July 07, 2007

Car Toon

Kath and I went to see "Transformers" this afternoon.

Now I was a bit old for the animated series when it first aired, so I have no particular attachment to the characters or concepts. I'm not going to get my knickers in a knot because character designs were changed or liberties were taken. I'm much more interested in the simple concept of whether I was entertained or not.

Answer: Most definitely.

Mild spoilers below...

I have to admit that I found the first forty five minutes the most engaging. Our young hero, Sam (Shia LeBoeuf acting his heart out) buys his first car, a yellow Camaro, which turns out to be (wait for it) more than meets the eye. In short order the vehicle is playing matchmaker for Sam and a local hottie. But the car is also heavily armed and good in a fight as a shapeshifting police car goes after Sam and a titanic struggle ensues. Basically the film initially plays out like the mutant crossbreeding of "Terminator II" and "The Lovebug"..."Herbie Goes to Defcon 4," if you will.

If that's where the movie had remained, that honestly would have been good enough for me. But nearly an hour in, the rest of the titular heroes show up: Twenty foot tall living machines who mostly appear to have picked up our language through the internet (which would explain the wacky names they have. Bumblebee? Why in the world would an alien be named after an Earth insect?) As Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen, the original OP) explains the Autobots' backstory while his cohorts each exhibit their one character trait, the film teeters into the arena of the truly ludicrous.

Fortunately director Michael Bay wisely decides to go with the silliness rather than fight it. The result is grin worthy sequences such as the sight of a bunch of gargantuan robots trying to remain inconspicuous in a suburban back yard and failing spectacularly. By acknowledging the inherent absurdity of the situation, Bay manages to hold on to his audience's suspension of disbelief long enough for us to segue into some truly spectacular battle scenes, including a climactic half hour running battle between Autobots, Decepticons, and the US Army, while various bystanders desperately try not to get themselves blown up, shot up, or just plain crushed. Some gloriously hysterical dialogue (one Autobot, fed up with Sam's annoying parents, argues the advantages of simply blowing them to hell; at another point, Optimus Prime obliterates Sam's mother's garden and mutters, "Sorry...my bad") and surprisingly scatological sequences (a Transformer chooses a very crass means of displaying his contempt for an abusive government spook) hold the entire film together. At its best when focusing on the core concept of A Boy and His Car, it nevertheless...despite a bit of unevenness...provides exactly what one would expect: Two-plus hours of mindless entertainment.

Surrender now to the certainty of a sequel.

PAD

Posted by Peter David at July 7, 2007 09:32 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: Brad at July 7, 2007 10:12 PM

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'

Posted by: Byron Dunn at July 7, 2007 10:21 PM

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

Posted by: El hombre Malo at July 7, 2007 10:29 PM

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?

Posted by: Rex Hondo at July 7, 2007 11:03 PM

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-

Posted by: David Van Domelen at July 7, 2007 11:08 PM

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

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at July 8, 2007 12:09 AM

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.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at July 8, 2007 12:16 AM

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-

Posted by: Hamish at July 8, 2007 12:43 AM

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.

Posted by: hamish at July 8, 2007 12:45 AM

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

Posted by: Herb at July 8, 2007 03:20 AM

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.

Posted by: emmaebe at July 8, 2007 05:56 AM

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.

Posted by: Peter David at July 8, 2007 07:28 AM

"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

Posted by: Mark Torres at July 8, 2007 10:32 AM

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!).

Posted by: Peter David at July 8, 2007 10:45 AM

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

Posted by: Mark Torres at July 8, 2007 12:19 PM

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!

Posted by: David Van Domelen at July 8, 2007 01:12 PM

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.

Posted by: Mark Torres at July 8, 2007 01:39 PM

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!

Posted by: bill at July 8, 2007 03:33 PM

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.

Posted by: Mark Torres at July 8, 2007 03:43 PM

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...

Posted by: Zeekar at July 8, 2007 03:48 PM

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.

Posted by: Zeekar at July 8, 2007 04:55 PM

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.


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.

PAD

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at July 8, 2007 07:38 PM

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.

Posted by: Dr.c at July 8, 2007 08:43 PM

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

Posted by: Bill Myers at July 8, 2007 08:44 PM

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?

Posted by: Steve at July 8, 2007 08:47 PM

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.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at July 8, 2007 09:18 PM

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-

Posted by: Bill Myers at July 8, 2007 09:38 PM

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. ;)

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at July 8, 2007 09:43 PM

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.

Posted by: Scavenger at July 8, 2007 09:50 PM

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?

Posted by: Zeekar at July 8, 2007 09:58 PM

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...

Posted by: Micha at July 8, 2007 10:00 PM

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.

Posted by: Mike at July 8, 2007 10:19 PM
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.

Posted by: Sasha at July 8, 2007 10:36 PM

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?

Posted by: Mark Torres at July 8, 2007 11:51 PM

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...

Posted by: Eric Qel-Droma at July 9, 2007 12:30 AM

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

Posted by: The StarWolf at July 9, 2007 06:25 AM

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.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at July 9, 2007 06:26 AM

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.

Posted by: Mike at July 9, 2007 06:45 AM

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.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at July 9, 2007 06:54 AM

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-

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at July 9, 2007 07:13 AM

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.

Posted by: Ray at July 9, 2007 07:31 AM

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.

Posted by: Mike at July 9, 2007 08:21 AM

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.

Posted by: Doug Atkinson at July 9, 2007 08:21 AM

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.

Posted by: Scott Iskow at July 9, 2007 08:50 AM

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.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at July 9, 2007 09:23 AM

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.

Posted by: Mike at July 9, 2007 10:42 AM
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.

Posted by: Timewalker at July 9, 2007 11:15 AM

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?

Posted by: Mary Ellen Wofford at July 9, 2007 11:48 AM

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.

Posted by: Steve at July 9, 2007 11:59 AM

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. :)

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at July 9, 2007 12:26 PM

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.

Posted by: messi at July 9, 2007 12:28 PM

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.

Posted by: Zeekar at July 9, 2007 12:30 PM

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?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 9, 2007 12:48 PM

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: Mike at July 9, 2007 01:19 PM

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?

Posted by: bobb alfred at July 9, 2007 01:22 PM

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.

Posted by: Doug Atkinson at July 9, 2007 02:51 PM

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.)

Posted by: Michael at July 9, 2007 04:17 PM

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.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at July 9, 2007 05:19 PM

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: Mike at July 9, 2007 06:14 PM

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.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 9, 2007 07:23 PM

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.

Posted by: Fer at July 9, 2007 08:11 PM

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

Posted by: Joe from NYC at July 9, 2007 10:29 PM

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.

Posted by: mike weber at July 9, 2007 11:31 PM

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.

Posted by: Ryu at July 10, 2007 01:59 AM

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?

Posted by: Peter David at July 10, 2007 07:05 AM

"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

Posted by: Scott Iskow at July 10, 2007 08:43 AM

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

Posted by: Chris Grillo at July 10, 2007 09:01 AM

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!

Posted by: Fer at July 10, 2007 09:32 AM

"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

Posted by: Mike at July 10, 2007 09:34 AM

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.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at July 10, 2007 10:17 AM

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.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at July 10, 2007 10:19 AM

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

Posted by: Micha at July 10, 2007 10:51 AM

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.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at July 10, 2007 02:22 PM

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.

Posted by: Scott Iskow at July 10, 2007 03:44 PM

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.

Posted by: Bladestar at July 10, 2007 03:51 PM

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....

Posted by: mike weber at July 10, 2007 04:15 PM

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.)

Posted by: Micha at July 10, 2007 07:06 PM

"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.


Posted by: Rex Hondo at July 10, 2007 08:55 PM

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: Mike at July 10, 2007 10:12 PM

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.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at July 11, 2007 02:50 AM

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?

Posted by: Ryu at July 11, 2007 03:41 AM

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.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at July 11, 2007 03:53 AM

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-

Posted by: Micha at July 11, 2007 05:19 AM

"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.

Posted by: Peter David at July 11, 2007 07:28 AM

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

Posted by: Bladestar at July 11, 2007 07:58 AM

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

That's why no VW :)

Posted by: Scott Iskow at July 11, 2007 08:33 AM

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.

Posted by: Patrick Calloway at July 11, 2007 09:07 AM

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...

Posted by: Rex Hondo at July 11, 2007 09:27 AM

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-

Posted by: Scott Iskow at July 11, 2007 11:07 AM

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.

Posted by: Micha at July 11, 2007 11:15 AM

"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.

Posted by: Scott Iskow at July 11, 2007 11:31 AM

So no aliens.

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

Posted by: Micha at July 11, 2007 11:39 AM

"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.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at July 11, 2007 12:06 PM

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. :-)

Posted by: Sean Scullion at July 11, 2007 12:39 PM

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

Posted by: Scott Iskow at July 11, 2007 01:51 PM

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.

Posted by: Sean Scullion at July 11, 2007 02:05 PM

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.

Posted by: 7th at July 11, 2007 02:16 PM

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.

Posted by: 7th at July 11, 2007 02:19 PM

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.

Posted by: Ryu at July 11, 2007 02:58 PM

"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.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at July 11, 2007 03:21 PM

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.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at July 11, 2007 06:16 PM

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.

Posted by: Crow at July 11, 2007 08:27 PM

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: Mike at July 11, 2007 09:05 PM

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.

Posted by: Leor Blumenthal at July 11, 2007 09:10 PM

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. :)

Posted by: Leor Blumenthal at July 11, 2007 09:11 PM

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. :)

Posted by: Leor Blumenthal at July 11, 2007 09:12 PM

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

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at July 11, 2007 10:58 PM

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.

Posted by: Mike at July 12, 2007 12:12 AM

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.

Posted by: GaryxBusey at July 12, 2007 04:16 AM

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.

Posted by: GaryxBusey at July 12, 2007 04:16 AM

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.

Posted by: GaryxBusey at July 12, 2007 04:17 AM

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.

Posted by: GaryxBusey at July 12, 2007 04:19 AM

Wow, triple post on my first try.. sorry about that.. I didn't know if it was posting or not

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at July 12, 2007 07:29 AM

Mike, if you spoke in English, rather than Mikespeak, it would be easier to deal with your statements. "I can keep citing the post you keep saying doesn't exist as long as you keep denying it exists" - You keep citing a post, it is true, but I don't deny that it might exist. You simply ignore my initial point: PAD has written a number of posts on this string. In some of them he deals rather well with the issues that interest me, and in others he does not. My initial post - pay close attention here - was criticism of one post; It did not attempt to characterize the whole string, nor did it presume PAD has not addressed the issues.

Here is a model:

PAD: A and B are so. It's stupid to even address G!

Jeff: It's arrogant to assume G shouldn't even be addressed. The post above is foolish.

Somebody: blah, blah, blah, blah...

Somebody Else: I like PAD! He's really great!

PAD: Something, something, C, D, E, F, G, H, I..., Here's my response to G....

Mike: Jeff, you're crazy!! PAD did deal with G.

Jeff: He didn't in the post I criticized, and that's it.

Mike: Don't ignore it, he DID, he DID, HE DID. Listen, Z, R, Y, W, X...Let's talk about your personal life now...You're pathetic...you probably aren't getting any.....and that's how I show that black is white, and PAD did what he said he would not, and...and...and....Mike, here it is: I really don't care enough about you or your opinions to care whether I get your name wrong (although you should notice that it was "bill" I mis-named, rather than calling you by the wrong name). Your assumptions that you are central to all thought, and foremost in all minds, is wrong. If I called you "Pedro" it wouldn't have anything to do with the thrust of my argument.

I usually approach these arguments with you as insignificant bantering, but Mike, the truth is this - I really don't like you. It would be nice to say I'm concerned about your insanity, and wish you nice psychoactive drugs and therapy - but you're just too obnoxious and offensive for me to have such goodwill.

Posted by: Mike at July 12, 2007 09:31 AM

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 take on Peter's reaction to 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.

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.

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.

My initial post - pay close attention here - was criticism of one post; It did not attempt to characterize the whole string, nor did it presume PAD has not addressed the issues....

Mike: ...PAD did deal with G.

Jeff: He didn't in the post I criticized, and that's it.

Mike: Don't ignore it, he DID, he DID, HE DID. Listen, Z, R, Y, W, X...Let's talk about your personal life now...You're pathetic...you probably aren't getting any.....and that's how I show that black is white, and PAD did what he said he would not, and...and...and....

I usually approach these arguments with you as insignificant bantering, but Mike, the truth is this - I really don't like you. It would be nice to say I'm concerned about your insanity, and wish you nice psychoactive drugs and therapy - but you're just too obnoxious and offensive for me to have such goodwill.

You are reiterating "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.'" Your denial is literally wrong. Peter literally confirmed Mark's rebuttal of bill in the same post he said, "The rest of your post is just too stupid to respond to." It isn't Rocket Surgery.

Again, my citing the post you keep saying doesn't exist -- for all the various rephrasings of your denial -- is no burden to me, because I can align and realign my judgments to the obvious linearly-presented facts of this thread all the live-long day.

I never implied you were pathetic because you aren't getting any. I just said if you are going to be obnoxious and antagonize people -- without giving your feelings and intuitions the freedom to interact authentically with their environment -- then your driving people away simply has no pay-off.

Your feelings and intuitions are the ghostly-white worm-like things underneath a paper Darth Vader costume that's been left out in the rain. If you choose to continue this way, it won't be because I stand-by silently watching it happen. It's the truth and where the truth isn't all that difficult to say, it should be said.

Posted by: MarvelFan at July 12, 2007 09:33 AM

I've got to admit to being hesitant about 'Transformers' being a good movie (after the horror that was 'He-Man: The Movie'. However, like many, I did like the end result.

I even entertained my own 'realistic' explanation for the Autobots/Decipticons (however overused): they were evolved 'Von Neumann devices', initially ment to be weapons who hid in high tech societies until activated.

Seeing as how the 'All Spark' seems to make nothing but mindless killing machines, I wonder if my 'theory' was that far off the mark? Well, we'll see in the sequel (of course, Optimus is about to be knocked of his throne by Harry and crew ^_^).

Posted by: Maskdmirag at July 12, 2007 11:05 AM

I was big into transformers when I was a kid. And I was slightly looking forward to this film when It was first announced at comic con. When everyone complained about the first pictures of optimus prime I actually thought they seemed interesting.

Then the trailers came. I had this inexplicable feeling of deja vu. A feeling that this was Godzilla all over again.

Basically the trailers scared me off of this film and I have little to no interest in ever seeing it. The buzz has not been positive enough to overcome this horrible sense of dread I feel about seeing it.

Now I have seen that 1-18-08 trailer online and I must say I'm intrigued. But for transformers I wish I could find a way to want to see it, but the trailer guys are making it really hard.

Posted by: Bladestar at July 12, 2007 02:55 PM

Trust me Maskdmirag, It's worth going to see, it's good fun

Posted by: Sean Scullion at July 12, 2007 03:38 PM

Funny thing about dreading something. Often the dread is far worse than the actual event. And, though my wife might call this the basest heresy ever uttered, trailers don't really show you much. I mean, I saw the trailer for As Good As It Gets and thought it looked good. We left twenty minutes into that one, desperately hoping that (INSERT FAVORITE UNPLEASANT FALLING THING HERE) would fall on all their heads. Likewise, I thought Dude, Where's My Car would be a snorefest, but I hadn't laughed that hard in a very long time.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at July 12, 2007 06:46 PM

Mike, the best way to tell if someone is reiterating something is to look at his post and see if he reiterates it. That's a very different thing from (you, Mike) repeating something of your own a dozen times and inserting an occasional accusal that someone else has reiterated himself. Simplifying a bit, if MIKE says something a dozen times it doesn't make it so, nor is it relevant to whether someone else has repeated himself. Look back at all of the posts and see who has reiterated!

Posted by: Micha at July 12, 2007 07:41 PM

"I saw the trailer for As Good As It Gets and thought it looked good. We left twenty minutes into that one, desperately hoping that (INSERT FAVORITE UNPLEASANT FALLING THING HERE) would fall on all their heads."

I actually liked that movie. It just goes to show how tastee in movies is subjective. When you recommend a movie you can only say why the movie was good for you or try to figure out the other person's taste. Maybe "As Good As It Gets" is just not your cup of tea, or maybe you'll enjoy it more if you give it a second chance. I can only guess.

Posted by: Sean Scullion at July 12, 2007 08:49 PM

I actually did give that one a second chance, because I really like Jack Nicholson, but the characters just really got on my nerves. When I watch a movie, I like to like the people I'm watching. Now, one thing I will say is that all the actors in it did remarkably well, I just didn't like any of them. In that same vein, I had a friend in high school that swore Spaceship was an excellent movie with brilliant special effects. But then, what do I know? I liked the Highlander sequels and Generations.

Posted by: Micha at July 12, 2007 09:21 PM

"I actually did give that one a second chance, because I really like Jack Nicholson, but the characters just really got on my nerves. When I watch a movie, I like to like the people I'm watching. Now, one thing I will say is that all the actors in it did remarkably well, I just didn't like any of them."

This would be a problem, since the whole point of the movie is that the characters are very flawed. Although I still liked some things about them. I have a similar problem with Nip/Tuck. I hate al of the characters. And CSI: Miami, I'm rooting for the criminals in that show.

"In that same vein, I had a friend in high school that swore Spaceship was an excellent movie with brilliant special effects."

I'm not sure I recognize the reference.

"But then, what do I know? I liked the Highlander sequels and Generations."

Generations? Are you refering to Star Trek?

As for Highlander, I barely liked the first movie. And I enjoyed the series but never considered it good. The thing with highlander is that it has a really good idea, but the execution always felt to may like second or third rate. O well, to each his own.

Posted by: Mike at July 12, 2007 09:37 PM

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

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?

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....

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.

My initial post - pay close attention here - was criticism of one post; It did not attempt to characterize the whole string, nor did it presume PAD has not addressed the issues....

Mike: ...PAD did deal with G.

Jeff: He didn't in the post I criticized, and that's it.

Mike: Don't ignore it, he DID, he DID, HE DID. Listen, Z, R, Y, W, X...Let's talk about your personal life now...You're pathetic...you probably aren't getting any.....and that's how I show that black is white, and PAD did what he said he would not, and...and...and....

I usually approach these arguments with you as insignificant bantering, but Mike, the truth is this - I really don't like you. It would be nice to say I'm concerned about your insanity, and wish you nice psychoactive drugs and therapy - but you're just too obnoxious and offensive for me to have such goodwill.

You are reiterating "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.'" Your denial is literally wrong. Peter literally confirmed Mark's rebuttal of bill in the same post he said, "The rest of your post is just too stupid to respond to." It isn't Rocket Surgery.

Again, my citing the post you keep saying doesn't exist -- for all the various rephrasings of your denial -- is no burden to me, because I can align and realign my judgments to the obvious linearly-presented facts of this thread all the live-long day.

I never implied you were pathetic because you aren't getting any. I just said if you are going to be obnoxious and antagonize people -- without giving your feelings and intuitions the freedom to interact authentically with their environment -- then your driving people away simply has no pay-off.

Your feelings and intuitions are the ghostly-white worm-like things underneath a paper Darth Vader costume that's been left out in the rain. If you choose to continue this way, it won't be because I stand-by silently watching it happen. It's the truth and where the truth isn't all that difficult to say, it should be said.

Mike, the best way to tell if someone is reiterating something is to look at his post and see if he reiterates it. That's a very different thing from (you, Mike) repeating something of your own a dozen times and inserting an occasional accusal that someone else has reiterated himself. Simplifying a bit, if MIKE says something a dozen times it doesn't make it so, nor is it relevant to whether someone else has repeated himself. Look back at all of the posts and see who has reiterated!

iteration, n.

  1. the action or a process of iterating or repeating: as
    • a procedure in which repetition of a sequence of operations yields results successively closer to a desired result
    • the repetition of a sequence of computer instructions a specified number of times or until a condition is met -- compare RECURSION
  2. one execution of a sequence of operations or instructions in an iteration
  3. VERSION, INCARNATION <the latest iteration of the operating system>

I'm using "reiteration" appropriately. When you reiterate an observation I've disqualified, you resurrect the value of the disqualification, and validate my reiteration.

I actually did give that one a second chance, because I really like Jack Nicholson, but the characters just really got on my nerves. When I watch a movie, I like to like the people I'm watching.

How was Melvin "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability" Udall less likable than Nathan "I eat breakfast 300 yards from 4000 Cubans trained to kill me" Jessep, Randle "she told me she was eighteen" McMurphy, Jack "Give me the bat" Torrance, or Robert "hold it between your knees" Dupea? Was it all the law-abiding?

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at July 12, 2007 11:32 PM

Reprinting others' posts half a dozen or more times qualifies as reiteration. Saying something Mike insists is not so is something entirely different (common sense, perhaps). Reiteration is iteration again, as anyone familiar with the prefix "re-" should know. You have it confused with "argumentation."

The real crux here is that Mike does not have the authority or intelligence to disqualify any observations he chooses purely on his own say so. Even when he states his case clearly (which may have happened sometime, but I don't remember it) that creates no obligation to agree. Megalomania and stupidity are an unattractive combination.

Posted by: Sean at July 13, 2007 12:29 AM

I don't have any problem with flawed characters. The thing that turned me off with As Good As It Gets wasn't that the characters were flawed, it was that they were acting like a-holes, as I recall. Great. Now I am gonna have to rent the stupid thing just to make sure. It was as though I was watching a movie about Mike, X-ray and my ex-girlfriend, who, if you knew her, I'm reasonably sure you'd agree a shriller harpy never lived.

Now, one thing even I'll admit with both the Highlander movies and the misbegotten series, they should've stuck with the central theme of the first movie and left it at only one. Part of the appeal, for me at least, is my ancestors came from the Highlands. Throw in Nasty Bad Guy One with a sword longer than most VWs and some good Queen music, and you got yourself a movie. (BTW, I think it's extremely ironic that Kurgan does the voice of Mr. Krabs on Spongebob, but that's a whole other story.) And, Micha, I'm SHOCKED that you missed getting aboard Spaceship. I mean, a movie where the alien has a song-and-dance number called I Want To Eat Your Face? (Actually, if you see anything for this movie, RUN FAST THE OTHER WAY.) And yep, I was referring to Trek. Most people look at the TNG movies as garbage, but I like 'em. If you look at them, collectively, they're expanded episodes.

Posted by: Micha at July 13, 2007 06:41 AM

"I don't have any problem with flawed characters. The thing that turned me off with As Good As It Gets wasn't that the characters were flawed, it was that they were acting like a-holes, as I recall. Great. Now I am gonna have to rent the stupid thing just to make sure. It was as though I was watching a movie about Mike, X-ray and my ex-girlfriend, who, if you knew her, I'm reasonably sure you'd agree a shriller harpy never lived."

I think the characters are supposed to become more likeable as you get to know them better, later in the movie. But, If you didn't enjoy it the second time, you'll probably not enjoy it the third. So don't worry about it. It's not like there is a shortage of good Jack Nicholson movies. Although I really didn't like Schmidt. Liking movies is subjective.

"Now, one thing even I'll admit with both the Highlander movies and the misbegotten series, they should've stuck with the central theme of the first movie and left it at only one. Part of the appeal, for me at least, is my ancestors came from the Highlands. Throw in Nasty Bad Guy One with a sword longer than most VWs and some good Queen music, and you got yourself a movie. (BTW, I think it's extremely ironic that Kurgan does the voice of Mr. Krabs on Spongebob, but that's a whole other story.)"

I bet you like the first part of the first Highlander the most. Before he got that snooty Katana. Let's face it, it's not great cinema (to say the least), but we just like the swords.

"Most people look at the TNG movies as garbage, but I like 'em. If you look at them, collectively, they're expanded episodes"

Yea, that's why I didn't like most of them very much. I liked the one with the borg, and had mixed feelings about the next one. But in general the problem for me was with the extended part. The basic stories were not much better than a mediocre chapter, and the extended part did not offer anything but too much lame characterization. The movies did not seem to go beyond the series. In the old movies they tried to create situations that go beyond the everyday experience we were familiar with in the movies. Or so it seemed to me. but again, I guess it's a matter of subjective taste and of expectations. Maybe a little nostalgia.


Posted by: Mike at July 13, 2007 08:26 AM

Jack Nicholson is mean and grotesque in every movie I've ever seen him in. As Good As It Gets is innovative in that he doesn't destroy anyone's life with his meanness and grotesqueness. About Schmidt seems to be based on the Book of Job, where his character comes to feel he's wasted his life for adhering to a piety of convention and, as Job had the opportunity to denounce God to His face, the drama was in whether or not he takes the opportunity to indulge in a display of meanness and grotesqueness at his daughter's wedding.

Reprinting others' posts half a dozen or more times qualifies as reiteration. Saying something Mike insists is not so is something entirely different (common sense, perhaps). Reiteration is iteration again, as anyone familiar with the prefix "re-" should know. You have it confused with "argumentation."

The only way something-I-insist-is-not-so doesn't qualify as reiteration is if it isn't the same thing I-am-insisting-is-not-so. Since I am repeatedly disqualifying the same denial, I am literally responding to your reiterations.

The real crux here is that Mike does not have the authority or intelligence to disqualify any observations he chooses purely on his own say so. Even when he states his case clearly (which may have happened sometime, but I don't remember it) that creates no obligation to agree. Megalomania and stupidity are an unattractive combination.

I require no authority because I haven't asked anyone to take my word for anything. All I've done is contrast Peter's post with your inaccurate portrayals of it, and challenged you to share what your pay-off is for antagonizing the rest of your species. I've even verbalized a virtue of arbitrary non-conformity -- a virtue you've demonstrated is absent from your life.

How do you justify to yourself what is from all appearances your life of quiet desperation? And don't think I'm not rooting for you to answer -- you will reward all of humanity by providing a deeply meaningful and worthwhile answer, and demonstrate how, as Joseph Campbell said, the axis of the world goes through you. Even you.

Posted by: bobb alfred at July 13, 2007 09:15 AM

Highlander...a good example of what happens when the actors start influencing the property too much. I know there's supposed to be another film made, but after the last one...and after falling for 3, which was essentially a re-make of the first one...I just can't support them any longer. Bad enough what they did to Conner, but they took the best parts of the series and injected an unhealthy dose of MTV to procude, well, crap.

I love First Contact. It's got all the things a Nextgen movie should have. But Insurrection and whatever came after that really were just extended episodes, and not particularly good ones. And the joystick? I'm sorry, but if starships come equipped with a joystick, why they hell does the hemlsman only have buttons to fly the ship? At least Galaxy Quest gave the pilot some piloting controls. After watching nearly the entire run of Voyager on DVD, it makes me wonder how the movie producers made such bad Trek films when they were making Voyager so good.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at July 13, 2007 10:28 AM

WHAT!?!?! I come strolling around here for the first time in a week and I find Micha kinda-sorts trash talking the first, the greatest and the only true Highlander film?!? Oh, the HUMANITY!!!!!!

Micha, no Christmas card this year.

Posted by: Doug Atkinson at July 13, 2007 03:14 PM

The movies did not seem to go beyond the series.

First Contact did, at least in small ways (which is the one you said you liked, unsurpringly). The ways it did this help highlight the ways the others failed (or at least didn't succeed as well). For example, they didn't feel the need to make a big deal out of things like Geordi's new mechanical eyes. Fans of the show could easily figure out that his VISOR had been replaced without needing it pointed out, and non-fans got that he had mechanical eyes without their previous status being an issue. Similarly, Data's emotion chip was handled matter-of-factly, only being mentioned once or twice. Compare that to Insurrection, where Data's characterization took a huge leap backwards to the TV series days, and...yeah. (Picard's sudden ability to control time also bugged me largely because they didn't put explicit limits on it--if they'd said "You can learn this ability but it only works here for this hand-waved reason," they'd avoid ever having to deal with it again.)

Posted by: Sean Ebert, I mean, Scullion at July 13, 2007 03:31 PM

The biggest thing I can point to against the TNG movies is they were still being written by the people who wrote the TV epsiodes for the most part. Thus, the expanded episode feel. And, (I'm sure this will burn up whatever respect I have around here) as much as I like Nemesis, too much was left unexplained and unexplored. As in, when the hell did the Romulans get a hold of Picard's DNA? What was happening with Spock's reunification movement under Shinzon? Taking as given that B4 was another prototype, where did the Rommies get a hold of him? Also, the big problem with TNG movies as opposed to TOS movies, with TOS, you have the Big Three. If most of the back characters didn't have much to do, that was typical. I mean, some of them don't even have first names. Whereas, with TNG, the back characters all had extensive backstory and development over seven years. So, between the actors wanting face time and the fans wanting THEIR FAVORITE CHARACTERS to have something to do, there's a lot to put in a two hour story. I mean, the best thing Sulu did until the sixth movie was throw a security guy and tell him not to call him Tiny. Whereas, the writers on TNG films are used to having B,C, and D storylines going. It just doesn't make for terribly gripping cinema.

As for Highlander being influenced by the actors, that's actually something I hadn't heard before. Connery and Lambert were under contract for the sequel even when they did the first one, and all I can say is the original version of the second one...well, I still have some of the stuff I wrote when have my brain injury. Davis and Panzer must've had really bad brain injuries. Really really bad. We're talking one step up from zombification. (Oh, wait, too early in the thread for the inevitable zombie reference. To quote Prime, My bad.)

Jerry, get some sleep, bud. I can only imagine your reaction if Micha had actually trashed the movie. And, Micha, don't worry, I'll send you an extra card to make up for mean ol' Jerry.

Mike, most of the type Nicholson does seem to get typecast as the Grouchy Anti-society type. But, generally, in addition to a supporting cast that will offset that, he still finds a way to make you care about the character. In As Good As It Gets, all three of the main characters just really weren't at all interesting. If I want to watch nasty people, I'll make contact with my in-laws again. Actually, the best Nicholson movie, I think, in the last few years is the one where he plays the cop that retires and buys the gas station to solve the girl's murder. Wish I could remember the title.

Jerry, jeez, man, put Micha down!

Posted by: Mike at July 13, 2007 07:05 PM

The Pledge.

You've essentially said you were most offended by what may be the least sacrilegious Jack Nicholson movie. It milks comedy over him tossing the dog in a trash chute, being forced to look after the dog, kissing the dog in public, then demonstrating the dog likes him better than Greg Kinnear.

There were no life-or-death struggles or larger-than-life indulgences. He tried to tell Helen Hunt she was so attractive their restaurant let her in wearing anything, but instead all that came out was him complaining they made him go get a tie while they let her in wearing a housedress. Most movies would have made you feel less with one of the characters punching the other. Hearing a Nicholson fan walked out of AGAIG is like hearing you like all the Pixar movies except Ratatouille because all of the suspense hinges on the success or failure of a small restaurant. It's... interesting.

Posted by: Micha at July 13, 2007 09:05 PM

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at July 13, 2007 10:28 AM:
"WHAT!?!?! I come strolling around here for the first time in a week and I find Micha kinda-sorts trash talking the first, the greatest and the only true Highlander film?!? Oh, the HUMANITY!!!!!!

Micha, no Christmas card this year."

I'm sorry :)

I like Highlander. But I think I like it more for the idea of the immortals, the historical flashbacks, the highland scenary and the sword fights than for the story or characters in the actual movie. I do that some time. I like something for what could be in it than for what is in it. Still, it's an enjoyable movie, and I also liked the series. I didn't like the other movies. To me it felt like they've had a cool idea -- immortals, sword fights, scottish accents -- and then ran out of good ideas somewhere along the last third of the first movie, and since then they have been trying to feed the beast with repeats of the first idea (at best) or bad new ideas.
No offence to Sean's Scullion's ancestors or to Jerry and the new generation of the clan of Chandler.

Posted by: Doug Atkinson at July 13, 2007 03:14 PM:
"First Contact did, at least in small ways (which is the one you said you liked, unsurpringly). The ways it did this help highlight the ways the others failed (or at least didn't succeed as well). For example, they didn't feel the need to make a big deal out of things like Geordi's new mechanical eyes. Fans of the show could easily figure out that his VISOR had been replaced without needing it pointed out, and non-fans got that he had mechanical eyes without their previous status being an issue. Similarly, Data's emotion chip was handled matter-of-factly, only being mentioned once or twice."

Very good point. You've explained it very well. It seems that in First Contact they had a better blend of story, characters, aspects similar to the series, aspects new to the series. Sometimes even good ideas don't work if you don't find the right balance.

But I think what I like about the movies with the old cast (and I'm not in any way a fanatic of the original show), was the fact that they've progressed from the people they were in the show; they were out of their comfort zone, if you will. They were older. Time has past since their great adventures. They had different ranks and positions. The scenarios in the movies were beyond their experiences in the series, or shook the foundations of their earlier lives.

In the new movies on the one hand it seemed as if they hadn't progressed that much except aquiring some new gadgets, while on the other hand they seemed not to realy know what to do with themselves, which resulted in some silly scenes. I realize they probably tried to do what I'm talking about -- shake the foundations, go beyond them -- in the new movies too. But it just didn't ring true to me. I don't know why exactly. Like I said, it's subjective.

"As Good As It Gets, all three of the main characters just really weren't at all interesting. If I want to watch nasty people, I'll make contact with my in-laws again."

They weren't all nasty. The point is that as the movie progresses their characters unfold before you, and you realize there's more to them than the first impression (which maybe connects this discussion to the Transformers). I like this kind of stuff. But again, it's subjective.

"Actually, the best Nicholson movie, I think, in the last few years is the one where he plays the cop that retires and buys the gas station to solve the girl's murder."

I remeber it as being a hard, sad movie. It was good, but I don't know if I can say I enjoyed it. Again, subjective. Nicolson was of course excellent. I think there's something about the way he acts that often gets him cast as someone who is just a little outside or beyond or not completely part of human society. Something to think about.

Posted by: Sean at July 13, 2007 09:23 PM

See, that's just it, though. Everyone I know was swearing it was the funniest movie they'd ever seen, but we didn't find anything funny. If anything, it felt more like sitting around the great uncle that tells dirty jokes and then farts for the punchline. It was just uncomfortable and we both looked at each other and said, "Why the hell are we watching this when we could go watch a demo loop in the electronics store?" One thing that I've never really bought into is the whole idea that if you're a fan of someone's work, you have to like ALL their work. Actually, I think the only actor that I would say I like all their stuff would be Harrison Ford, although I still debate whether or not I like Regarding Henry. Good movie, but it hits a little too close to home for me.

Posted by: Sean Scullion at July 13, 2007 09:34 PM

See, that's just it, though. Everyone was touting it as the funniest movie ever or close to it, but we didn't find any of it funny. It was just, if anything, uncomfortable. It was like going to your girlfriend's house and having her grandfather telling dirty jokes and then farting with every punchline. (If anyone's eating while reading this, I apologize.)

One thing I've never bought into is that if you're a fan of someone, you have to be a fan of everything they've done. I think, seriously, the only actor I can say that about is Harrison Ford, although I'm still not thrilled with Regarding Henry. Good movie, but it just hits a little too close to home with me. Now, when Nicholson played Jessup, or Torrance, or Napier, even, I was enthralled not by him but by what he was going to do to the hero(es).

Posted by: Sean Scullion at July 13, 2007 09:50 PM

Oh, and Micha, apology accepted. Seriously, you don't wanna mess with my ancestors. They're nasty, warrior clans through and through. (My family motto-Lamb D'earg Eiren. In English, it comes out The Red Hand Of Ireland. You can imagine why it's red. And on my mom's side, it's N'Oubliez, never forget. I'm thinking it's not about remembering phone numbers and Great Aunt Tilly's cookie recipe.)

Huh. So, maybe that's where my temper comes from.

(Sorry about the double post up there, I got kicked off-line and I didn't know the first one got through.)

Posted by: Mark Torres at July 13, 2007 11:42 PM

This was mentioned on my radio show last night (thursday). "With all the tech that the Transformers had, why didnt they just make a bid on the glasses if they were on e-bay?"

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 14, 2007 01:03 AM

Well, I'm one of the last people on the planet to see Transformers, but I finally went to see it tonight.

We liked it. It has its problems, and while I don't need a movie to be 90 minutes, this one could've easily been much shorter by cutting out a lot of the 'junk' (such as the Autobots in the backyard sequence that ran way, way too long).

Crazy thought time: it occurred to me when leaving the theatre that GI Joe would be easy to spin right out of this film. Just take the surviving military guys, give them the code names, or go with new characters on the premise that the military guys in Transformers started up the GI Joe stuff, and say that the tech comes from the Transformers.

Well, at the very least, stranger things have happened. :)

Posted by: Micha at July 14, 2007 12:27 PM

"talking one step up from zombification. (Oh, wait, too early in the thread for the inevitable zombie reference. To quote Prime, My bad.)"

I think the zombie reference is coming any moment now. Don't fight it. We already have the strange Mike discussion. It's the obvious next step.

"Crazy thought time: it occurred to me when leaving the theatre that GI Joe would be easy to spin right out of this film. Just take the surviving military guys, give them the code names, or go with new characters on the premise that the military guys in Transformers started up the GI Joe stuff, and say that the tech comes from the Transformers."

I actually read G.I. Joe a long time ago. But do we realy want a movie based on that? Debate.

"One thing I've never bought into is that if you're a fan of someone, you have to be a fan of everything they've done."

Of course not.

"I think, seriously, the only actor I can say that about is Harrison Ford."

I am waiting with excitemen, but also with worry, for the next Indiana Jones. Is it going to be a great sequel, or a disaster?

"Oh, and Micha, apology accepted. Seriously, you don't wanna mess with my ancestors. They're nasty, warrior clans through and through."

Ha, I'm safely far away from danger... in the middle east.


Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 14, 2007 04:16 PM

I actually read G.I. Joe a long time ago. But do we realy want a movie based on that? Debate.

Well, it sounds like Hasbro is already pushing for it.

Posted by: Sean Scullion at July 14, 2007 04:34 PM

But do we realy want a movie based on that? Debate.

Considering the history (and the fact that I've had a screenplay in my notebook since my second year of college) YES!

Micha, considering that my ancestors were in Great Britain, not all that far a hop, my friend....

Posted by: Mike at July 14, 2007 06:28 PM

If their most powerful warriors could be taken out by ice, the Autobots and Decepticons should have developed freezing weapons, and fought with water instead of lasers.

It was like the ending of X2, where the most powerful X-Man sacrificed herself to save the team from a flood, while at least one elemental capable of freezing the dam sat on the plane.

One thing I've never bought into is that if you're a fan of someone, you have to be a fan of everything they've done.

Of course not.

Who is the advocate of extreme fanaticism are you people talking about?

Posted by: Sean Scullion at July 14, 2007 06:48 PM

Actually, a live action GI Joe movie has been trying to get made for the last few years. It just never seems to get past the talking about it part of the process, though.

"Who is the advocate of extreme fanaticism are you people talking about?"

I know a lot of people that will go out and buy something because they've really liked the previous stuff. I know people that bought St. Anger by Metallica even though they hated it "just so they'll have them all." I also knew someone in school who bought every Batman and Superman title, but only read Action and Detective. "But, what if there's a cross-over?" he'd say. Well, then you buy the cross-over issues, or hey, maybe read the ones you buy?

Posted by: Micha at July 14, 2007 08:01 PM

OK. I have to admit that I found it hard to imagine a G.I Joe movie. It seemed to me to be a part of a different and forgotten time (in general and also of my life) that cannot be translated well to this present time, especially given the current political-diplomatic-miltary situation. But this is probably a failing of the imagination on my part. Now that I think about it more, and as some of the memories return, the idea of a G.I.Joe movie doesn't seem so strange to me.

Posted by: Mike at July 15, 2007 08:21 AM

Now that I think about it, how stupid do you have to be to keep a frozen Megatron without stockpiling enough condensed nitrogen to turn the entire facility into a giant block of ice? Or not prepare condensed-nitrogen scud missiles for when his friends try to spring him, or not prepare condensed-nitrogen super-soakers for the Frenzy-sized robots and smaller? Michael Bay's salary really belongs to me.

Posted by: Marc at July 16, 2007 11:37 PM

Re: The Allspark creating only evil Transformers; my take was that the new robots had sort of bestial intelligence, not being explicitly evil. I can buy a powerful energy source creating feral transformers. And I want a Mountain Dew-bot.

Posted by: Osbo at July 17, 2007 08:09 PM

So, wow. People are really reading way too much into this movie.

In listening to an interview with the screenwriters (the final two after the many many attempts at a story), they mentioned that their goal was to turn the audience back to their childhood. For me, they succeeded. I honestly felt 6 years old again as soon as Optimus Prime spoke. I'm almost 5 times that now.

No, it wasn't in any way a great film. Could you call it a "film" at all? More of a "flick" than a film. But it's a fun time at the movie theatre.

I agree with PAD, the fact that it went with the ridiculous is its greatest strength. It's a movie about 25-foot tall robots that fight each other on the streets, disguising themselves as cars. Further, it's a movie designed to sell toys. Further, it's a movie based on a cartoon series designed to sell toys. From that "strong" source material, it's a great adaptation.

That being said, the plot and story are ridiculous, but this is one of those movies where that's just not the point. It was a thoroughly entertaining movie in which I could sit on a soapbox and be "above", but really, how much fun is that?

As for the political joke - um, the joke didn't even land. It wasn't even funny. It's a joke that could apply to either Bush or Clinton. Most of Michael Bay's movies could have a right wing slant read into it (oil riggers saving the world over environmentalists and the like).

As for the shaky camera - in no way is that "cost saving CGI" - quite the opposite. Bay likes to shoot in shaky camera, a trait of his (of many) that I don't particularly like. That camera had to be matched with the CGI cameras - and had to be so well planned - as a feat of effects, it's quite amazing. Keep in mind, that's part of the look for Battlestar: Galactica.


As for GI Joe:

"It seemed to me to be a part of a different and forgotten time (in general and also of my life) that cannot be translated well to this present time, especially given the current political-diplomatic-miltary situation."

I hate to say it, but God Bless Putin for putting Russians on the Bad Guy list again. Cobra was a terrorist network, sound familiar? It's a loose association of an terrorist organization (never really shown who was behind that mask, but that's okay) terrorists, a powerful Boy from Brazil, Australian gang members (?!), an unspecified African arms dealer, and, of course, Russians.

And I was really kidding about the Putin remark, because that's a terrible, terrible thing.

Though I look forward to the film.

Posted by: Doug Atkinson at July 17, 2007 10:54 PM

Actually, what I always found interesting about G.I. Joe was that, for all that people tend to associate it with gung-ho '80s Reaganism, its principal enemies (at least in the comics) were the forces of capitalism run amok. The Oktober Guard were the honorable opposition, and they found themselves working with the Joes against a common enemy more than once. By contrast, Cobra Commander was a former used-car salesman, he founded Cobra on a model clearly based on Amway, and his elite troops (the Crimson Guard) were lawyers and accountants. Likewise, Destro was an arms dealer. (He's Scottish, not African.) Later on, the toy line added drug dealers, another example of free enterprise gone awry.