PeterDavid.net

Thanks for the review Peter. At first I was just going to wait until it comes out on DVD but you got me at 'Herbie Goes to Defcon 4'

It's not even about Transformers now. It's about the trailer before Transformers: 1-18-08. What did you think of that, Peter?

I am the right age for transformers but never really got into them (tho I got the first two issues of the comi book when it got published here, mostly because the second ussue had spiderman in it). The movie?

I agree with PAD, the first 45 min were the most enjoyable, but then... I enjoyed the backyard scene, I enjoyed some sillyness but sometimes it became downright goofy. Turturro's character was just too stupid and some others (the fat hacker) very much an unnecesary comic relief.

Enjoyed the way the battle got showed from a human scale point of view, very much like Ross' Marvels did back then. Boosts the awe factor x10. I had a good time but not a great time.

By the way PAD, Vicente Garcia, the guy who publishes your "But I Digress..." here in Spain, has been trying to contact you through mail unsuccesfully. Would you be so kind as to contact him?

I appreciated the way that Bay allowed the Decepticons to cut loose in a way they never could in a kids cartoon, showing them as the giant killing machines, contemptuous of human life, that they are.

Also, I agree that it helps the movie tremendously that it doesn't try to take itself or its subject matter too seriously.

-Rex Hondo-

It also proves that Mountain Dew machines are just as evil as Mythbusters has led us to expect.

I was the kid who bought GoBots instead of Transformers. I think that's roughly equivalent to investing in Beta when everyone was buying VHS machines.

PAD's description sounds a lot like The Island. I really liked the first part of that movie. It was like a modern version of Logan's Run. Then it turned into a generic action movie and lost a lot of the emotion that it had at the start.

It sounds like this one held up a little better, but I'm a little gun shy about the two-movies in one thing.

It sounds like this one held up a little better, but I'm a little gun shy about the two-movies in one thing.

Ah, but can you think of any movie for which it would be more appropriate? ;P

-Rex Hondo-

Transformers was a big thing in New Zealand when growing up, apart from the toys, though got into Beast Wars when it came on. I agree with your review, the only thing that I found a mild annoyance was that the fights were to close up and shakey, it meant that it was hard to take in what was happening during the action sequences. I was most impressed when they pulled back and you could take it all in.

Sorry that was supposed to be wasnt a big thing in New Zealand:)

While I enjoyed the movie, I absolutely *hated* the scene when the transformers went back to Sam's house - if nothing else they could have down a couple of funny bit and still cut the scene by 15 min or so (it certainly felt like it went on for 20 minutes).

That said, I'll probably see it again. Who can resist robot-on-robot action? I would have liked a little more exposition about the backstory, buts that's probably the fanboi in me. I was initially disappointed when I heard that a certain major character only appears near the end of the movie, but after watching it, I think it was handled pretty well.

Like PAD said, the first 45 minutes were the best. The only thing that concerned me (ok, more like creeped me out) was at the end when Sam and Mikaela are making out on Bumblebee's hood. It's just... wrong.

"Like PAD said, the first 45 minutes were the best. The only thing that concerned me (ok, more like creeped me out) was at the end when Sam and Mikaela are making out on Bumblebee's hood. It's just... wrong."

Well, if the choice is that or the back seat, certainly the hood is less intrusive. I can just see it: "Hmmm. They both appear to be leaking some sort of lubricants..."

PAD

There are a few things I have to say before I talk about this movie. First, Michael Bay LOVES to blow up stuff. He LOVES car chases, and action. Second, Michael Bay has been quoted to say "Originally when I was contacted to do the Transformers I was going to pass, but then I thought I couls make this into the next superhero franchise". And third, I was a HUGE Transformer fan. I still love the original movie and can (almost) recite the whole movie word for word (with music cues). Oh, Fourth, sometimes I tend to ramble...
So I felt it's only fair that I review this movie two ways. First as a "Transformers movie" and then as a "movie". Think of it as the American Godzilla. It just HAD TO be reviewed two ways. But this movie is different. it's its own thing.....
I was negative going into the movie. But just a few days before I saw it, I went to see Fantastic Four 2. One of the trailers was for Transfomrers. I heard the sound. the sound effect of the Transforming. It was only Prime, but it was there. Then I had heard that they got the original voice actor to do Prime's voice (Peter Cullen). Then I talked to this one guy who is a projectionist and he said he saw it on Saturday. He said he was a Trasnformer fan and he liked it. So last night I had my hopes up. The movie opens and the first thing I hear is Peter Cullen's voice. I was very happy. The beginning started off prety good. I was thinking maybe I'm gonna like this after all.
I was wrong.
The movie was inconsistant. They didn't know what kind of moive they wanted to be. A love story? An action flick? A Serious invasion movie? A comedy? It was like 6 different guys wrote this movie. And you can tell which guy wrote which parts. There were some parts that were a tip of the hat to the original series and yet at the same time it was insulting to the original fans. If they got Peter, why not Frank Welker for Megatron? He's still alive and still does voices for movies and TV all the time. Hell, he's doing the voice for Megatron in the freakin' video game! As a Transformer fan, I was (almost) eating up any nugget of old Transformers that they gave to me. When Prime said "One shall stand! One shall fall!" I was so happy (It's a quote taken from the original movie). I know that most of it came from Peter's voice, but they had a little robot Transform into a radio (like Soundwave) or when they had Bumblebee right next to an old (yellow) Volswagen Beetle. So if it was a better overall movie the Transformer stuff would have keep me going.
But it was crap.
As a movie itself, a lot of things didn't make sense. There was no explainiation as to why the events started as they did. Spike (although they didn't call him that) buys Bumblebee. Coincidence? it's not supposed to be. But they make it seem like it. Then halfway through, they decided that it's not. The Transformers were looking for the "all spark" a thing that supposed to give life to the Transformers (for you fans, it's like a mix of the Matrix and an Energon cube). Megatron came to Earth looking for it and got frozen in the artic. Then like 80 (or something like that) years later the Decepticons seem to find out that Spike has the location of the "all spark" because he has some glasses that has the location imprinted on it (and exactly how did they know that is beyond me). Yet at the climax of the movie, we find that the "all spak" has been moved so the glasses are moot. A few times throughout the movie Prime lets everyone know that if he places the "all spark" in his chest he will die and destroy the "all spark" with him. So when they get the "all spark" they decided to have Spike run away with it while the Autobots and some military guys (who were stationed in Iraq) protect him. Megatron was way powerful and the Decepticons were overall stronger that the Autobots. So how do they win? Well, Prime yells to spike to place the spark inside if him (while getting his bumper handed to him by Megatron) and Spike magages to place the "all spark" inside Megatron's chest!. If a freakin' human could do that how difficult would it have been for a Transformer to do it? And why try to keep it away from Megatron to begin with? why not be like "here you go" then slip it right into the chest? Even the killing was inconsistant. Some deaths were overy tramatic, and some were like "oh well, he's dead, let's move and with this crappy movie". Oh, one last thing (well, I really could go on and on about it) I think Michael Bay is a Democrat (not that it is a bad thing). He takes an (obvious) political stand in the movie and manages to even poke fun at the President...
It's never a good thing when I get bored in an action flick. And that was exactly what I was. sure the visuals were nice, but it was nothing new, and a the story just wasn't there to keep me interested. Some people will like it. Those people have way lower standards than I have (which also may not be a bad thing!).

Well, it's not as if I'm an apologist for the film, but--

1) Both Peter Cullen and Frank Welker auditioned for Bay himself. Although Cullen passed muster, Bay was concerned that Welker's voice had aged to such a degree that it no longer sounded the way that he, Bay, wanted Megatron to sound. So he cast Hugo Weaving who is, one admits, no slouch.

2) I don't think they "decided" halfway through that Bumblebee hooking up with Sam was no longer coincidence. It was the concept from the get-go: That Bumblebee had sought out Sam to act as his guardian should the Decepticons show up...and, presumably, snag the glasses should Sam happen to bring them into the car. As matters progressed,however, waiting no longer became an option and Bumblebee summoned the rest of his crew.

3) "How difficult would it have been for a Transformer to do it?" I'd have to think pretty difficult, actually: If Prime made a forward thrusting motion with the cube toward Megatron's chest, Megatron would correctly see it as an assault and block it or even try and turn it back against him. But Sam was able to catch him off guard. Hell, when you think about it, there was no reason for Megatron to know that Sam was aware of how to use the cube in lethal fashion. The only reason Sam knew was because Prime told him with the intent of sacrificing himself. Self-sacrifice wouldn't exactly be up there in Megatron's priorities, so it might well not have occurred to him that Prime was willing to annihilate himself in order to save humanity.

4) "Those people have way lower standards than I have?" Oh...look...over there. It's the horse you rode in on. Feel free to hope back on and ride it out.

PAD

2) why/how would they know to protect Sam? No one knew that the glasses had the information.
3) Unless Megatron was deaf, he heard Prime say it in the heat of the battle. Of course, He might not have been paying attention... And one would think that If Prime knew why would others know also?
4) I'm not saying lower standards (than mine) are bad, if I had them I would have enjoyed the movie!

2) Barricade's not the only one searching the internet. It's left as an exercise to the viewer to consider that Bumblebee may have been more subtle than Blackout and Frenzy when it came to hacking for information.

3) Megatron was distracted by the Eyes On The Prize syndrome. He demanded the squishy bring him the cube, and the squishy was bringing him the cube. He didn't expect that Sam had actually learned a little something about ducking and weaving from his bried stint trying out for the football team (the novelization makes it clear that he does actually evade Megatron's grasp on his way in with the cube, and that he's applying football skills).

BTW, while the prequel novel "Ghosts of Yesterday" reads like Alan Dean Foster hacked it out in a weekend (because he probably did...the original author was pulled off a couple months before publication date), his adaptation of the movie itself is excellent. Ranks with PAD's own better adaptation novels.

What I'm saying is that the information wasn't on the internet. No one knew the glasses had the map. And if they "saw" the map on the glasses, then they didnt need the glasses anyway!

Mark,

I don't enjoy political statements on either end of the political spectrum in summer action movies, but you made a big mistake on this board when you mentioned that the movie took a swipe at the President....you didn't praise it for doing so. President Bush could cure cancer and Peter David would find a reason to crucify him for it. As I read your comment about that, I thought to myself, "Peter David is going to rip this review to shreds". Sure enough, the next poster was Peter David. You made a great point about what a coincidence it is that the kid buys the transformer. Out of all the cars in the city, what are odds that he buys the car that's come from across the universe looking for him??? Yet Mr David ignores that, then invites you to leave over the "standards" remark. So predictable.

I didn't take it that way. Since he did enjoy the movie and I didn't (and the fact that this is his board) I felt that he might have thought that the comment was directed to him. Being the ever clever person he is, he responded in kind to my "insult".
Correct me if I am wrong Peter...

4) "Those people have way lower standards than I have?" Oh...look...over there. It's the horse you rode in on. Feel free to hope back on and ride it out.

I agree that there's nothing as simple or as objective as different standards at play. The people who like it don't have low standards - there are too many of them for that. And I don't think those of us who didn't like it have high standards. But something is definitely going on with this movie.

I pretty much agree with most everything else Mr Torres said. The plot made no sense. The action sequences were very intense - too intense to tell what was going on, in some cases, nor could I tell the Decepticons apart when they weren't in vehicle mode. Apart from the "too fast to see what's going on" issue (which I suppose is a moneysaving measure - fewer frames to render the CGI in), the sfx were amazingly awesome. And it was pretty faithful to the cartoon, from what little I paid attention to it in high school.

I was definitely going to see this movie, and I thought it would be alone. When my wife saw that it got an 8+ on the IMDb, which is higher than Live Free or Die Hard with more votes - and she loved that latter movie enough to see it again - she agreed to come along. Halfway through that climactic final action sequence we looked at each other and shrugged. I have no idea why this movie is so popular. On the way out she invoked the superhero movie equivalent of Godwin's law and compared it to Batman and Robin. As I believe I've said in comments here before, perhaps in reference to Spidey 3, to make such comparisons lightly is to do a disservice to the sheer awfulness of Batman and Robin, but I understand her point. We could have walked out halfway through the movie and not really feel like we missed much.

To give you an idea of where I stand in recent-superhero-movie coordinate space: I absolutely loved Spider-Man 1 and 2, X-Men 1 and 2, and Batman Begins. In the next tier down are Superman Returns and FF 2. Continuing downward we have the third installments of the Spider-Man and X-Men flicks. Getting into nebulous territory we have Daredevil and the first FF. Then there's Ang Lee's Hulk, which could have been much better with a different ending, but as it stands I have to give it a failing grade. And then somewhere way down there is Catwoman (I didn't see Elektra).

I would have to put Transformers down there with Catwoman, though slightly above it. Different type of eye candy, but otherwise similar quality of film...

To address the nitpick about the plot: Spike putting the glasses up on eBay triggered the events of the film. From the photos posted online the Transformers could tell there was a map encoded in the lenses, but it's a holographic map - no way to read it without getting the glasses and shining a laser through it. The fact that the Feds had moved the cube, rendering the map useless, doesn't affect its importance to the plot, since the Transformers didn't know that.

As for the politics, I don't want to feed the troll, but I interpreted the film as, perhaps surprisingly, overall pro-USA. I mean, the Secretary of Defense was a key member of the heroic team! Sure, there were some jerks in Section 7, but there are jerks everywhere. Aside from the one (rather lighthearted) jab at W on AF1, and a torture ref taken right out of FF2, I think the US govt, especially the military, came off well, all the way up through the Chiefs of Staff and SECDEF.

"Sure enough, the next poster was Peter David. You made a great point about what a coincidence it is that the kid buys the transformer. Out of all the cars in the city, what are odds that he buys the car that's come from across the universe looking for him???"

Uh...no. It's not a "great point" because it was abundantly clear that Bumblebee came looking for him, that Bumblebee followed him TO the car lot, and then we saw Bumblebee demolish the other cars that might have been bought in lieu of him. The film had weaknesses, but that plot point was pretty solid.

The rest of your post is just too stupid to respond to.

"I didn't take it that way. Since he did enjoy the movie and I didn't (and the fact that this is his board) I felt that he might have thought that the comment was directed to him. Being the ever clever person he is, he responded in kind to my "insult".
Correct me if I am wrong Peter..."

No need; you're right.

PAD

PAD, it's great that you treat opposing opinions with such respect! The fact that you approve of a plot point does not mean that anyone who disagrees is beneath contempt. "The rest of your post is just too stupid to respond to" is both lazy and arrogant, coming from the school of "I'm right; You don't get: Shut up, stupid!" Perhaps you could either make a coherent rebuttal or ignore what you don't care to dispute.

On the politics point, I agree with your conservative detractors that you would savage baby Bush for anything he did, good or bad. I just differ from them in thinking the latter alternative is almost impossible - so that problem wouldn't be likely to arise.

I couldn't understand the useless side charchters and why the cube made evil robots and the transformers had cube sized holes in their chests. I surrendered myself to the awesome cgi and enjoyed myself hoping for morem robot fights on the dvd

Okay, who had the "July 8, 2007 10:32 AM" square in the "When Will the Snark Commence" betting pool?

Jeffrey Frawley: "Perhaps you could either make a coherent rebuttal or ignore what you don't care to dispute."

Okay, who had "July 8, 2007 07:38 PM" in the "When Will Jeffrey Frawley Make Another Mountain Out of a Molehill" betting pool?

I thought the movie was the best summer blockbuster I saw so far this year. Spiderman 3 nope, Fantastic Four 2 good but not amazing, didn't even bother to see Pirates 3 I just cant take anymore of that junk... and then Transformers a wonderful blend of seriousness, silly, boy his car and the girl story. Unless you live in Japan I guarantee you don't have many of those types of stories floating around. And I must admit I can't wait for the sequel because for those who were into the old series Starscream was always an even bigger jerk than Megatron and always was looking to take over Megatrons place as leader of the Decepticons. Not only that but I have to say the movie impressed me by not only having the traditional Transformers who would turn into cars and such but have others that turned into phones, stereoes, and most of all the movie had a nod to the Beast Wars age of Transformers with the Scorpion Decepticon. Overall I give it two thumbs up and give Peter two thumbs up for his review.

Just on a side note, I've seen a few people referring to this as a "superhero" movie. The Transformers are not superheroes, and never have been. They're soldiers, pure and simple.

And let's be honest with ourselves, folks. I loved the Transformers during the 80s as much as the next guy, but once I tried to watch it as an adult without the benefit of nostalgia-colored glasses, I realized, to my dismay, that the original toon suuuuuuuucks.

-Rex Hondo-

Rex Hondo: "...I realized, to my dismay, that the original toon suuuuuuuucks."

Wow. Rex, I just want you to know that I'll miss you after the hordes of fans of the original cartoon go all frothing at the mouth and come after you. ;)

Bill Myers - That's quite amusing, but has nothing to do with my point. If you can find anything in PAD's comment to "bill" that addressed "the rest of (bill's) comment" - I suppose that would be his belief PAD's animus toward President Bush is reflexive and uncritical - then I'll be satisfied. It seemed to me that the best response to such an accusation would be "That's not true - and here's why...," "Well, of course I feel that way: GWB is a congenital idiot, and here's why I say that..." or, if he really felt the comment was too stupid to reply to, DON'T REPLY TO IT - not even in the form of "The rest of your comment is just too stupid to respond to." - If he's really sure he shouldn't respond, then he shouldn't.

Did Bill & Mark not notice that Bumblebee was following the Witwicky's to the car lot? Did they not notice that he drove into the lot to be purchased? I mean Bernie Mac even says that he's never seen the car before. Did they miss Bumblebee smashing the Volkswagen so it couldn't be bought..or blowing the windows of the other cars on the lot?

Agreed that the original toon sucks if you watch it as an adult, but then, so does Super Friends. In fact, SF is far worse. That didn't keep me from loving Batman Begins and rather enjoying Superman Returns, not to mention the first couple entries in the respective earlier series of movies featuring those characters...

You can make a horrible movie from a great concept; you can make a great movie from a concept that at first blush makes you just scratch your head (witness Pirates of the Caribbean - a movie from an amusement park ride?). It's all in the execution.

In the case of Transformers, I feel the execution was lacking. Severely. Many, many legions of others, including apparently PAD, disagree. I find this fascinating...

Jeffrey Fawley. PAD addressed the criticism concerning the plot point in the movie.

He treated as too stupid to respond the suggestion that he somehow rejected Mr. Torres's criticism of the movie because of his animosity toward Bush. It is too stupid to respond to.

As for Bush curing cancer. If he does that, or something of similarly beneficial value, we'll see how PAD reacts. Since it has not happened, it is irrelevant. PAD, and others, criticize Bush for things they feel he has done wrong. If you or anybody else disagree with their asseessment, address the issues instead of trying to claim that the riticism is motivated from some unexplained animosity.

-----------
As for the movie. Haven't seen it yet. Not sure if I will. The positive reviews of the movie describe it as mindless entertainment. So do the negative reviews. So I have to decide if I will enjoy mindless entertainment or will I find it too... mindless. I haven't decided yet.

I don't enjoy political statements on either end of the political spectrum in summer action movies, but you made a big mistake on this board when you mentioned that the movie took a swipe at the President....you didn't praise it for doing so.

I didn't take it that way. Since he did enjoy the movie and I didn't (and the fact that this is his board) I felt that he might have thought that the comment was directed to him. Being the ever clever person he is, he responded in kind to my "insult".

If you can find anything in PAD's comment to "bill" that addressed "the rest of (bill's) comment" - I suppose that would be his belief PAD's animus toward President Bush is reflexive and uncritical - then I'll be satisfied.

Peter confirmed Mark's take on Peter's reaction to bill. Welcome to satisfaction.

A friend of mine noted in his blog a True Thing:

It's plausible that they learned to speak English, as they say, from the Internet--but if that was true, their dialog would be horrific.

Optimus Prime: DIE NOOB!!
Megatron: Im In UR BASE, STEALING UR CUBE!
Bumblebee: OH NOES! THEY BE TAKING MY CUBE!!
Megatron: ST4RS[REAM! U HALF FA1LED ME! L4MR!
Starscream: NOES! EYE IS L33T!!

Also, anyone else notice that even among Transformers, the brother never makes it?

I just can't buy it that The Autobots (and Decepticons) just happen to find one pair of glasses online and figure out that it had the map to the "all spark".
But I'm going to go one step further. The Decepticons ran up to spike and was like "hey are you the guy who's selling the glasses on e-bay" yet the Autobots knew that was him?
And I do agree, it is a very polarizing movie. Fan or no...I'm gonna have to say it...There is more than meets the eye to this movie...

I have to agree with the folks who say that the plot of this movie made no sense. I did not find the Autobots' buffoonery endearing, I found it annoying. So much more could have been done with this movie.

On the bright side, it was flashy, and the first forty-five minutes were AWESOME. Here's hoping that the sequel will be more X-MEN 2 and less BATMAN & ROBIN.

Eric

So, OK, I guess I'll consider it. I had no real interest at first because my only real exposure to the characters was the comic book of years back and it had made it rather difficult to take them seriously when they are described as carrying horribly lethal and destructive weaponry, yet never seemed to manage to even scuff each other's paintwork. A robotic A-TEAM? But the reviews of this film, mixed though they may be are having me ponder going after all.

Micha, you can be satisfied if you want to: I am not. It doesn't make for good conversation for one side to simply sneer and dismiss the other, but as PAD sets the tone here, that's the way it must be.

As an example of the wit here, "Oh...look over there...it's the horse you rode in on." (PAD)
hmmmf...that's just too... Oh, sneer, sneer.

If you can find anything in PAD's comment to "bill" that addressed "the rest of (bill's) comment" - I suppose that would be his belief PAD's animus toward President Bush is reflexive and uncritical - then I'll be satisfied.

...you can be satisfied if you want to: I am not. It doesn't make for good conversation for one side to simply sneer and dismiss the other, but as PAD sets the tone here, that's the way it must be.

Jeffrey, you've just changed the condition of what you say it takes to satisfy you.

Mark's take on what Peter said covered every aspect of bill's complaint, and bill didn't complain about Peter unconditionally sneering. bill complained of Peter's sneering under the condition of discrediting the movie for satirizing George Bush.

You have demonstrated you have no integrity.

I had no real interest at first because my only real exposure to the characters was the comic book of years back and it had made it rather difficult to take them seriously when they are described as carrying horribly lethal and destructive weaponry, yet never seemed to manage to even scuff each other's paintwork.

I don't think it's really spoiling anything to say that this is most certainly not the case with the movie.

-Rex Hondo-

Mike, your comments move me ever closer to PAD's tactic of dismissing criticism with a sneer. You are free to believe I have no integrity, just as I am free to believe you are insane. In any case, I have not seen anything supporting the idea that PAD ever dealt with bill's accusation. I would tend to agree that the accusation is out of left field and not particularly relevant to the discussion; PAD, unlike me, didn't say anything of the sort. "(T)he horse you rode in on" is a much simpler argument than that - more like "Yeah, well screw you!" - not particularly deep or responsive. Consider this, please: Suppose the entirety of a response to one of PAD's postings was "Yeah...well you're a hypocritical jerk. Shut up." Most - perhaps even myself - would think that mean-spirited and stupid. I don't see PAD's response to bill as very different from that model, so the distinction must be - "Oh, he's PAD, and I like him. That's OK." That isn't persuasive to me. In fact, because he's recognized as a talented writer he is entitled to even fewer excuses than most.

I was thoroughly entertained by this movie as well.

But -- and maybe someone can explain this to me -- what was the motive of moving the battle to the city? The conflict begins in the desert (where there are virtually no people in harm's way) and shifts to the city where there are thousands of people in harm's way. I know one of the soldiers (the guy who stars in Vegas) suggested the move but I can't recall the reason why.

Thanks.

If you can find anything in PAD's comment to "bill" that addressed "the rest of (bill's) comment" - I suppose that would be his belief PAD's animus toward President Bush is reflexive and uncritical - then I'll be satisfied.

Peter confirmed Mark's [rebuttal of] bill. Welcome to satisfaction.

...you can be satisfied if you want to: I am not. It doesn't make for good conversation for one side to simply sneer and dismiss the other, but as PAD sets the tone here, that's the way it must be.

Jeffrey, you've just changed the condition of what you say it takes to satisfy you.

Mark's take on what Peter said covered every aspect of bill's complaint, and bill didn't complain about Peter unconditionally sneering. bill complained of Peter's sneering under the condition of discrediting the movie for satirizing George Bush.

You have demonstrated you have no integrity.

In any case, I have not seen anything supporting the idea that PAD ever dealt with bill's accusation.

No, not "in any case." Only in the case where you deny Mark explicitly disagreed with bill by saying Peter's sneer was motivated by his vanity, not his political bias as bill said, and deny Peter confirmed Mark's interpretation by saying "you're right."

In the case of you arbitrarily denying Peter's plain confirmation of Mark's rebuttal of bill's accusation, you have no integrity.

But -- and maybe someone can explain this to me -- what was the motive of moving the battle to the city?

I think it was to provide cover for the copters that were going to pick up the cube to land in--if they'd tried to land at the dam they'd have been picked off immediately.

I liked the movie, really, but I wished they humanized the robots a little more. I know it's difficult, since they're kind of ludicrous, but they were sort of drawing a parallel between the human soldiers and the robotic ones, which I thought had a lot of potential. It would have been nice if they'd put in just one scene where the robots are talking about how much they miss their home or something, similar to the scene in the beginning where we meet some of the U.S. soldiers.

Mike, I haven't been talking about Mark, but Peter David. I bet they're entirely different people. This is something along these lines:

Me: If PAD did X, I would be satisfied.
Mike: Mark said Y!
Me: And...
Mike: Mark said Y, Jeff, what's wrong with you?

As for "...in the case where you deny Mark explicitly disagreed with bill..." I haven't denied or accepted anything said by Mark. I don't recall reading anything by Mark, so I don't know what your point is, Mike.

If you can find anything in PAD's comment to "bill" that addressed "the rest of (bill's) comment" - I suppose that would be his belief PAD's animus toward President Bush is reflexive and uncritical - then I'll be satisfied.

Peter confirmed Mark's [rebuttal of] bill. Welcome to satisfaction.

...you can be satisfied if you want to: I am not. It doesn't make for good conversation for one side to simply sneer and dismiss the other, but as PAD sets the tone here, that's the way it must be.

Jeffrey, you've just changed the condition of what you say it takes to satisfy you.

Mark's take on what Peter said covered every aspect of bill's complaint, and bill didn't complain about Peter unconditionally sneering. bill complained of Peter's sneering under the condition of discrediting the movie for satirizing George Bush.

You have demonstrated you have no integrity.

In any case, I have not seen anything supporting the idea that PAD ever dealt with bill's accusation.

No, not "in any case." Only in the case where you deny Mark explicitly disagreed with bill by saying Peter's sneer was motivated by his vanity, not his political bias as bill said, and deny Peter confirmed Mark's interpretation by saying "you're right."

In the case of you arbitrarily denying Peter's plain confirmation of Mark's rebuttal of bill's accusation, you have no integrity.

Mike, I haven't been talking about Mark, but Peter David. I bet they're entirely different people.

Nothing I've said depends on Peter and Mark being the same person. You haven't disqualified anything I've said.

The cube was not moved. It landed in the desert. Megatron located it there, but crashed in the Arctic. Great-Grandpa activated Megatron's navigation system, which etched the holographic map on his glasses. Optimus read the map, which pointed him 200 miles Southwest (or wherever) and they headed out to find the cube. Meanwhile, the cube was located, and Hoover Dam was built around it, encasing it in enough concrete to shield any signal from escaping, and providing a place to store and study the Iceman (Megatron).
As the Autobots are on their way to the cube, Bumblebee drives past them with it, and they join him.

Make sense?

Ah, perhaps a grandmother's opinion may be entered. I took my nephew (25), my son-in-law (34), both major Transformers fans as kids, and my 2 grandchildren, ages 7 and 5 to see the movie on July 4. WE ALL HAD A BLAST and isn't that what movies are for...their main job is to entertain. The two big fans were thrilled. The two little kids loved the action. Grandma was happy that some of the Spielberg touch rolled over into Bay's action-happy style, with the little love story and the humourous touches.

It was just plain old fun, folks.

In response to Ray's previous question the reason in which they move toward the city is to avoid getting caught. What better place to hide cars and much more than that one boy than in a city full of people. Granted the plan doesn't work out so well since the Decepticons aren't... well frankly stupid but it is in theory a good idea. It is also a better idea for puny human soldiers to fight giant robots in the city since a city would provide more cover in a fight of such magnitude. Hope that answers your question Ray, and good day. :)

Mike, you are so incoherent that someone might actually agree with me just to get some distance from you! You say that "Peter confirmed Mark's [rebuttal of] bill." If that is so, it happens elsewhere than in the post to which I responded, that is, the one with "The rest of your post is just too stupid to respond to." - which is followed by nothing other than a confirmation that PAD did indeed recognize a previous comment as directed at him." 'Yes, you're right, I did take that comment as directed at me, just as you thought' is not a response to "the rest of (bill's) post." Of course, "too stupid to respond to" indicates that he did not intend to respond. You should take his word for it that he didn't; It would have been sloppy construction, something of which he is not guilty here, or very often, if you notice. He's a good writer: That's definitely not where I disagree with him.

I don't think it was mindless, there is some good stuff in there, Optimus' concern for humanity and giving them a chance when maybe Megatron is right.

HERE THERE BE SPOILERS.

OK, so they have the Allspark, and the Decepticons are attacking. Bumblebee takes the cube and they all head to the city. Why? I can see the humans giving him cover as he escapes, for what little good that does, but once they met up with the other Autobots, why not let them take the cube and scram? "Good luck, dudes! Go bring your planet back to life!" Why did the Autobots not take the battle for the cube far away from the humans they're supposedly so interested in protecting?

On the politics point, I agree with your conservative detractors that you would savage baby Bush for anything he did, good or bad. I just differ from them in thinking the latter alternative is almost impossible - so that problem wouldn't be likely to arise.

Wah wah wah. Big flipping deal--they have a scene where an unseen president with a texan accent requests a ding dong. Bush should be so lucky to have that be the kind of criticism he gets.

Jeffrey vs Mike--who wins? Who loses? WHO CARES???

Posted by Peter David at July 8, 2007 06:55 PM

Sure enough, the next poster was Peter David. You made a great point about what a coincidence it is that the kid buys the transformer. Out of all the cars in the city, what are odds that he buys the car that's come from across the universe looking for him???

Uh...no. It's not a "great point" because it was abundantly clear that Bumblebee came looking for him, that Bumblebee followed him TO the car lot, and then we saw Bumblebee demolish the other cars that might have been bought in lieu of him. The film had weaknesses, but that plot point was pretty solid.

The rest of your post is just too stupid to respond to.

I didn't take it that way. Since he did enjoy the movie and I didn't (and the fact that this is his board) I felt that he might have thought that the comment was directed to him. Being the ever clever person he is, he responded in kind to my "insult". Correct me if I am wrong Peter...

No need; you're right.

[end of post]

Mike, you are so incoherent that someone might actually agree with me just to get some distance from you! You say that "Peter confirmed Mark's [rebuttal of] bill." If that is so, it happens elsewhere than in the post to which I responded, that is, the one with "The rest of your post is just too stupid to respond to."

Jeffrey, your inaccuracy is so severe I can only ask you as I have on a previous occasion -- are you not well?

Haven't seen the film...two kids under two with no babysitter means we're seeing lots more on DVD release day than we'd like...but of all the summer films, this one I think I'm going to miss the most till that little DVD comes out.

And for the record, were Bush to do something I actually liked, I'd say so. Which would not change my mind about him being among the worst possible leaders this country could have at this point in time.

Not related to any of the ongoing discussions, I thought I'd note a couple of things I thought the movie did better than previous versions (by which I mostly mean the '80s cartoon; I haven't watched every single incarnation of the series since then).

One is the sense that these are actual shapechanging metal beings, rather than, well, metal-and-plastic toys thrown up on the screen. This was punctuated by having their weapons be a part of them, rather than accessories that magically appear in their hands after they transform. (Prime not having a magically-appearing trailer in truck form helped too.) I was always bothered by the scenes in the cartoon where Prime and Megatron had energy weapons replace their hands, because they seemed to come out of nowhere (and didn't represent a feature of the toys); in the movie, when they did the same thing, they created the weapons by rearranging the metal of their hands, which makes much more sense to me.

The other (we'll see if this lasts in the sequel, since you can only do a slow reveal like that once) was the sense of "robots taking the form of Earth technology to hide among us in plain sight" that the cartoon never really conveyed. This was demonstrated best by Frenzy, who took on the role that Soundwave should have but never really did: a piece of small, unassuming modern technology. The problem with Soundwave was that, since the original Transformers line was created by mixing toys from different toy lines with different scales, he was taller in robot form than most of the car characters. That made it difficult to follow through the implications of his being a tape player and actually have him infiltrate anything. By not employing the size-changing cheat, the equivalent character in the movie could actually act effectively as a spy (and also give the human characters a close-quarters opponent who wouldn't instantly squish them).

(The concepts chosen to frame the story of the cartoon--all the Autobots live in their crashed spaceship--also made it harder to do much with the "robots in disguise" concept, since there was no reason for them to have to hide among humanity for any length of time. I don't blame the creators of the cartoon for this, however, since the nature of the medium at the time required a status quo to frame the stories, and giving them a base of operations was a key part of that.)

I actually loathed the scene outside the house; it was a cute idea, but it went on too long. And I definitely could have done without the extended "were you masturbating" conversation between Sam and his parents.

And geez, does John Turturro have gambling debts or something? His character was the worst part of the movie, and given that Anthony Andersen plays the world's best hacker, that's saying something.

Mike, your inability to present a coherent sentence concerns me, but I think I'll get by. What "inaccuracy" is bothering you? If you think the secret wisdom is nothing beside the fact that PAD is pretty good at figuring out when someone is referring to him, rather than someone else, I surrender: It's true - He knows how to do that. Beyond that, to make it simple for you: PAD said, essentially, that the rest of bill's comments, other than the one he had already discussed, were too stupid to discuss. I think he didn't discuss them - just as he predicted. Perhaps you feel that, despite claiming he wouldn't, he did discuss them. I don't think so. If you wanted to refute me, the best way would be something like this "No, Jeff: That's dumb. There was absolutely no need for PAD to deal with those foolish ideas! Listen carefully and I'll explain it to you. _____________________. There; do you see?" Sorry, but you'd have to come up with that explanation for yourself - I think he should have dealt with the points or left them alone, while it seems you think he really did deal with them, despite saying he wouldn't.

Bill Mulligan (I'll try to be scrupulous about your capital B to distinguish you from the unpopular "bill"): Forgive me - or don't if you prefer - God knows why, but I like arguing with Mike, and don't care very much whether you dislike either of us. "Big flipping deal," as you said so movingly.

Posted by Peter David at July 8, 2007 06:55 PM

Sure enough, the next poster was Peter David. You made a great point about what a coincidence it is that the kid buys the transformer. Out of all the cars in the city, what are odds that he buys the car that's come from across the universe looking for him???

Uh...no. It's not a "great point" because it was abundantly clear that Bumblebee came looking for him, that Bumblebee followed him TO the car lot, and then we saw Bumblebee demolish the other cars that might have been bought in lieu of him. The film had weaknesses, but that plot point was pretty solid.

The rest of your post is just too stupid to respond to.

I didn't take it that way. Since he did enjoy the movie and I didn't (and the fact that this is his board) I felt that he might have thought that the comment was directed to him. Being the ever clever person he is, he responded in kind to my "insult". Correct me if I am wrong Peter...

No need; you're right.

[end of Peter's post]

If you can find anything in PAD's comment to "bill" that addressed "the rest of (bill's) comment" - I suppose that would be his belief PAD's animus toward President Bush is reflexive and uncritical - then I'll be satisfied.

Peter confirmed Mark's [rebuttal of] bill. Welcome to satisfaction.

...you can be satisfied if you want to: I am not. It doesn't make for good conversation for one side to simply sneer and dismiss the other, but as PAD sets the tone here, that's the way it must be.

Jeffrey, you've just changed the condition of what you say it takes to satisfy you.

Mark's take on what Peter said covered every aspect of bill's complaint, and bill didn't complain about Peter unconditionally sneering. bill complained of Peter's sneering under the condition of discrediting the movie for satirizing George Bush.

You have demonstrated you have no integrity.

In any case, I have not seen anything supporting the idea that PAD ever dealt with bill's accusation.

No, not "in any case." Only in the case where you deny Mark explicitly disagreed with bill by saying Peter's sneer was motivated by his vanity, not his political bias as bill said, and deny Peter confirmed Mark's interpretation by saying "you're right."

In the case of you arbitrarily denying Peter's plain confirmation of Mark's rebuttal of bill's accusation, you have no integrity.

Mike, I haven't been talking about Mark, but Peter David. I bet they're entirely different people.

Nothing I've said depends on Peter and Mark being the same person. You haven't disqualified anything I've said.

Mike, you are so incoherent that someone might actually agree with me just to get some distance from you! You say that "Peter confirmed Mark's [rebuttal of] bill." If that is so, it happens elsewhere than in the post to which I responded, that is, the one with "The rest of your post is just too stupid to respond to."

Jeffrey, your inaccuracy is so severe I can only ask you as I have on a previous occasion -- are you not well?

PAD said, essentially, that the rest of bill's comments, other than the one he had already discussed, were too stupid to discuss. I think he didn't discuss them - just as he predicted. Perhaps you feel that, despite claiming he wouldn't, he did discuss them. I don't think so.

Jeffery, again you are changing the conditions of what you said would satisfy you. First you ask us to "find anything in PAD's comment to 'bill' that addressed 'the rest of (bill's) comment.'" When we do, you make discussion your condition. Your pattern of changing your conditions qualifies you as a weasel.

John Turturro was terrible and that's not usually the case. I can only guess that he figured the only way to play this was totally over the top. Why the director didn't point out that he was the only one acting under this perception is beyond me.

One other minor quibble--one of the disadvantages of CGI is the tendancy for users to emphasize realism over drama. When the roboys are clashing it can be hard to tell what is happening, so blurred is the action. Stop motion, with no blur, is unrealistic and stobed but every frame is clear and sharp. I'm in the minority in prefering it though.

Just came home from seeing it for the second time, and the whole "How did they know it was on the glasses?" question became much clearer to me this showing.

The glasses themselves are pictured in the eBay auction. When we later get the close-up look at the glasses as they're decoded by Optimus Prime, we see it has tiny Transformers language symbols embedded on it.

When the little boombox Decepticon (Soundwave?) was scanning the internet, we see quick flashes that shows he finds the newspaper story of Grandpa Witwicky finding an iceman, going crazy and writing Transformers symbols.

So what I got out of it was from scanning the internet, both Bumblebee and Soundwave found two examples of Transformers language, both directly tied to the Witwicky family. (Yes, I am willing to believe that these internet-scanning super-robots can notice the fine details on low-quality eBay pictures.)

Note also that the eBay picture of the glasses only shows one lense, meaning that they couldn't get the complete information from just the picture, requiring them to get ahold of the actual glasses. It probably gave them just enough information to make them realize "Hey, that looks like Megatron's handwriting, and a piece of the location of the Allspark!"

So they all knew what the glasses contained, how it got there, and who currently had them. Which leads Bumblebee to set himself up to become Sam's car, and the Decepticon police car to go after him for it.

The one bit I'm still hazy on is how Megatron could know the Allspark Cube was in Hoover Dam, when he'd been frozen in ice thousands of years ago. Even if his internal sensors somehow still had a track on it, Megatron imprinted the information onto the glasses in 1897, but the dialogue admits that Hoover Dam was built to house the Allspark Cube in the in the 1930s.

- Fer

Incidentally, if Bush ever did create a cure for cancer, he'd pass it on to his cronies in the health care and pharmaceutical businesses, and everyone involved would produce just a small amount at poverty-inducing prices. 'Nuff said.

Two videos that may amuse Transformers fans:

the original Citroen C4 ad and a hilarious parody. (Be sure to watch the orginal first.

Oh - and another ad for the C4.

These came out (as i recall) before i even heard there was going to be a "Transformers" movie.

(The Citroen 2CV ["Deaux Chevaux"], featured in the parody is, from what i've heard, the best-selling car in the hsotory of the industry, having stayed in production longer than any other...)

As to the movie - I'll wait till DVD, i think.

Just to reiterate from another poster, they never said the Feds moved the cube (All-Spark). They said Hoover built the damn around it; they only moved Megatron.

A neat trick to telling the difference between Autobot and Decepticon: eye color. The only exception I recall is the cd-player (Frenzy, was it?) who had blue eyes like the Autobots even though the rest of the Decepticons had red eyes.

John Turturro was terrible, how? He was in Brain Donors mode, and I don't see a thing wrong with Agent Roland T. Flakfizer.

The movie poked a little fun at Bush because he was comfortably laid back on Air Force One and requesting a Little Debbie treat? You partisan hacks can be ridiculous. Didn't notice them talking up Hoover, the Republican unlucky enough to be president when the Great Depression began?

"The movie poked a little fun at Bush because he was comfortably laid back on Air Force One and requesting a Little Debbie treat? You partisan hacks can be ridiculous."

Is THAT what they're complaining about? I have to admit, I've been largely tuning out the political strokefest that some would (ahem) transforms this into because it's just SO ridiculous that I don't feel it's worth utilizing the brain cells required to follow it. But honestly, is that the alleged anti-Bush aspect under discussion? Why are we supposed to assume that that president was Bush? Because he likes snack cakes? Isn't eating junk food as president more associated with Clinton?

When I initially dismissed the concept of hauling politics into a Transformers review as being too stupid to address, it seems that I was right to do so.

PAD

All this political talk made me think I was in the wrong thread. Why sully the pure joy and goodness of TF with politics?

I think that it was necessary to belittle the President in this movie so that the Secretary of Defense could be the man on the move. Otherwise, we'd be looking at Independence Day all over again!

"Just to reiterate from another poster, they never said the Feds moved the cube (All-Spark). They said Hoover built the damn around it; they only moved Megatron."

Ahhh! Thank you, Ryu (and the original poster). Works for me.

And not to stick my nose into the political thing, but I'm kind of surprised people felt the movie had anti-Bush sentiment. I didn't get that vibe at all. If anything I got the opposite, since the hacker kid's computer was surrounded with Bush pictures, a deck of the "Iraqi Most Wanted" playing cards, etc.

- Fer

You all do know that Michael Bay admitted he was ok with the US military cooperating in the filming with their intention of treating it as one long recruitment film, yes?

When I was in basic training and they had us waiting around filling out forms and getting shots and such, they felt free to air filmed actions scenes. With no sense of shame, they slipped in a video of the climax of Wrath of Khan, fast forwarded to where Kirk and Spock said goodbye to each other, played it until they torpedoed Spock into space, then stopped the tape. We were so fatigued, most of the recruits had no defense against that kind of manipulation, and fed off of the implied fidelity to their heroes.

You just know if you grab a kid who's talked to a recruiter from this point on, if you ask, he's going to tell you the topic of Transformers came up. They'll make it part of the playbook.

OK - There's no point in arguing with Mike, because he very seldom argues against what one says, but rather what he thinks you might have said, or could have said, or were going to say, or he prefers you had said, or somebody else said somewhere else in another context about something else. My point was this: PAD said he was not going to address the rest of mike's comments, as he thought they were "too stupid." Many here think that was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I don't agree, but the numbers are against me. Mike, on the other hand, thinks that PAD did in fact address those issues - very well, I suppose. It looks like there are three points of view here:
1. The general opinion: that PAD had no need to address inane or insulting comments, and that they either had been satisfactorily dealt with elsewhere or didn't merit comment at all. This is a matter of opinion, and pretty widely-held.
2. My opinion: that PAD should have either commented on the points or left them alone, rather than simply calling them stupid and moving on. This is also a matter of opinion, and not at all widely-held.
3. Mike's opinion: that PAD did in fact address the issues, despite saying they were too stupid to address. This is a question of fact: whether or not PAD addressed an issue he had said he would not.

It seems to me (it is my opinion) that either 1. or 2. could be correct, and that my choice of 2. could be wrong, but 3. is simply mistaken, seeing a phantom posting not otherwise apparent here.

Obviously, my post had a foolish error of "mike" instead of "bill." That I am fallible is no surprise.

But Jeffrey, there's a fourth option.

PAD addressed the criticisms pertaining to the movie.

He called stupid and refused to address the argument that his rejection of certain criticisms of the movie is related somehow to his opinions about Bush, and that these opinions are independant of what Bush actually does.

How should PAD have addressed these allegations? Does he need to prove that his opinions on the movie are not related to his opinons on Bush? Or that his opinions of Bush are related to what bush did or does?

You also found fault with this reply by PAD:
"Those people have way lower standards than I have?" Oh...look...over there. It's the horse you rode in on. Feel free to hope back on and ride it out." Which should not be confused with "The rest of your post is just too stupid to respond to," by the way.

This might have been somewhat harsh. But so were the words: "Those people have way lower standards than I have (which also may not be a bad thing!)," to which PAD addressed his reply.

What should he have done, started a discussion about how his standards are not low? Proved it in some way. This was not an issue that really opened itself to discussion.

In short, PAD replied harshly to too comments that were also quite harsh, perhaps even more than his. He did not open them for discusson; first, because there was nothing to discuss; secondly, because this thread is about the movie; and thirdly, because he is not obligated to reply to every comment with a long and serious discussion. What he did do, was reply to the criticisms.

So, it seems to me that your work in the self appointed role as the hypocracy police has led you agai on a false trail.

As for Mike, knock yourswlf out. You are familiar with the risks.

Any response which is a thinly veiled "Oh, yeah...screw you!" seems a mite harsh, Micah. Perhaps it's an American or Anglo-American cultural thing, or it may be more universal - I don't know. You may have a better perspective on that.

I think your reading of PAD's response relies on the whole of his comments on this string. Mine relies on the specific post it addresses. So, yes: I have a good idea of what he thinks and why he rejects mike's viewpoint; "The rest of your post is just too stupid to respond to" is as far as he went in explaining himself in the specific post. What follows is an assurance that he knows when a comment is addressed to him, rather than a refutation of any opinion. So, you have read the string accurately, but I think you are wrong about the individual post. My disagreement with PAD is the rather narrow one of thinking his response was arrogant; That with Mike is that I suspect his brain is diseased.

The only thing I thought was even remotely political about the movie was the concept of two alien races waging war on American soil. It's not America's war, but American people were fighting and dying because of it. I'm particularly reminded of the Israel/Hezbollah war on Lebanese soil, but I'm sure some Iraq parallels can be drawn too.

The Autobots, much as they wish to protect human life, still fought in the middle of a populated city and crashed through populated buildings. You can blame the Decepticons, I suppose, but it still makes you wonder if the Autobots didn't make some kind of blunder or if they couldn't have taken the battle elsewhere.

Considering the huge mobility and apparent strength/firepower advantages the Decepticons had over the Autobots, facing them in the open terrain of the desert would've been instant, sure death to the Autobots and total victory for the Decepticons.

Fighting in the city was the only chance the A-bots had....

Please don't spell "mike" in all lower case unless you mean me - i think i'm the only "mike" around here who spells it that way.

If That Other Mike also uses all lower case, please find some way to distinguish him from me.

(So far as i can understand what anyone is saying, i'm with PAD on this little brouhaha.)

"Israel/Hezbollah war on Lebanese soil?"

Do you think the Hizballa or the Israelis were aliens?

The war took place on the soils of Lebanon and Israel between Israelis and the Hizballa, who are Lebanese. No aliens participated in this war to the best of my knowledge.

The war took place in cities and villages because a large part of the bunkers and mobile missiles of the Hizballa were placed in cities in Lebanon, and after they were fired, they hit cities and villages in Israel. Again, no aliens.

I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know if there was a reference to Iraq. I did see the war.

The Autobots, much as they wish to protect human life, still fought in the middle of a populated city and crashed through populated buildings. You can blame the Decepticons, I suppose, but it still makes you wonder if the Autobots didn't make some kind of blunder or if they couldn't have taken the battle elsewhere.

As I recall, taking the Allspark into the city was the idea of the human military folks, not the Autobots, since Optimus and crew weren't even to the dam yet, and Bumblebee wasn't talking yet. From the human military point of view, it was a reasonable strategy. They knew they had to get the Allspark away from the quickly awakening Megatron, and the only other Decepticons they had engaged in open combat were Blackout and Scorponok, both of whom would have had them at a distinct disadvantage in the open desert, not knowing if they were going to have air support.

Sadly, a potential city combat probably had to fall into the "acceptable losses" category when weighed against the potential extinction of the human race.

Actually, making it the humans' decision and not Prime's was one thing I think they did right, since Prime would have objected strenuously to risking even that many human lives.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by Peter David at July 8, 2007 06:55 PM

Sure enough, the next poster was Peter David. You made a great point about what a coincidence it is that the kid buys the transformer. Out of all the cars in the city, what are odds that he buys the car that's come from across the universe looking for him???

Uh...no. It's not a "great point" because it was abundantly clear that Bumblebee came looking for him, that Bumblebee followed him TO the car lot, and then we saw Bumblebee demolish the other cars that might have been bought in lieu of him. The film had weaknesses, but that plot point was pretty solid.

The rest of your post is just too stupid to respond to.

I didn't take it that way. Since he did enjoy the movie and I didn't (and the fact that this is his board) I felt that he might have thought that the comment was directed to him. Being the ever clever person he is, he responded in kind to my "insult". Correct me if I am wrong Peter...

No need; you're right.

[end of Peter's post]

3. Mike's opinion: that PAD did in fact address the issues, despite saying they were too stupid to address. This is a question of fact: whether or not PAD addressed an issue he had said he would not.

It seems to me (it is my opinion) that either 1. or 2. could be correct, and that my choice of 2. could be wrong, but 3. is simply mistaken, seeing a phantom posting not otherwise apparent here....

Obviously, my post had a foolish error of "mike" instead of "bill." That I am fallible is no surprise.

Peter confirmed Mark's comprehensive rebuttal of bill. In doing so, yes, Peter literally addressed an issue he had said he would not. Your intolerance of contradiction does not magically make contradiction a phenomenon impossible to observe.

I can keep citing the post you keep saying doesn't exist as long as you keep denying it exists. Existentially speaking, this is no burden to me, because there is no mental contortion involved in aligning my judgments to the plain linearly-presented facts of this thread.

You on the other hand are sheltering judgments in denial of the plain linearly-presented facts of this thread, the burden of this perhaps exhibiting itself in errors even you aren't typically prone to: confusing my name for bill's, apologizing for it, then repeating the error with "[Peter] rejects mike's viewpoint;" when Peter literally has not acknowledge anything I've said in this thread.

Typing "mike" for "bill" is not a casual mistake, and you've made it twice. This looks like a cry for help from your own feelings and intuitions because you are strapping down their freedom to interact with what is obvious in their environment to adopt and maintain an insincere facade. If you want to keep grinding your gears in this manner, well, that's what you get for exerting yourself counter to what is plainly observable.

This was a very entertaining action movie, and as the biggest fan of the Transformers when I was a kid (it was the gateway comic book for me, the first one I ever collected and read every month), it was extremely fun watching it. Granted, there were a number of creative aspects of the adaptation about which I had reservations (I’ll go into that below), but that’s more subjective than the plot-character-theme stuff I usually analyze when I explore my feelings about a film, and in terms of the plot, character and theme, it was okay, especially given that it was a Michael Bay adaptation of a kid’s animated tv show.

John Turturro’s character was the worst, most annoying movie character I’ve seen in years. I don’t know why Michael Bay has to work with such bad writing. But there’s no excuse for this. And when I see that writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman are both writer/producers on the upcoming Star Trek movie, I cringe.

VOICES
It was SO COOL that Peter Cullen was tapped to reprise his role of Optimus Prime! But I thought that too much of his dialogue was corny, especially, his closing monologue. But the “One shall stand…one shall fall” line was a nice bit of continuity to the ‘84 film, and his saying “My bad” when he crushed that garden fountain was jarringly funny. And I was SO HAPPY when I saw that retractable blade that came out of his arm that he used against that one Decepticon during the highway brawl. It was (or seemed to me to be) a nice adaptation of that orange “energy axe” replaced one of Prime’s hands during an episode or two of the animated series (during which Megatron had a purple spiked ball-and-chain).

It’s unfortunate that Chris Latta is no longer with us, and could not reprise his role of Starscream, but I was perplexed by Peter David’s revelation that Michael Bay didn’t want Frank Welker to reprise his role of Megatron because he had aged to the point where he didn’t feel he sounded like he wanted Megatron to sound like. That’s too bad, because while Hugo Weaving did an okay job, I found his voice to be mostly indistinguishable from say, Barricade’s. Since he was hardly marketed as a selling point (I didn’t even know it was Weaving Peter mentioned it), I wonder why they chose him, and not simply an unknown who could’ve replicated Welker’s original Megatron voice.

When first meeting Ironhide, his voice seemed to have a British accent during the utterance of one of his lines.

DESIGNS & F/X
I have to admit, I was initially skeptical of the odd-looking designs of the robots, but at the same time, I knew that when animated or comic book properties are adapted to live action film, they tend to favor more detail, and by the time I was watching the movie, I had warmed to the designs. I was also unhappy with Prime’s moving mouth, but I got used to that too, and was happy when I saw that the “mouth mask” he had in the series/toys/comic showed up as a clever piece of battle armor. I also liked that fact that the Transformers could reconfigure, or essentially shapeshift, the design of their bodies, after scanning Earth vehicles and other objects. In the comics and series, they had to be custom rebuilt by their starship in order to change their transformed modes. I also liked the use of holograms to provide the appearance of drivers, or in the case of Bumblebee, apparent damage to look like a beat-up car on a car lot.

That said, I question whether all those disparate-looking body parts that we see on the Transformers could really be accounted for by the objects they transform into, and I was unpleasantly reminded of the really bad use of CGI to cover up this type of problem in Lost in Space. One of the things I think it would’ve been nice if they retained from the series was the jerky, segmented movement and accompanying sound effect that is employed when they transform. We got a little of that sound effect, but only just.

I also didn’t like Frenzy’s odd like “Robotic Gremlin” mode of moving or talking. I also didn’t understand why, if he was a radio, did they make him Frenzy rather than Soundwave (even though I don’t think his name was mentioned in the film). I also didn’t understand if he re-formed himself after seemingly being damaged in the Bumblebee-Barricade battle, or if that was a different character.

I was confused a bit by Barricade. When I saw the cop car, I thought it was Prowl, since he was a cop car. But then he started tossing around Sam, and threatening him, and I thought, “Geez, why are the Autobots acting so mean?”. It was only after a bit that I realized it was Barricade. Why is this? Barricade was a race car (and later a missile truck), not a police car, and the plot really didn’t require that he be a police car. It just seemed kinda wrong to see a police car with the Decepticons, since it was always the case that benevolent public service vehicles like fire trucks, ambulances, police cars, etc. were always Autobots in the previous media.

And speaking of which vehicles they were, why wasn’t Bumblebee a VW Beetle? I assumed that perhaps they hadn’t gotten the rights from Volkswagen to do this, but there was a VW bug in the car lot right next to Bumblebee! Was it that VW didn’t want its vehicles to be a character engaged in violence? Or was this another creator decision?

MISCELLANEOUS STUFF
Did the Transformers arrive on Earth in ships, inside those meteors, or just fly through space and through Earth’s atmosphere unprotected?

How can a Transformer like Optimus be clumsy enough to destroy that garden fountain? He’s an extraterrestrial robotic intelligence! Should he be able to avoid that sort of thing?

Where does all that mass go when the All-Spark cube shrinks?

When did Bumblebee get his voice fixed? Ratchet told Prime that he was still working on it when we first saw all the Autobots together, and then, at the end of the film, it’s suddenly fixed. How’s this?

Why not disassemble Megatron, especially his head/brain, before putting him in the ocean?

Where did those new Decepticons come from during the final battle? Who used the cube to make them? Why couldn’t Optimus use the cube to make more Autobots?

If Jazz was torn in two, wouldn’t he still be alive if his brain were intact?

VW doesn't want its vehicles to be associated with war robots, even if it was to be a good guy.

They seemed to arrive through space unprotected and not in ships.

As for Optimus' clumsiness, being extraterrestrial and robotic prevents you from being clumsy on Earth because...?

The mass displacement of the Allspark may lend itself to the mass displacement common place in the G1 cartoon (such as Soundwave).

I assume Bumblebee got his voice fixed via contact with the Allspark, which is how Frenzy was made whole.

Disassembling Megatron probably seemed unnecessary, when they wanted him at the bottom of that trench ASAP, plus would've been inconvenient for the inevitable sequel...

They so explained how the energy from the Allspark makes Earth's technology sentient during the Nokia phone sequence and as the reason why the Decepticons wanted the thing throughout the movie. Those near the end were created by accident through Sam. It wasn't explained why they make 'Decepticons' as opposed to 'Autobots'... perhaps the natural inclination for sentience is toward destruction and evil?

Transformers exist via their spark, not their 'brains'. Apparently, Megatron extinguished Jazz's spark, but that isn't to dismiss his potential resurrection since Optimus did clench a piece of the Allspark from Megatron's gaping wound. Besides, if Megatron is coming back...

I really don't get what is with the John Turturro hate.

Barricade as a police car allowed him to get close to Air Force One to pick up Frenzy, so it did play a role in the plot.

How can a Transformer like Optimus be clumsy enough to destroy that garden fountain? He’s an extraterrestrial robotic intelligence! Should he be able to avoid that sort of thing?

All a matter of scale. They're simply not used to moving around on a planet where everything is so small and fragile.

Why not disassemble Megatron, especially his head/brain, before putting him in the ocean?

Cybertronians don't have have a brain in their heads, so to speak. Their consciousness is contained in their spark, which is usually in their chest. (A concept that originated, I believe, in Beast Wars) So, when Sam combined the Allspark with Megatron's spark, his consciousness was (supposedly) obliterated. As to why they didn't disassemble him... Well, that'd just make it harder to resurrect him for the sequel, wouldn't it?

Where did those new Decepticons come from during the final battle? Who used the cube to make them? Why couldn’t Optimus use the cube to make more Autobots?

If you mean the pop machine and evil airbag, they were created when Sam hit the ground, triggering a small flash of Allspark energy. If you mean the other actual Decepticons, they were biding their time, carrying on their own searches for the Allspark, waiting for the word that it'd been found, or so I assume.

I imagine Prime probably could have created more Autobots, but I got the impression that new Transformers are essentially mindless, lashing out at anything around them. Trying to create a new "family" would just be too dangerous, I imagine, on a world so fragile, and the Allspark would be simply too dangerous to keep around, since the Decepticons would never give up trying to get it.

If Jazz was torn in two, wouldn’t he still be alive if his brain were intact?

If his spark chamber were compromised or completely destroyed, it would be like ripping a human's head in two. There just ain't no putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.

-Rex Hondo-

"And speaking of which vehicles they were, why wasn’t Bumblebee a VW Beetle?"

I haven't seen the movie, but based on what I've heard, it seems that part of Bumblebee's role in the movie was to help the hero get the girl. It seems to me that this is something even robotic VW bugs can't acheive. This is sci-fi, but it still has to be believeable.

My assumption had been that the first 45 minutes was SO evocative of "The Lovebug" that having Bumblebee be a VW beetle would have been simply too on-the-nose.

PAD

Weren't all the Autobots part of the GM/Chevy/Pontiac family?

That's why no VW :)

The war took place on the soils of Lebanon and Israel between Israelis and the Hizballa, who are Lebanese. No aliens participated in this war to the best of my knowledge.

I'm sure the civilians caught in the middle of the damned thing saw it a little differently. In the movie, the humans were seen by the TFs as civilians, with one side trying to protect them and the other side not caring. It's like the Israel/Hezbollah war, I feel, because of that "civilian" element. Two parties waging war in your back yard. It almost doesn't matter who was "good" and who was "evil," because they were both responsible for so much destruction.

The point Micha was making was that the Isreal/Hezbollah conflict was one between Isrealis and Lebonese, taking place on Isreali and Lebonese soil. Not a conflict between two non-native forces taking place on someone's else's soil, as in the movie. So, therefore, he felt the analogy was not particularly analogous...

Oh my God... I just realized...

Technically advanced bad guys set up shop on a planet with squishy little natives, figuring said natives to be no threat. Good guys show up and make nice with natives. Natives end up being instrumental in defeating bad guys, despite being squishy and relatively primitive.

Humans are the Ewoks of the Transformers universe!

-Rex Hondo-

The point Micha was making was that the Isreal/Hezbollah conflict was one between Isrealis and Lebonese, taking place on Isreali and Lebonese soil.

The media seemed pretty intent on portraying Hezbollah as a terrorist group separate from Lebanon in terms of politics and intentions. So I was under the impression that Hezbollah acted independently of the Lebanese government, which in my eyes makes the fact that they happened to be Lebanese more of a technicality.

Kind of like if a bunch of American football players banded together and waged war on Canada. (Or Canada waging war on America to get at the football players.) American citizens (humans) are dying because Canada (the Autobots) are going after the football players (Decepticons). Have I made this sound ridiculous enough?

As far as the analogy not working, that's very possible. It's a complicated situation, and it all depends on whose perspective you choose to see it from. I empathize more with the civilians, I guess. To them, it doesn't really matter where the two warring parties come from--they might as well be aliens. And when it comes down to human versus human (or robot versus robot) it's hard to tell one side from the other. It's just one big mess.

PAD's so much better at analogies... I guess that's why he's the Writer of Stuff.

Rex: Humans aren't the Ewoks of the TFU. Ewoks were far more useful.

"I'm sure the civilians caught in the middle of the damned thing saw it a little differently."

Not really. The Israeli soldiers are recruited from the Israeli civilian population, and the Hizballa recruits from the Lebanese Shia population. Both the Israeli government and the Hizballa enjoyed the support of most of their population during the war. So the armies were not alien to the civilian population, and each side had very clear ideas on who was good or evil respectfully.
Although in Israel there was an Arab minority and part of the left who were against the war, and in some cases for Hizballa. And in Lebanon some of the Christians, Sunni and Druze were not per se for the war, and sought to end it, but they were patritically obligated to support the Hizballa outwardly at least. In any case the majority of Lebanese civilians affected by the war were Shia, the majority of which supported the Hizballa.

So no aliens.

So no aliens.

You've won this round, Prime. But I. Shall. Return.

"The media seemed pretty intent on portraying Hezbollah as a terrorist group separate from Lebanon in terms of politics and intentions. So I was under the impression that Hezbollah acted independently of the Lebanese government, which in my eyes makes the fact that they happened to be Lebanese more of a technicality."

This is a misconception. The politics of Lebanon is very complicated. In any case, the Hizballa is not some fringe terrorist group. It is a political party representing most of the Shia population, who are in themselves, I think, somewhere between 30-40% of the population. Maybe more. Prior to the war, the Hizballa had four ministers in the government, as well as the support of the pro-Syrian Christian president, and were represented in parliament. They also ruled, militarily, the South of Lebanon (most of whose population are Shia), and other areas of the country, and certain quarters of Beirut. Prior to the war the Lebanese army dared not enter Hizballa controled areas. The Hizballa was the army (not terrorist group) whose forces were stationed opposite the Israeli border. The Hizballa also has their own TV channel Al-Manar.

So, no aliens.

Ryu: As for Optimus' clumsiness, being extraterrestrial and robotic prevents you from being clumsy on Earth because...?
Luigi Novi: Because even the most primitive extraterrestrial machine that is capable of traveling across interstellar distances would be more sophisticated than the most sophisticated Earth machine, and have the ability to avoid accidental collisions.

Ryu: Disassembling Megatron probably seemed unnecessary, when they wanted him at the bottom of that trench ASAP…
Luigi Novi: Why did it have to be ASAP?

Ryu: …plus would've been inconvenient for the inevitable sequel...
Luigi Novi: Unless the sequel will have a different villain.

Ryu: Those near the end were created by accident through Sam. It wasn't explained why they make 'Decepticons' as opposed to 'Autobots'... perhaps the natural inclination for sentience is toward destruction and evil?
Luigi Novi: And how did Sam do this? That was my question? And yeah, why they were violent as opposed to benevolent, when Sam was the one holding the cube, was also part of my question.

Ryu: Transformers exist via their spark, not their 'brains'. Apparently, Megatron extinguished Jazz's spark, but that isn't to dismiss his potential resurrection since Optimus did clench a piece of the Allspark from Megatron's gaping wound. Besides, if Megatron is coming back...
Luigi Novi: Where was this established in the movie? And why would tearing Jazz in half extinguish his spark? And if this would, then what exactly is it that does this, and what type of damage won’t? Why didn’t the mutilation of Bumblebee’s legs do this?

Ryu: Barricade as a police car allowed him to get close to Air Force One to pick up Frenzy, so it did play a role in the plot.
Luigi Novi: Thanks.

Rex, thanks for the explanations. :-)

I have to see this movie. I simply have to.

Luigi Novi: Because even the most primitive extraterrestrial machine that is capable of traveling across interstellar distances would be more sophisticated than the most sophisticated Earth machine, and have the ability to avoid accidental collisions.

You're forgetting that the TFs aren't giants where they come from. They are probably not used to such small life forms, having to constantly watch their step and the like.

Not only that, but even us weak little meatbags who actually live around here tend to step on things when we're paying attention to something else. I can't tell you how many times my wife has tripped over my sneakers or Brian's toys resulting in ankle injury or much cursing or both.

Besides, I think it's some kind of film tradition that when there are giant anything walking around, something's BOUND to go squish. And if not, it bloody well seems like it is.

What cracks me up about this is that the same people harping about how flimsy and non-existant the plot was are the same people who think the US moved the allspark, that Sam picked Bumblebee by random chance, that Megatron knew he was in the same building as the Allspark (even though he asks Starscream where the Allspark is in their first scene together) etc etc etc. And yes, the dialogue between some of the military personnel also explain why they move the Allspark to L.A. When you watch a movie, folks, you're supposed to LISTEN to it as well as WATCH it.

As for jazz's spark, Megatron absorbed it. During the flashback sequence on Cybertron it shows him killing autobots and "eating" their sparks. This was a bigger plot point in the older script, which basically made Megatron out as a sort of Decepticon vampire.

So you see him rip Jazz in half, and sort of suck up a blue ray of light from Jazz's chassis.

"Ryu: Disassembling Megatron probably seemed unnecessary, when they wanted him at the bottom of that trench ASAP…
Luigi Novi: Why did it have to be ASAP?"

Because they seemed to have a problem keeping down Devastator (the tank)? Considering the Autobots had trouble keeping him down, they probably didn't really trust that Megatron was really down for the count. Also, because they should have noticed that Starscream wasn't among the dead, Scorponok wasn't destroyed, and Barricade's fate remains unanswered.

"Ryu: …plus would've been inconvenient for the inevitable sequel...
Luigi Novi: Unless the sequel will have a different villain."

Which is possible with Hollywood, but I feel quite confident Hasbro will want Megatron resurrected.

"Ryu: Those near the end were created by accident through Sam. It wasn't explained why they make 'Decepticons' as opposed to 'Autobots'... perhaps the natural inclination for sentience is toward destruction and evil?
Luigi Novi: And how did Sam do this? That was my question? And yeah, why they were violent as opposed to benevolent, when Sam was the one holding the cube, was also part of my question."

It happened when he fell into the girl's SUV and then on the ground; it jolted energy from the Allspark that effected her SUV, the 360, and the drink machine. I'm guessing the novelization would give more insight? I can only go buy what I recall from the showings I've seen.

As for Jazz's spark, I don't recall Megatron sucking out his spark probably because I wasn't looking for it. Or it could've happened between scenes since Megatron held the two pieces of Jazz for quite some time before Optimus showed up... really late.

Mike - Mike - Mike - Mike - Mike (right 5 times in a row): It's unwise to argue with you, because you're better at making Mike look insane than I am. When I get your name wrong, or Bill/bill/others' name wrong it's not a deep psychological thing, but the facts that I don't know you, don't feel the lesser for it and don't care enough to get it right.

Now, if I were a betting man, I'd put money on Megatron being resurrected as Galvatron for the sequel, possibly as an unanticipated side effect of the Allspark's destruction combined with an inconveniently placed volcanic vent.

Where was this established in the movie? And why would tearing Jazz in half extinguish his spark?

It wasn't. Optimus Prime mentioned he had a Spark, but that was the extent of how much Sparks were talked about. As for tearing him in half, that kind of damage is hefty enough to put enough of a strain on a Spark to extinguish it.

And if this would, then what exactly is it that does this, and what type of damage won’t?

Well, as we saw Brawl/Devastator, the tank, go through, transformers can take a lot of "minute" damage before it all just eventually adds up and extinguishes them. Most of the encounters were fought hand-to-hand between factions; perhaps physical damage is their biggest weakness. (I mean, Optimus sawed off Bonecrusher's head and that was the end of it...)

Why didn’t the mutilation of Bumblebee’s legs do this?

Well, let's take a human, for example. If a human's legs get shredded, you can still save him through proper medical care and amputation. But if he gets torn in half at the stomach, like poor Jazz...

Posted by Peter David at July 8, 2007 06:55 PM

Sure enough, the next poster was Peter David. You made a great point about what a coincidence it is that the kid buys the transformer. Out of all the cars in the city, what are odds that he buys the car that's come from across the universe looking for him???

Uh...no. It's not a "great point" because it was abundantly clear that Bumblebee came looking for him, that Bumblebee followed him TO the car lot, and then we saw Bumblebee demolish the other cars that might have been bought in lieu of him. The film had weaknesses, but that plot point was pretty solid.

The rest of your post is just too stupid to respond to.

I didn't take it that way. Since he did enjoy the movie and I didn't (and the fact that this is his board) I felt that he might have thought that the comment was directed to him. Being the ever clever person he is, he responded in kind to my "insult". Correct me if I am wrong Peter...

No need; you're right.

[end of Peter's post]

3. Mike's opinion: that PAD did in fact address the issues, despite saying they were too stupid to address. This is a question of fact: whether or not PAD addressed an issue he had said he would not.

It seems to me (it is my opinion) that either 1. or 2. could be correct, and that my choice of 2. could be wrong, but 3. is simply mistaken, seeing a phantom posting not otherwise apparent here....

Obviously, my post had a foolish error of "mike" instead of "bill." That I am fallible is no surprise.

Peter confirmed Mark's comprehensive rebuttal of bill. In doing so, yes, Peter literally addressed an issue he had said he would not. Your intolerance of contradiction does not magically make contradiction a phenomenon impossible to observe.

I can keep citing the post you keep saying doesn't exist as long as you keep denying it exists. Existentially speaking, this is no burden to me, because there is no mental contortion involved in aligning my judgments to the plain linearly-presented facts of this thread.

You on the other hand are sheltering judgments in denial of the plain linearly-presented facts of this thread, the burden of this perhaps exhibiting itself in errors even you aren't typically prone to: confusing my name for bill's, apologizing for it, then repeating the error with "[Peter] rejects mike's viewpoint;" when Peter literally has not acknowledge anything I've said in this thread.

Typing "mike" for "bill" is not a casual mistake, and you've made it twice. This looks like a cry for help from your own feelings and intuitions because you are strapping down their freedom to interact with what is obvious in their environment to adopt and maintain an insincere facade. If you want to keep grinding your gears in this manner, well, that's what you get for exerting yourself counter to what is plainly observable.

Mike - Mike - Mike - Mike - Mike (right 5 times in a row): It's unwise to argue with you, because you're better at making Mike look insane than I am. When I get your name wrong, or Bill/bill/others' name wrong it's not a deep psychological thing, but the facts that I don't know you, don't feel the lesser for it and don't care enough to get it right.

Jeffrey, review the bolded text: with no sense of irony, you've openly and unapologetically admitted to an insincerity in contradiction to the intuitive fidelity to accuracy you find obvious. You've confirmed my observation in the very response you sought to rebut it. Thank you.

I vaguely remember you mentioning having the recall of at least a young adult of the 1970s, and you default to imposing a formality strict enough to lead me to believe you aren't maintaining a loving-trust you find of any consequence. I can only hope your situation isn't as bleak as you straight-jacketing your own feelings and intuitions in quiet desperation, as you enter middle-age without the shelter of a loving relationship.

When I first heard that Michael Bay was directing Transformers, I felt a certain amount of trepidation. Bay's directing style is essentially "the more things blow up the better". That said I enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would, though I do have some complaints. Essentially so long as the movie focused on Sam's attempts to woo Mikealah with Bumblebee playing matchmaker it was on solid ground. As soon as the film became about the pursuit of the Macguffin (Archibald Witwitcky's spectacles) everything got way too confusing. On the one hand both the Autobots and Decepticons find out about the eBay auction of the glasses, locate Sam, and fight for the glasses. But (spoiler warning) the glasses don't really tell where the Allspark is, so almost an hour of the movie is wasted on the pursuit of a meaningless Macguffin. If I were Starscream that would have pissed me off enough to complain. Optimus would never do something so crass (Starscream would have though :) ) but he should have had some reaction to learning that the glasses were worthless.

My second complaint is that the film never explains why Scorponok needs to hack the server in Qatar, when Frenzy so easily infiltrates Air Force One. For that matter since the film explains that all modern technology was reverse engineered from a Transformer, the Decepticons should have been able to waltz past the firewall, no matter what the sexy super-hacker and her obese pal did.

Finally, Grimlock was not in the movie, and that is a crime. :)

When I first heard that Michael Bay was directing Transformers, I felt a certain amount of trepidation. Bay's directing style is essentially "the more things blow up the better". That said I enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would, though I do have some complaints. Essentially so long as the movie focused on Sam's attempts to woo Mikealah with Bumblebee playing matchmaker it was on solid ground. As soon as the film became about the pursuit of the Macguffin (Archibald Witwitcky's spectacles) everything got way too confusing. On the one hand both the Autobots and Decepticons find out about the eBay auction of the glasses, locate Sam, and fight for the glasses. But (spoiler warning) the glasses don't really tell where the Allspark is, so almost an hour of the movie is wasted on the pursuit of a meaningless Macguffin. If I were Starscream that would have pissed me off enough to complain. Optimus would never do something so crass (Starscream would have though :) ) but he should have had some reaction to learning that the glasses were worthless.

My second complaint is that the film never explains why Scorponok needs to hack the server in Qatar, when Frenzy so easily infiltrates Air Force One. For that matter since the film explains that all modern technology was reverse engineered from a Transformer, the Decepticons should have been able to waltz past the firewall, no matter what the sexy super-hacker and her obese pal did.

Finally, Grimlock was not in the movie, and that is a crime. :)

Curse you double post! I shall defeat you some day, when all are one!

Mike, you "vaguely remember" some strange things. I doubt ever "mentioning (I) have the recall of at least a young adult of the 1970s" on this site, as that would be a rather over-formal thing to do. Perhaps you were clumsily implying that I am in my late 40s. Yes, I am; You either are the same (I doubt it), will be (this is possible) or will die before that time and never grow so old (I can't help you with that, sad to say). I'm not at all interested in your comments about my love life, but since you raise the subject, it is close to impossible to imagine someone tolerating your psychoses and loving you, Mike. Try projecting a bit less of your own problems onto me.

Obviously, my post had a foolish error of "mike" instead of "bill." That I am fallible is no surprise.

I can keep citing the post you keep saying doesn't exist as long as you keep denying it exists. Existentially speaking, this is no burden to me, because there is no mental contortion involved in aligning my judgments to the plain linearly-presented facts of this thread.

You on the other hand are sheltering judgments in denial of the plain linearly-presented facts of this thread, the burden of this perhaps exhibiting itself in errors even you aren't typically prone to: confusing my name for bill's, apologizing for it, then repeating the error with "[Peter] rejects mike's viewpoint;" when Peter literally has not acknowledge anything I've said in this thread.

Typing "mike" for "bill" is not a casual mistake, and you've made it twice. This looks like a cry for help from your own feelings and intuitions because you are strapping down their freedom to interact with what is obvious in their environment to adopt and maintain an insincere facade.

When I get your name wrong, or Bill/bill/others' name wrong it's not a deep psychological thing, but the facts that I don't know you, don't feel the lesser for it and don't care enough to get it right.

..with no sense of irony, you've openly and unapologetically admitted to an insincerity in contradiction to the intuitive fidelity to accuracy you find obvious. You've confirmed my observation in the very response you sought to rebut it. Thank you....

I can only hope your situation isn't as bleak as you straight-jacketing your own feelings and intuitions in quiet desperation, as you enter middle-age without the shelter of a loving relationship.

Perhaps you were clumsily implying that I am in my late 40s. Yes, I am; You either are the same (I doubt it), will be (this is possible) or will die before that time and never grow so old (I can't help you with that, sad to say). I'm not at all interested in your comments about my love life, but since you raise the subject, it is close to impossible to imagine someone tolerating your psychoses and loving you, Mike. Try projecting a bit less of your own problems onto me.

If, in being single, you are not free to live authentically to your feelings and intuitions, but, in straight-jacketing those feelings and intuitions, you instead live to undercut your trust in yourself, then you are living the worst possible outcomes of the single and committed lifestyles. The question "How can he stand his crippled state of only being half-alive?" seems to apply more to you than anyone else posting here.

When I first heard that Michael Bay was directing Transformers, I felt a certain amount of trepidation. Bay's directing style is essentially "the more things blow up the better". That said I enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would, though I do have some complaints. Essentially so long as the movie focused on Sam's attempts to woo Mikealah with Bumblebee playing matchmaker it was on solid ground. As soon as the film became about the pursuit of the Macguffin (Archibald Witwitcky's spectacles) everything got way too confusing. On the one hand both the Autobots and Decepticons find out about the eBay auction of the glasses, locate Sam, and fight for the glasses. But (spoiler warning) the glasses don't really tell where the Allspark is, so almost an hour of the movie is wasted on the pursuit of a meaningless Macguffin. If I were Starscream that would have pissed me off enough to complain. Optimus would never do something so crass (Starscream would have though :) ) but he should have had some reaction to learning that the glasses were worthless.

I think Optimus actually did get use of the glasses, since he seemed to have been presented a virtual map thanks to the coordinates. It was the scene when him and the Autobots (minus an apprehended Bumblebee) were sitting in that courtyard/temple thing (completely unnoticed by any humans, of course) and he gets a big globe up with his holograms, so he does find out where the Allspark was.. it's just that they arrive way too late to find it or stop Megatron from catching wind of it.

My second complaint is that the film never explains why Scorponok needs to hack the server in Qatar, when Frenzy so easily infiltrates Air Force One. For that matter since the film explains that all modern technology was reverse engineered from a Transformer, the Decepticons should have been able to waltz past the firewall, no matter what the sexy super-hacker and her obese pal did.

Blackout was the one hacking the Qator base, while Scorponok was sent out to kill the surviving humans (I think it was an attempt to keep the Decepticons' existence a secret from the humans until they got what they needed). And the reason Frenzy hacks it so easily, is because he uses the info provided by Blackout (info that I'm guessing gave the whereabouts of Air Force One, and it's Firewall and all that jazz), and since they already bypassed the system once, it wasn't that hard for him to do it a second time.

And maybe the reverse engineering stuff was the reason it took ten seconds for them to hack it.. I never thought about it that way, but if the Decepticons are pretty much the mother of all invention, then they should've hacked it either way, whether they got the info in Qator or not.. I guess they just wanted to give sexy Aussie super-hacker some screentime?

Finally, Grimlock was not in the movie, and that is a crime. :)

I'm guessing you saw the Viral Marketing thing at the Official Sector 7 site, then? Cause Wikipedia is saying that Grimlock is on a video there.. I can't get in there, and since it's 4 in the morning, I'm too damned lazy to try.. hope my insomniac impulse of posting here helped you with some of your questions.

When I first heard that Michael Bay was directing Transformers, I felt a certain amount of trepidation. Bay's directing style is essentially "the more things blow up the better". That said I enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would, though I do have some complaints. Essentially so long as the movie focused on Sam's attempts to woo Mikealah with Bumblebee playing matchmaker it was on solid ground. As soon as the film became about the pursuit of the Macguffin (Archibald Witwitcky's spectacles) everything got way too confusing. On the one hand both the Autobots and Decepticons find out about the eBay auction of the glasses, locate Sam, and fight for the glasses. But (spoiler warning) the glasses don't really tell where the Allspark is, so almost an hour of the movie is wasted on the pursuit of a meaningless Macguffin. If I were Starscream that would have pissed me off enough to complain. Optimus would never do something so crass (Starscream would have though :) ) but he should have had some reaction to learning that the glasses were worthless.

I think Optimus actually did get use of the glasses, since he seemed to have been presented a virtual map thanks to the coordinates. It was the scene when him and the Autobots (minus an apprehended Bumblebee) were sitting in that courtyard/temple thing (completely unnoticed by any humans, of course) and he gets a big globe up with his holograms, so he does find out where the Allspark was.. it's just that they arrive way too late to find it or stop Megatron from catch