unquestionably several more subtle references to Star Trek throughout the film, as detailed above.

Yet there is clearly ONE such reference which is hands down the most subtly blatant and polarizing of them ALL...




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY9W9LFAJWQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa6c3OTr6yA






A classic Star Trek line blatantly echoed in a Transformers movie.

You either LOVE IT or you HATE IT.

Now, ONE frequent complaint about this scene is rooted in a general misunderstanding of Sentinel's application of the phrase. "How can he say that when we seven BILLION Earthlings EASILY outnumber a couple hundred Cybertronians?"

This issue is however nimbly side-stepped by simply pointing out that we the audience have no real data on the sum total of surviving Cybertronians and must simply assume there are more of them than there are of us.

But I feel that one key word in his statement tells a different story:


"How doomed you are, AUTOBOTS; you simply fail to realize
that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."




He's not talking about humans there. He'd already expressed his utter disdain and complete lack of respect for us QUITE clearly by that point.

No, he's talking about the Autobots.

He's addressing them from the point-of-view of a defector to the Decepticons, and just like his evil collaborators he views us as nothing more than insects and a means to an end. We don't factor into his decision making process at all, beyond whatever diabolical use he has for us as his slave laborers. Again, he's talking about the Autobots there, who barely number in the double-digits, mind you, versus the hundreds of Decepticons he's aligned himself with against Earth and its protectors. As if to further underscore this point, he even says that line at precisely the same moment as a Decepticon carrier ship is cruising by right beside him, brimming with invading Decepticons and their attack ships.

Likewise, he's delivering to his former Autobot colleagues the ultimate justification for his plan to defect to their opponents right as he's finally activating HIS solution to their shared problem and just when he's mere moments away from attaining the crowning achievement and purpose of his entire defection in the first place.

In light of all that, his meaning should be completely obvious to anyone paying full attention to the movie or at least that scene. With all those points driving his message home and all in that same, single scene, no less, it's truly baffling how often people still manage to completely misunderstand his plainly straightforward and strongly reinforced meaning with that simple and direct statement. Yet they still do. Ugh.

Hazekiah
03-27-2012, 05:20 AM
But the OTHER big problem people seem to have with that scene is of a different sort. "It just feels out of place and is an insult to what the line meant in Star Trek II!"

Needless to say, I couldn't disagree more.

Sentinel is using the same cold logic Spock was demonstrating with his sacrifice -- the logic in both cases essentially being that the ends justify the means -- but in Sentinel's case he's not justifying logically his own sacrifice, but rather the sacrifice he demands of others. And from a viewpoint of pure objectivity his logic is sound. He's trying to save his entire planet and species, after all.

Which is exactly why Sentinel forgave Optimus earlier in the film when he confessed to Sentinel that he often felt doubt in his own leadership. Sentinel reassures him, "Never mourn the past, young warrior; because of you our race survives," because the ends are all he cares about and because Sentinel was attempting to indoctrinate him into his way of looking at "hard decisions," or to at least confuse him long enough to keep him out of his way. Sentinel's goals and intentions were completely noble, he just went that extra step too far and betrayed the very ideals and virtues which represent the best of his species. In contrast, Optimus maintained his high ideals and in turn essentially spelled doom for his planet and people, whereas Sentinel was able to forsake his ideals and would have restored his planet and people at the cost of all that was good in them.

This dynamic, echoed by Sentinel's quote from Spock, is representative of the core messages of the film regarding right and wrong and the hard decisions in life.

Optimus Prime's failure as a leader for being too virtuous is mirrored inversely by Sentinel Prime's failure as a leader for losing his virtue altogether. Optimus essentially sacrificed his planet and his people to end their war the only way he could find to do so, just as Sentinel sacrificed his virtue to save his planet and his people the only he could find to do so. In the end, thankfully, Optimus is able to learn this final lesson of "making the hard decisions" from Sentinel without completely forsaking his nobility and ideals and to instead form a synthesis of their two diametrically opposed approaches to "make the hard decisions" of killing both Sentinel and Megatron, no matter how much they begged or offered truces, and to thereby finally end the war once and for all. In the past, he might well have extended his hand in peace to both or allowed their retreat, but by the end of the film Optimus finally knows what must be done, which values he must forsake to win the war, and where he has to draw the line to preserve what good remains.

Which is succinctly echoed by the entire point of his monologue at the very end of the film. He understands that in the fog of war he will question himself and his decisions and that even his allies may turn against him -- he may even lose his home planet and possibly seal the fate of his entire species -- but THIS planet and THESE people he will NEVER forsake at ANY cost.

Which is in turn what Spock was saying with his final words, Spock and Optimus were simply noble enough to sacrifice themselves even for those who view them as alien and to count them among "the many" or even at all when weighing the positives versus the negatives of their actions, whereas Sentinel was decidedly not.

Spock and Optimus both demonstrate for us all that there are ideals worth dying for and sacrifices worth making for the greater good. The ends do justify the means sometimes. When Spock kills himself to save his crewmates and when Sentinel activates the control pillar to save his planet and when Optimus kills Sentinel and Megatron to end the war, they're ALL using the same justification for different purposes and are all essentially noble characters performing ignoble deeds for a noble end. One of them just simply went too far and tipped the balance over to outright unjust evil.

The choice to sacrifice oneself or kill others is a hard decision that should never be made lightly, but while it can easily be done for ill it can likewise be done for good. The key difference is the ideals and goals which justify the loss of virtue in the deed itself. Finding that balance between the correct path or a life-sucking abyss (http://www.providermodule.com/forum/showthread.php/3111-Transformers-Dark-of-the-Moon?p=98353&viewfull=1#post98353) is the hard decision Optimus must make and around which practically the entire film revolves.

That concept is CENTRAL to the entire film -- indeed to the very character of Sentinel himself -- and the Spock-quote plays to that idea PERFECTLY.

The fact that the same actor had previously used the line in a noble fashion elsewhere rather than its more malicious context in THIS film dramatically underscores and intuitively demonstrates what Optimus said about Sentinel betraying himself in a way that no other dialogue could have managed.

Many fans seem to think using such a well-known quote while simultaneously turning its meaning on its head was nothing more than an ill-conceived mistake and a bastardization of the quote's source. But what they seem to be missing is that the filmmakers had a chance to use our shared cultural history with Star Trek audiences everywhere to their advantage in demonstrating the lessons of THIS movie, one of the biggest worldwide hits ever. To that end, replacing it with any other line or even omitting it entirely would be sheer folly.

Especially when they're using a Star Trek veteran's voice anyway.

Especially when that voice belongs to a character who's using technology suspiciously similar to Star Trek's transporter beams.

Especially when that voice belongs to a character who's absolutely defined by his betrayal of his own ideals.

Not only does the Spock-quote work, it works on levels which no other line could POSSIBLY have matched, DESPITE the inchoate complaining and misguided nerdrage of a vocal minority.

In short, whether they liked it or not, the ends justified the means.

Or, to borrow a phrase, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

;)

Hazekiah
11-06-2012, 03:19 AM
600 DAYS LEFT TILL
TRANSFORMER 4
HITS THEATERS
\m/ -_- \m/

Hazekiah
01-08-2013, 03:13 PM
http://michaelbay.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/jackfinal-web-945x1024.jpg




I just hired a great new actor for Transformers 4 to star against Mark Wahlberg. Jack Reynor, he is an Irish kid that came to America with 30 bucks in his pocket. Pretty ballsy. Seriously who does that? Anyway I spotted him in a great little Irish movie WHAT RICHARD DID. This kid is the real deal.

Transformers 4, is not a reboot. That word has been floating around on the net.

This movie takes place exactly 4 years after the war in Chicago. The story makes a very natural transition, and reason as to why we have a whole new cast. This Transformers will feel very different then the last three. We are embarking on a new trilogy.

Michael


http://michaelbay.com/2013/01/08/jack-reynor/