So first off I was born in 91, which means I really can't remember anything before 95. With that said, I never was exposed to Transformers. But I always loved robots. Especially big robots, and I also am a car enthusiast... so it seems like the perfect match!! Well luckily for me and other younger generations a certain director decides to make a movie of them. And oh my God, how much I fething hate it....
First off. Shia Lebouf... or as I like to call him "The Even Stevens kid". The feth is wrong with his character? Does EVERY movie's protagonist have to be a socially-awkward slow who just seems to have the best luck in the world? BE ORIGINAL!! PLEASE!! Seriously, it's getting really old, and makes me HATE the protagonist. That's the opposite of what you want.
Second. THAT is the problem right there. Why the FETH is Lebouf the protagonist? Why? This is called TRANSFORMERS, not "A Socially Awkward Boy and his Magical GM Cars." I know that in the original show there was a boy named Daniel and his Dad who had exo-suits (at least they were useful!) but they weren't the center of focus. They were supporting characters, LIKE THEY fething SHOULD BE!! I watched the Transformers Movie (the animated film) last night. My GOD!!! It was FETHING AWESOME!!!!! Just non stop Robots-beating-the-absolute-gak-out-of-each-other-ACTION!!! The Animation was excellent, the soundtrack was fething amazing! (Which is surprising, I don't listen to 80s music)
Third. Longest fething advertisement for GM EVER!!! It was really funny because my Dad went with me and my brother to go see this movie and he laughed at the scene where the Mustang-police car was chasing Even-Stevens kid. Then a chase scene between the new Camaro and Mustang ensued...
This movie should have just been called "GM vs. Ford!!!"
And last but not least... Megan Fox. Seriously. Enough is enough. I fething HATE MEGAN FOX. Biggest attention whore ever. This chic obviously has some serious fething daddy issues. Every time she's on the screen she tries to be as hot as possible. Why can't you... ya know.... JUST fething ACT?! Listen. I'm not a 12 year old boy who just discovered masturbation and that boobies give me a tingly feeling in my pants. If I want to see a hot chic on a screen, I'll go watch some fething porn. There are hotter chics in most pornos I've than Megan Fox. Stupid c***
So anyways, thanks Mr. Bay for making my first exposure to Transformers a miserable one. Thank you. Thank you so much.
And while we're at it STOP PUTTING DECIPTICON AND AUTOBOT EMBLEMS ON YOUR CARS!! You look like a douche.
Be born in the 80s and your opinion *might* be valid. And for the record, I've known of several instances where people (myself included) have gotten laid for having either Transformers tattoos or emblems on their car. How often... ehh, n/m. That's a low blow
I don't know why but I am sure I have seen this exact same thread before... strange
Also, I like to think that the Transformers movies didn't happen and that Michael Bay has been locked up and is forced to watch his own movies forever...
I agree with everything above and I was largely the same position with not being exposed to transformers until much later on in my life.
The other point I would add is the cinematography. I mean, the models and design for the transformers are great. A little too complicated for my liking but I applaud the artists for trying to make the robots more realistic. The problem then is that Micheal Bay has no capacity for good camera positioning or for appreciation of the robots designs. It's all explosions, debris, sparks, everything blends together. Take the fight between Optimus and the decepticons in the forest during ROTF. I have no idea what's happening.
Monster Rain wrote:I think I'd probably pass on someone who sleeps with strangers because of Transformers stickers on their car.
Not that that story is even remotely true.
There are pics and it did happen. You people need to learn not to doubt me
iproxtaco wrote:I agree with everything above and I was largely the same position with not being exposed to transformers until much later on in my life.
The other point I would add is the cinematography. I mean, the models and design for the transformers are great. A little too complicated for my liking but I applaud the artists for trying to make the robots more realistic. The problem then is that Micheal Bay has no capacity for good camera positioning or for appreciation of the robots designs. It's all explosions, debris, sparks, everything blends together. Take the fight between Optimus and the decepticons in the forest during ROTF. I have no idea what's happening.
I can agree with this. The action sequences, especially in the urban settings, have so much grey/silver collision it can be really, really hard to make out who just punched who and where. Overall I think the movies are decent minus the stupid extra crap (mom eats pot brownies than acts like she's on crack for some reason).
Actually the whole GM Vs. Ford thing from the first movie makes me want to do a parody of the Console Wars video that James Rolfe (AVGN) did.
All the of the American Muscle cars talking gak to each other and at the end have the Dodge Charger and Challenger act like they came back from retirement and now for whatever reason weighing in at 4000+ lbs. What a bunch of fat-asses!
And as for the Transformers logos on people's cars: do some REAL work to the car (this does not include a new muffler which is obnoxiously loud and leads you to believe it will somehow magically add 10hp).
Agree with pretty much everything said, even if that results in contradictory points.
Anyway, I'll just point out that the reason the Mr. Even Stevens kid is there is because in the new films, the great big killy robots of death aren't universally accepted and humans just want to tear them apart to make their own great big killy weapons of death.
In all of the old cartoons and films (which were great) humans and transformers lived in harmony (on the Autobots' part) and were accepting of each other. Almost like the great big friendly robots were family.
But in the new films the great big friendly robots are ALIENS.
The movies are meh, the old cartoon was meh with a side of extra meh (I personally loathe the fandom that it gets; it was the first cartoon used solely to sell toys, big whoop), but I don't think it deserves the rage. The first one had some decent action, and number two was gak. Let's hope the series follows the "Pirates" line of #1 is simple, #2 is gak, and #3 is good but complex.
And while I am perplexed by your hatred of Megan Fox, know that she will not be in the third one.
Honestly, if you want your robot on robot fightin' action, ignore the movies entirely and go for one of two things. Either Transformers Animated (yes, the kid show - remember, it's a series MADE for kids, but that doesn't stop it from being good; in fact, it's got one of the best TF universes out there and EXCELLENT animation and stories) or the IDW comics. The IDW comics have a fantastic over-arching storyline, focuses on the Transformers first and foremost, and when the robots go at it, man, they REALLY go at it. Not to mention that aside from the few hiccups in the storyline (All Hail Megatron, while it had a neat idea, was poorly written and confused quite a few things that had been established) it's fantastically written.
As for the movies, lack of screen time in the first one is due to them spending the majority of their budget on figuring out how to get them on screen, and the crap actors and writing are, well, because it's Michael Bay at the helm. If you go in expecting anything more than explosions and bad acting, then you're doing something wrong and will be horribly disappointed.
Not a fan of the films, nor of Michael "Boom Bam" Bay, and agree that the original cartoon was basicly a half hour of advertising for a line of toys ( that was on occasion entertaining).
Also A bit perplexed about the "Megan Fox Hate", no she's not particularly talented, but neither is anyone else in those Bay crapfest...so what's the issue?
She's an attractive woman, and I'd bet my bottom dollar that very few of the people posting in these forums would tell her to "hit the bricks" were she to show up at their homes in an "amorous" mood.
I actually think women that look like her are unattractive, to be honest. Not in a "recoil in horror" kind of way, but in a "You're not really my type" kind of way. She's a bit too supermodel for my tastes - I've always been the kind of guy that prefers girl-next-door kind of looks. I'd prefer someone like Zooey Deschanel to Megan Fox.
When I was a kid (I'm 16), I used to watch Transformers on my Saturday morning. I may not have grown up with the gun version of Megatron, but I had grown up with Megatron. I used to love him, and I even cried when he died. Then Starscream let the Decepticons, and he was just a snot nosed brat, so I rooted for Optimus during the fight for Minicons and Energon. Then Megatron was given new life, and I was so happy.
Then, at the age of 13, I saw the Transformers movie.
It raped my eyeballs with its stupidness. Megatron was a pussy villian, and had a stupid voice actor to boot. The voice actor in the cartoon was sinister without being silly. The voice actor in the movie chewed the scenery like fething Tim Curry. They even got the god damned model for Megatron wrong! Megatron was always very blocky, had soemthing on his head, and had a big purple Decepticon logo on his chest.
This is Megatron most people know. He was very evil looking.
Spoiler:
This was the Megatron I grew up with. He was violent, had method to his madness, and always had a plan up his sleeve.
Spoiler:
This is the Megatron that I go "WTF?" at. His model looks like gak, and his transformed mode looks like gak.
They went for a more modern art style which worked better on some characters than others, especially megatron. The spindly/sinewy robot look didn't work for hiim.
Special Features of the DVD had a comparison between the current and original voices, I have to say that the new one sounds better on this model.
What's wrong with the model? Too many over-plates. They should be larger, more interlocking, less like muscles. They should also have made his neck bigger, it would at least make him look cooler as he is and his head smaller. One last thing is his arms. Wrists too big, palms too big, fingers too spindly.
This is why they make the original on DVD my friend. So when you leave the theater with your hand glued to your face you can tell yourself, well at least they put the original on DVD, so the memory of how awesome they were, was saved for future generations.
Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:what does 'chewing the scenery' mean
Chew (up the) scenery means 'to act melodramatically; overact'. Usually, it's in the context of a play or movie, but it can refer to an aunt of yours who is a frustrated actress. The connotation, either positive or negative, depends on whether the overacting is appropriate to the role or occasion.
Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:what does 'chewing the scenery' mean
It's basically an industry/media term for excessive acting - Tim Curry's one of the best known examples to use, because he goes balls to the wall in almost all of the movies/media he appears in (think the end of Clue, when he's running around like a madman), but it's by no means a bad thing. It CAN be if it's poorly done, but if done well or entertainingly, it can make the entire movie. Sadly, Megatron is an example of a bad choice.
remilia_scarlet wrote:Ok, I'm confused, were still talking about transformers, right?
Nope, now it's Trannyformers: Dudes in Disguise.
Well, to continue my love of all animation, I watched not only the original Transformers Movie I saw Turtles Forever and GI Joe Resolute.
Turtles Forever was amazing in every way. It's a crossover between the 80s Turtles and the Turtles from the 2003 cartoon. They poke fun at each other's quirks throughout the movie like when one of the old Turtles breaks the Fourth Wall everyone else just looks around in confusion and says "Who are you talking to?" Hahaha! It's great. Especially when the 2003 Turtles go into the 80s Turtles' world and as soon as they get there the 80s Turtles rush off and say "Hang on, we gotta save April real quick! We rescue her at least once a day!"
And GI Joe Resolute. Holy GAK! It doesn't feth around. Especially Snake Eyes.
remilia_scarlet wrote:Ok, I'm confused, were still talking about transformers, right?
Nope, now it's Trannyformers: Dudes in Disguise.
Well, to continue my love of all animation, I watched not only the original Transformers Movie I saw Turtles Forever and GI Joe Resolute.
Turtles Forever was amazing in every way. It's a crossover between the 80s Turtles and the Turtles from the 2003 cartoon. They poke fun at each other's quirks throughout the movie like when one of the old Turtles breaks the Fourth Wall everyone else just looks around in confusion and says "Who are you talking to?" Hahaha! It's great. Especially when the 2003 Turtles go into the 80s Turtles' world and as soon as they get there the 80s Turtles rush off and say "Hang on, we gotta save April real quick! We rescue her at least once a day!"
And GI Joe Resolute. Holy GAK! It doesn't feth around. Especially Snake Eyes.
Ah, I see now.
All modern media sucks, and all media from before you were born (specifally made during the 80s) is awesome.
I don't see why you are hating so much on Transformers 1 and 2. The first movie was actually a good start for the movies. I know it was a bit stereotypical and it could have used a lot less of the shia awkwardness and his parents, but it was still a really solid movie. Transformers 2 was terrible since it added in ghetto robots and at the end nearly every decepticon was faceless and you had no idea who was shooting at who along with a whole slew of other problems.
I don't see why you have a problem that it was a GM advertisement. Obviously it was, but don't you know that Transformers and Gi Joe are toy commercials in disguise? I don't see a problem with that when you look at it that way.
Megan Fox does kind of feel out of place in the movies, but she is nice to look at. I think you are being overly critical of the stuff being made now while giving the pedestal to stuff in the 80's.
remilia_scarlet wrote:Ok, I'm confused, were still talking about transformers, right?
Nope, now it's Trannyformers: Dudes in Disguise.
Well, to continue my love of all animation, I watched not only the original Transformers Movie I saw Turtles Forever and GI Joe Resolute.
Turtles Forever was amazing in every way. It's a crossover between the 80s Turtles and the Turtles from the 2003 cartoon. They poke fun at each other's quirks throughout the movie like when one of the old Turtles breaks the Fourth Wall everyone else just looks around in confusion and says "Who are you talking to?" Hahaha! It's great. Especially when the 2003 Turtles go into the 80s Turtles' world and as soon as they get there the 80s Turtles rush off and say "Hang on, we gotta save April real quick! We rescue her at least once a day!"
And GI Joe Resolute. Holy GAK! It doesn't feth around. Especially Snake Eyes.
Ah, I see now.
All modern media sucks, and all media from before you were born (specifally made during the 80s) is awesome.
remilia_scarlet wrote:Ok, I'm confused, were still talking about transformers, right?
Nope, now it's Trannyformers: Dudes in Disguise.
Well, to continue my love of all animation, I watched not only the original Transformers Movie I saw Turtles Forever and GI Joe Resolute.
Turtles Forever was amazing in every way. It's a crossover between the 80s Turtles and the Turtles from the 2003 cartoon. They poke fun at each other's quirks throughout the movie like when one of the old Turtles breaks the Fourth Wall everyone else just looks around in confusion and says "Who are you talking to?" Hahaha! It's great. Especially when the 2003 Turtles go into the 80s Turtles' world and as soon as they get there the 80s Turtles rush off and say "Hang on, we gotta save April real quick! We rescue her at least once a day!"
And GI Joe Resolute. Holy GAK! It doesn't feth around. Especially Snake Eyes.
Ah, I see now.
All modern media sucks, and all media from before you were born (specifally made during the 80s) is awesome.
Because you said so.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it seems like when they reboot an old franchise they tend to focus on the parts that I don't care about. Like the humans in Transformers. Don't care, not one bit. I wanna see giant robots beating the gak out of each other.
And besides, I even said that the Turtles Forever and GI Joe Resolute movies were AWESOME!
The problem is that it seems western action cartoons have become non-existent and all that is left of western animation are crappy sitcoms like Family Guy, American Dad, Cleveland Show... wait those are the same shows, never mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alarmingrick wrote:
rubiksnoob wrote:Transformers almost killed the whole robots-smashing-each-other-to-bits genre.
But there may still be hope:
Never thought Rockem sockem robots would make the silver screen! Rocky, with robots!
nice one!
The funny thing is when I first saw the trailer for that I thought it was Rock'em Sock'em Robots: The Movie.
DickBandit wrote:But what happened to the non-stop action of robots beating the gak of each other? Why is there so much focus on the humans? I don't care about them!
Go online where you can watch videos.
Watch the original G1 cartoons.
Marvel at how many of the episodes revolved around Spike Witwicky, his father, his (eventually) wife Carly, and their handicapped friend Chip. Also don't forget Captain Marissa "My parents are Flint and Lady Jaye!" Faireborn. Hell, the Decepticons even had human "allies" in many episodes.
Focus on Humans comes from the very beginning of Transformers and anyone that thinks otherwise is misremembering.
remilia_scarlet wrote: Optimus was a gorrila, bumblebee was a cheetah, and starscream was a good guy.
Actually, Starscream was a ghost sent back in time to interact with Cybertronians from his future(who had ALSO been sent back in time) in a time line where his living body was hanging around comatose.
None of the characters are the same characters from G1, except the comatose bodies in the Ark and Ravage. Maybe mutant Soundwave.
remilia_scarlet wrote:
Optimus was a gorrila, bumblebee was a cheetah, and starscream was a good guy.
Actually, Starscream was a ghost sent back in time to interact with Cybertronians from his future(who had ALSO been sent back in time) in a time line where his living body was hanging around comatose.
None of the characters are the same characters from G1, except the comatose bodies in the Ark and Ravage. Maybe mutant Soundwave.
Mr Mystery wrote:Erm....it's just a film, primarily for those with the mentality of kids and young teens?
Fixed.
micahaphone wrote:The movies are meh, the old cartoon was meh with a side of extra meh (I personally loathe the fandom that it gets; it was the first cartoon used solely to sell toys, big whoop), but I don't think it deserves the rage. The first one had some decent action, and number two was gak. Let's hope the series follows the "Pirates" line of #1 is simple, #2 is gak, and #3 is good but complex.
And while I am perplexed by your hatred of Megan Fox, know that she will not be in the third one.
Why won't she be in the third?
Is it because she now resembles Jacqueline Wildstein (sp)?
Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Though it has nothing to do with the topic, all the talk of Tim Curry makes me want to post this
All the talk of Tim Cury makes me want to post this...
micahaphone wrote:The movies are meh, the old cartoon was meh with a side of extra meh (I personally loathe the fandom that it gets; it was the first cartoon used solely to sell toys, big whoop)
He-Man debuted the year before, so that's not true.
And ultimately, we're talking about Michael Bay movies. His entire reason for being comes from seeing where big budget Hollywood movies had gone, and realising he could make them flashier and even dumber. In a career defined by constantly finding a new depth to plunge, the first Transformers movie stands out as being 'not that bad, actually, if you ignore the bloat of secondary characters and puerile humour'... only to return to form with Transformers II, which is the worst successful blockbuster of all time*.
Seriously, think of a blockbuster movie that made a good return, that's as bad as Transformers II. The closest I can think of is The Phantom Menace, and that was more goofy and not very well constructed, compared to, well, whatever Transformer II was.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:what does 'chewing the scenery' mean
Basically it means overacting, usually on purpose. Excessive emotion, delayed but exaggerated reactions, that kind of thing.
It's normally done for comedy (like most of Jim Carrey's career) or to make a villain really villainous (think of Alan Rickman as the sheriff in Robin Hood, or as Hans Gruber in Die Hard). William Shatner in Star Trek is another example, which may or may not be unintentional, but is pretty entertaining either way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DiscoVader wrote:It's basically an industry/media term for excessive acting - Tim Curry's one of the best known examples to use, because he goes balls to the wall in almost all of the movies/media he appears in (think the end of Clue, when he's running around like a madman), but it's by no means a bad thing. It CAN be if it's poorly done, but if done well or entertainingly, it can make the entire movie. Sadly, Megatron is an example of a bad choice.
Yeah, Megatron certainly didn't work, but I don't think that was the problem of the voice actor. I think it was more the way Megatron was put into the movie. We were merely told he was badass, then we waited until he came to life, at which point all he did was kill the black autobot and then get killed by Prime. In the second movie he just acted like the bitch to some other decepticon most fans were barely aware existed.
For this kind of role to work, the villain needs to have plans of his own and drive the story forward. Imagine if all the other terrorists just spent all their time talking about Hans Gruber in Die Hard, but he wasn't on-screen until the last 20 minutes of the movie, at which point he killed one dude then got wasted by Bruce Willis. Then we'd be complaining about how lame he was, as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AvatarForm wrote:Why won't she be in the third?
Didn't get along with the director, Michael Bay. He called him a dictator, or something like that.
On the one hand, given Bay's career, the roles of women in his movies, and the lack of women returning to films he's made, it wouldn't surprise me if he was quite sexist and treated his leading women like crap. On the other hand, given Megan Fox's acting performances to date and what I've heard of her in interviews, it wouldn't surprise me if she's very stupid and really needs to be tightly controlled in everything she does.
I had virtually no exposure to the old style transformers
Went to the first movie with no real expectations and thought it was totally awesome:
I Liked the human characters - even the pretty whiny hero was ok
Megan Fox
Good action sequences with Robots AND humans kicking ass
great Special Effects
I lked the plot
good comedy - parents esp were great
Watched the second one thinking - cool more of the same and found the film ruined for me by the stupid "comedy robots" - wipe them from it and it might have been pretty good (although not as good as first).
II was a piece of crap in a multitude of ways. How It Should Have Ended covers some of the obvious ones (and points out the quipping of old school Former fans who hate the films just because it isn't G1).
I expect 3 to be horrible. If anything, 1 being decent was a fluke. Course I'll still be going to Michael Bay presents Michael Bay's Explosions with Robots.
My point was that Galvatron isn't Megatron I do like when they take him to that planet for psychological evaluation to fix his mind and they end up hooking him up to the planet to try and wipe his mind but his sheer amount of crazy ends up destroying the planet.
I watched G1 and Beast Wars. I liked Movie 1, and 2 barely gets past because of girls and giant robots. I read a review of a preview and they said it was better than 2 at least. Trailer looks good, so here's hoping.
Didn't get along with the director, Michael Bay. He called him a dictator, or something like that.
On the one hand, given Bay's career, the roles of women in his movies, and the lack of women returning to films he's made, it wouldn't surprise me if he was quite sexist and treated his leading women like crap. On the other hand, given Megan Fox's acting performances to date and what I've heard of her in interviews, it wouldn't surprise me if she's very stupid and really needs to be tightly controlled in everything she does.
How about we get this story right, shall we?
In an interview(on national television) Megan Fox compared Michael Bay(Jewish) to Hitler in regards to how he acts while directing.
The producer, a certain man you may have heard of named Steven Spielberg(also Jewish), heard her say this and called Michael Bay right away. His exact words to Mr. Bay: "Fire her right now."
At least you admitted you Hadn't seen transformers before and that 'Michael Bay's Transformers' was your introduction to them. I respect your honesty.
Though i don't particularly dislike transformers, in fact i very much enjoyed both films. I found the dialogue to often be genuinely funny and Shia Labouef to be a likeable everyman lead. (If you don't like him it's because you're Anti semitic btw).
The Robots were okay and again had some good lines but were probably the least interesting aspect of the film imo. I definitely had 'numb balls' after all the CGI transformations/robot (hyper)violence.
Here's another point, so would almost everyone if a fan serving Transformers movie was made. Idiot fans want a movie with 90-100% transformers, you know how boring that would be? You may put forward the case of avatar but that had a far more convincing world than the anime trash background for the 'proper' transformers universe and was still grounded with a human story.
"You Got the Touch" was stuck in my head for like a decade...
I think Michael Bay gets a lot of unnecessary flack for making entertaining, though shallow, action movies. As much as I love the old Transformers, our nostalgia has put them on such a high pedestal that I don't think *anyone* could have possibly satisfied die-hard fanboys. (I hate that word, but I don't know if Transformers fans have a "Trekkie" equivalent.)
At first I wasn't sure how much I liked the new, more organic, design of the 'bots themselves. But even I had to admit that the talking rectangles of the G1 guys might not have looked so good up on the big screen.
Optimus dropping out of the plane and rolling into his truck form is one of my favorite scenes in an action movie to date. And his first transformation sequence must have been an animator's wet dream (or worst nightmare). I don't care how commercial the movies may be, or what the director's motivations were for making them...anyone who can put stuff like that on screen can take my $7.
As for the humans...is it really that hard to understand that an audience is more likely to identify with members of their own species than with 2-story-tall talking robots that can turn into vehicles? Without some human interaction, it may as well be an animation demo-reel...or car commercial...or one long giant toy deathmatch.
bushido wrote:"You Got the Touch" was stuck in my head for like a decade...
I think Michael Bay gets a lot of unnecessary flack for making entertaining, though shallow, action movies. As much as I love the old Transformers, our nostalgia has put them on such a high pedestal that I don't think *anyone* could have possibly satisfied die-hard fanboys. (I hate that word, but I don't know if Transformers fans have a "Trekkie" equivalent.)
At first I wasn't sure how much I liked the new, more organic, design of the 'bots themselves. But even I had to admit that the talking rectangles of the G1 guys might not have looked so good up on the big screen.
Optimus dropping out of the plane and rolling into his truck form is one of my favorite scenes in an action movie to date. And his first transformation sequence must have been an animator's wet dream (or worst nightmare). I don't care how commercial the movies may be, or what the director's motivations were for making them...anyone who can put stuff like that on screen can take my $7.
As for the humans...is it really that hard to understand that an audience is more likely to identify with members of their own species than with 2-story-tall talking robots that can turn into vehicles? Without some human interaction, it may as well be an animation demo-reel...or car commercial...or one long giant toy deathmatch.
There could stand some middle ground though. In neither film at the actual thater could I tell what was what with all the moving parts. Its when I played it on a small TV that I was able to figure it out.
Now there are several scenes in the second movie that I really liked, but overall that movie was so bad that the reviews for the third one have to be on the order of "this movie leaps out and s your " before I'll spend a dime on it.
Platuan4th wrote:How about we get this story right, shall we?
Ah, that's stories changed a bit since I first heard it. Thanks for the update.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Perkustin wrote:Though i don't particularly dislike transformers, in fact i very much enjoyed both films. I found the dialogue to often be genuinely funny
Okay, but you have to realise you're among a small minority there. Most people found it incredibly stupid.
The Robots were okay and again had some good lines but were probably the least interesting aspect of the film imo.
I thought they worked well in the first film, and were almost non-entities in the second.
I definitely had 'numb balls' after all the CGI transformations/robot (hyper)violence.
I think most of the action scenes were terribly constructed. There is skill in constructing an action scene, that is supposed to explain how the scene is unfolding, and give it a sense of geography and space. Instead we just got close ups of explosions and robots doing random stuff. They were beautifully shot explosions and intricately constructed robots, but they could have been from any action scene within the movie.
Go and watch the bank heist from Heat, or the battle against the Cave Troll in LotR, or the Empire attack on Hoth in TESB. These are great action scenes. Great action movies need great actions scenes. Transformers II had no such scenes, because the director is a great project manager (always get his big budget movies in on-time, on-budget) but a minimally capable director.
Here's another point, so would almost everyone if a fan serving Transformers movie was made. Idiot fans want a movie with 90-100% transformers, you know how boring that would be? You may put forward the case of avatar but that had a far more convincing world than the anime trash background for the 'proper' transformers universe and was still grounded with a human story.
That fanboys make foolish complaints doesn't make Transformers II a good movie.
Case closed.
Not really, no.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bushido wrote:I think Michael Bay gets a lot of unnecessary flack for making entertaining, though shallow, action movies.
I think he gets exactly as much flak as he deserves for making shallow action movies that are often incredibly poorly constructed horribly bloated.
Die Hard is a shallow action movie. It also has a very slick script and fantastically constructed action scenes.
As much as I love the old Transformers, our nostalgia has put them on such a high pedestal that I don't think *anyone* could have possibly satisfied die-hard fanboys.
I also love the old Transformers. I accepted long before I ever saw the movie that it'd be quite different to the old cartoon.
My problem isn't that it's different, it's that the second movie is incredibly poorly made.
'Most people found it incredibly stupid' I can think of around 50 odd million people who enjoyed the film, don't make such 'incredibly stupid' generalisations.
You and your buddies aren't 'most people'.
Action is not a means to an end. If HEAT had more than one large scale shoot-out or the story did not lead up to it no-one would even remember that scene. Plus the scene is technically no better than the shoot-out in 2010's similar movie 'the town'.
'that fanboys make complaints doesn't make transformers 2 a good movie'
Neither do Armchair critics who think they know anything about film making. You are putting words in my mouth, did i say transformers 2 (or indeed 1) was a 'good movie'?........................ .........dotdotdotdotdot........dot...dot..dot No. I said i enjoyed them, at points 'tremendously'. I enjoy taking a dump, at points 'tremendously'
EDIT: what i will say, that of the 2009 summer films Transformers 2 was better than the giant turd that was 'Watchmen' (I liked the comic AND 300)
Perkustin wrote:'Most people found it incredibly stupid' I can think of around 50 odd million people who enjoyed the film, don't make such 'incredibly stupid' generalisations.
No, you don't know 50 million people that enjoyed the film. You know that around 50 million people went and saw the movie, but that's really not the same thing as enjoying it. In fact, one is merely a condition of the other.
You and your buddies aren't 'most people'.
I'm not thinking of my buddies. If I was to judge the film based on general reaction, then I'd be thinking of the general critical response (20% on rotten tomatoes), and the general internet response, which was strongly negative.
This is not some great secret I'm letting you in to here. In fact, I refuse to believe that you're unaware of the general impression that it was a bad movie. It's fine to differ from the mainstream, admirable even, but it's delusional to pretend the film was popular.
Action is not a means to an end. If HEAT had more than one large scale shoot-out or the story did not lead up to it no-one would even remember that scene. Plus the scene is technically no better than the shoot-out in 2010's similar movie 'the town'.
The Town was a terrific movie, and the climactic shoutout was also very well pieced together. As you're familiar with it, you'd see how we were given a clear understanding of the geography of the fight scene, a feel for the relative locations of the two sides, and then watched the two sides operate in that terrain to achieve whatever each side is trying to achieve. That's what a good action scene has.
Compare that to the final action scene Revenge of the Fallen. When Sam is running around in the generic ruin type things, do you have any idea how close he is to other events in the scene? Where is he running to, and how long will it take him to get there?
Neither do Armchair critics who think they know anything about film making.
I don't know much about film making, happy to admit it. I know enough to pick out very poor movies from good movies, though. And with Transformers II it's not like I'm alone.
You are putting words in my mouth, did i say transformers 2 (or indeed 1) was a 'good movie'?........................ .........dotdotdotdotdot........dot...dot..dot No. I said i enjoyed them, at points 'tremendously'. I enjoy taking a dump, at points 'tremendously'
So you recognise they're crap movies, but you like them anyway. That's cool, we've all got guilty pleasures.
EDIT: what i will say, that of the 2009 summer films Transformers 2 was better than the giant turd that was 'Watchmen' (I liked the comic AND 300)
And now suddenly you're acting like you know all about film making. And constructing such powerful arguments as 'giant turd'.
I didn't like Watchmen much either, and think it ultimately proved that adapting the comic was a really bad idea. But I also don't think 'better than another big budget, mediocre movie from the same summer' is a particularly useful criteria. Quality isn't relative to genre, or to other movies released at the same time.
If you had to pick a single scene that exemplifies Michael Bay's utter disdain for story and continuity, what would it be?
When five Decepticons sink to the bottom of the ocean to retrieve Megatron's corpse. A submarine tracks five "subjects" going down, and when they get there, one of the Decepticons is killed to give parts to Megatron. 5 -1 +1 = 5, right? No, because the sub somehow tracks "six" subjects coming up. Not only is this very basic math, this is the simplest of script errors. It could not possibly have been more than one page apart in the script. And yet Michael Bay either didn't care to notice or didn't give a feth. "Math? Math is for pussies. My movies are about gak blowing up, man."
I try to ignore minor mistakes like that and enjoy the film as a whole. As for transformers 2, i enjoyed it, especially the scene with Optimus Prime just kicking ass (comes under the OMG C.G.I! EXPLOSIONS! MICHAEL BAY!, which isn't bad if thats what your looking for).
i disliked revenge of the sith. i mean fallen. because it had very little internal logic and focused far too much on funny or silly moments.
When a 1986 cartoon movie takes things more seriously then you need to have a good look at what you are doing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Murray wrote:I try to ignore minor mistakes like that and enjoy the film as a whole. As for transformers 2, i enjoyed it, especially the scene with Optimus Prime just kicking ass (comes under the OMG C.G.I! EXPLOSIONS! MICHAEL BAY!, which isn't bad if thats what your looking for).
optimus kicked so much ass. but when he died (not a spoiler cause he ALWAYS dies!) i was just counting down till he came back.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:My point was that Galvatron isn't Megatron
How do you rationalise that?
He is clearly the same, Unicron simply rebuilt his body and re-named his pet.
G1 Megatron: Cold, calculating, doesn't give a crap about anyone else. Always has a plan before he goes into action. Really likes to get betrayed by over-placing faith and then blaming someone else.
Galvatron: Psycho, impulsive, very disorganized. His whole purpose was to be an opposite to Rodimus, who is also tons more impulsive than Optimus was.
I've noted that you didn't watch tons of the pre-movie episodes by your synopsis as well, because Daniel was Spike's son and the show originally had lots of Spike and his friends running around. There was even a kid with glasses in a wheelchair that Ravage attacked one time That moment sits up there for me with when Bumblebee does a running charge and tackles Starscream. Good times.
Bromsy wrote: If you had to pick a single scene that exemplifies Michael Bay's utter disdain for story and continuity, what would it be? When five Decepticons sink to the bottom of the ocean to retrieve Megatron's corpse. A submarine tracks five "subjects" going down, and when they get there, one of the Decepticons is killed to give parts to Megatron. 5 -1 +1 = 5, right? No, because the sub somehow tracks "six" subjects coming up. Not only is this very basic math, this is the simplest of script errors. It could not possibly have been more than one page apart in the script. And yet Michael Bay either didn't care to notice or didn't give a feth. "Math? Math is for pussies. My movies are about gak blowing up, man."
Easy: Scalpel is hiding inside one of the others(as evidenced by him popping out of a chest when they get down there) on the way down. At no point do we see him return to hiding inside another 'Con before returning to the surface, so the math is actually 5+1-1+1=6. People keep using that as an example without actually counting the number of characters on screen at the time.
The greatest Transformer of all time comes from the ludicrously kid-friendly and incredibly goofy series Transformers: Robots in Disguise
Sky-Byte, the Haiku spouting Predacon shark.
Huge Transformers nerd, rewatching everything right now (So far, through G1, Beast Wars, Beast Machines, Robots in Disguise and about to start on the Unicron trilogy for the first time since they originall aired) and seeing DOTM tomorrow.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:My point was that Galvatron isn't Megatron
How do you rationalise that?
He is clearly the same, Unicron simply rebuilt his body and re-named his pet.
G1 Megatron: Cold, calculating, doesn't give a crap about anyone else. Always has a plan before he goes into action. Really likes to get betrayed by over-placing faith and then blaming someone else.
Galvatron: Psycho, impulsive, very disorganized. His whole purpose was to be an opposite to Rodimus, who is also tons more impulsive than Optimus was.
I've noted that you didn't watch tons of the pre-movie episodes by your synopsis as well, because Daniel was Spike's son and the show originally had lots of Spike and his friends running around. There was even a kid with glasses in a wheelchair that Ravage attacked one time That moment sits up there for me with when Bumblebee does a running charge and tackles Starscream. Good times.
What synopsis? I think you are mistaking someone else for me.
I grew up on G1 (or as those who grew up with it know it as, Transformers). Megatron became Galvatron, your arguement based upon personalities is over-analysing something that is simply a syntax. One was the successor to the other, though essentially the same. The situation and opposition simply made Galvatron into what he became. Or you could simply enjoy the series and put the differences in personality down to the writers pre- and post-The Movie.
My biggest grip with the Michael Bay movies is that they’re essentially unfaithful to the source material. All of the different incarnations of Transformers have always followed a similar pattern as far as character design and plot was concerned. It basically ensured that the outcome was Transformers product that anyone could enjoy, regardless if you preferred Megatron as a gun, tank or jet. Villains were likeable and calculating, heroes had three dimensional character traits.
To put it simply why the Michael Bay movies were bad, in both character design and plot, they didn’t feel like Transformers movies (both movies felt more like a generic Hollywood alien invasion movies where the American military saves the day). I’d say they only Transformers movies in the loosest sense in that it had Autobots, Decepticons and Peter Cullen. Inadequate dialogue, character depth and screen time for non human was probably the biggest failing for the movies IMO.
Realistically, the hard core fans will probably always something to complain, regardless of how good/bad the movies are/could have been however given the fan complaints have generally covered broad categories rather than small specifics (such as Hugo Weaving voicing Megatron instead of Frank Welker), it is a big sign of how much Michael Bay really dropped the ball on this one.
I enjoyed Transformers quite a lot, when I was little. It was a show about fighting robots. It was neat.
That's all it was.
Transformers 2 is a bad, bad film. It played like an out of breath eight year old trying to tell you a story about his toys, and how awesome they were. It relied on visual spectacle from shot to shot, rather than coherent visual transition and storytelling. The bloody thing gave me a headache. I'm not denying that anyone enjoyed the film, but it was a poorly made work, and should not be called 'good.' To claim that no film can be considered objectively better than another is an insult to the medium.
KingCracker wrote:Am I the only one that didnt care for Hotrod/Rodimus?
You mean the Bot that nearly half the fandom blames for Optimus' death?
No, I'm pretty sure you're not the only person that doesn't care for him.
I kinda like the Rod and more attribute Optimus' death to his Messiah Complex. The guy LOVES to die(he had himself blown up over killing virtual humans in a video game death match one time).
htj wrote:
Transformers 2 is a bad, bad film. It played like an out of breath eight year old trying to tell you a story about his toys, and how awesome they were. It relied on visual spectacle from shot to shot, rather than coherent visual transition and storytelling. The bloody thing gave me a headache. I'm not denying that anyone enjoyed the film, but it was a poorly made work, and should not be called 'good.' To claim that no film can be considered objectively better than another is an insult to the medium.
After seeing what Mr. Shamalamalan did to Aang and friends, I find it hard to consider something "a bad, bad film" if it's even the slightest bit more entertaining than The Last Airbender was. Transformers 2 had kitten calendars, a bad-ass Optimus, and Megan Fox in hot-pants going for it. The only upside I could find to Airbender was that it introduced me to an amazing show that I'd completely missed the first time around. What was even better: they had a parody of their own show (in theater form) in one of the last episodes...and *that* was even better than the movie turned out to be.
I'm not saying Transformers 2 was objectively "good." It's impossible, because everyone has different tastes. But as for myself, my friends, and my family, we all found it very entertaining (if a little over-the-top).
bushido wrote:What was even better: they had a parody of their own show (in theater form) in one of the last episodes...and *that* was even better than the movie turned out to be.
Best recap/flashback episode in the history of any show ever doing that, IMO.
htj wrote:
Transformers 2 is a bad, bad film. It played like an out of breath eight year old trying to tell you a story about his toys, and how awesome they were. It relied on visual spectacle from shot to shot, rather than coherent visual transition and storytelling. The bloody thing gave me a headache. I'm not denying that anyone enjoyed the film, but it was a poorly made work, and should not be called 'good.' To claim that no film can be considered objectively better than another is an insult to the medium.
After seeing what Mr. Shamalamalan did to Aang and friends, I find it hard to consider something "a bad, bad film" if it's even the slightest bit more entertaining than The Last Airbender was. Transformers 2 had kitten calendars, a bad-ass Optimus, and Megan Fox in hot-pants going for it. The only upside I could find to Airbender was that it introduced me to an amazing show that I'd completely missed the first time around. What was even better: they had a parody of their own show (in theater form) in one of the last episodes...and *that* was even better than the movie turned out to be.
I'm not saying Transformers 2 was objectively "good." It's impossible, because everyone has different tastes. But as for myself, my friends, and my family, we all found it very entertaining (if a little over-the-top).
Maybe good is too fuzzy a word, rather it was objectively not a well made film. Michael Bay is a very competent shot composer, and a consumate perfectionist, but when left to his own devices he tends to lack... restraint. Also, he should be kept the heck away from storylines. Fortunately, I have not seen the Last Airbender, so perhaps lacking that apparently nightmarish experience, I have harsher standards.
KingCracker wrote:Am I the only one that didnt care for Hotrod/Rodimus?
You mean the Bot that nearly half the fandom blames for Optimus' death?
.
But that's his story arc, isn't it?
Megatron would have shot Optimus regardless of the Rod's interference. All the Rod did was attempt to stop the shooting and get used as a robot shield for his efforts.
Not every Autobot can be Impactor, who's willing to shoot through the body of his own troops(whilst using them as a shield).
Besides, as I pointed out, Optimus looks for ANY opportunity to die a stupid, pointless death.
Then again, for the Rodimus Prime haters, there's always the bleak far future of 2009 where the Decepticons have destroyed New York and strung up Rodimus' body between the ruined WTC towers.
htj wrote:
Maybe good is too fuzzy a word, rather it was objectively not a well made film. Michael Bay is a very competent shot composer, and a consumate perfectionist, but when left to his own devices he tends to lack... restraint. Also, he should be kept the heck away from storylines. Fortunately, I have not seen the Last Airbender, so perhaps lacking that apparently nightmarish experience, I have harsher standards.
Well, the major cringe-worthy scene for me was when Simmons basically said to the old transformer "ok, now tell us the plot." But other than that, I'm more of a "just go with it" type of person...not inclined to nitpick something to death. I suppose testicle jokes just don't offend me as much as everyone tells me they should.
This is what happened. Direct quote from Bay. ""Transformers: Dark of the Moon" is an improvement on "Revenge of the Fallen." It's a lousy movie, but at least it's a lousy movie with a serviceable story, killer CGI and an action climax that goes on forever (at least an hour). An awful lot of people like that kind of thing -- my kids included."
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:If Rodimus is the same as Hot Rod, then Megatron is the same as Galvatron. Lord help us all :(
The are the same "person", just in a different body and, like real people with real personalities, their circumstances and environment changed them.
How is it so difficult for you to understand that the differences in Rodimus/Hot Rod are the he simply "matured" and his physical changes are due to possessing/implantation of the Matrix of Leadership.
You have not provided anything solid to prove that Megatron is a different character to Megatron.
The thing I didn't get about the movies is how there was no, absolutely zero character growth. Protagonist high school student, loser nerd has an awesome adventure and picks up a hot chick and a hot car that can turn into an ass-kicking robot.
2nd movie, same character and he's still a loser but has somehow maintained a long-distance relationship with hot girlfriend while not toting a laser gun or even stopped being a wuss. I would think that surviving all that he made it through would instill a little confidence in him or the ability to not be such a sniveling waste of space.
I'll see the third movie and have given up on the character actually being any different than in the other two films.
"Gee, I'm like totally surprised that there are evil robots trying to destroy the world, even though I've seen it twice now and survived it. I'm completely unprepared for it and have not bothered to either learn about my enemy or gain the necessary skills/equipment to defend myself."
I know the US government and military are bunch of bumbling morons in movies but gee, you think they could do better than the even more worthless moron that hangs around the robots...
Dark of the Moon just about Redeems Revenge of the Fallen in Bayformers. Still no where near as good as Beast Wars or Animated though. About on par with Beast Machines.
It was not as good or as bad as the hype. I liked the final battle, though I think that the shenanigans with the falling building went on too long. It reminded me of the extended scene of the T-rexes pushing the trailer off of the cliff in Jurassic park 2.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:If Rodimus is the same as Hot Rod, then Megatron is the same as Galvatron. Lord help us all :(
The are the same "person", just in a different body and, like real people with real personalities, their circumstances and environment changed them.
How is it so difficult for you to understand that the differences in Rodimus/Hot Rod are the he simply "matured" and his physical changes are due to possessing/implantation of the Matrix of Leadership.
You have not provided anything solid to prove that Megatron is a different character to Megatron.
Kinda like the difference between Prime and Epic Warcasters in Warmachine.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:If Rodimus is the same as Hot Rod, then Megatron is the same as Galvatron. Lord help us all :(
The are the same "person", just in a different body and, like real people with real personalities, their circumstances and environment changed them.
How is it so difficult for you to understand that the differences in Rodimus/Hot Rod are the he simply "matured" and his physical changes are due to possessing/implantation of the Matrix of Leadership.
You have not provided anything solid to prove that Megatron is a different character to Megatron.
Kinda like the difference between Prime and Epic Warcasters in Warmachine.
Has anyone here played War for Cybertron??? I personally LOVED that game (both for story and actual gameplay) and I try to tell other Transformer fans about it as much as possible.
As for the actual discussion, I like the movies, but I'll definately agree that they're complete garbage.
My first problem was when:
Spoiler:
Jazz only has two lines and gets ripped in half in the first film
After that I realized the series was going to be nothing but mind-numbing action that has barely anything to do with the original story
mega_bassist wrote: After that I realized the series was going to be nothing but mind-numbing action that has barely anything to do with the original story
Ummm... duh? They told us that when they announced the movies. It's not even in the same universal cluster!
Also, I love the War for Cybertron game, great prequel to the new Prime series(also not in the G1 Universe).
For those unfamiliar:
At this time, there are six primary continuity families in the Transformers multiverse. These are:
Generation 1 / Beast Era (the "Primax Cluster" according to the TransTech) Robots in Disguise ("Viron Cluster") the Unicron Trilogy ("Aurex Cluster") the live-action film series ("Tyran Cluster") Transformers Animated ("Malgus Cluster") Aligned (Prime and War for Cybertron, yet to have a Transtech Cluster named assigned to it)
Additional continuity families include:
The "mirror universe" Shattered Glass The Transtech universe ("Nexus") A much less prominent family centered on the Playskool Go-Bots toyline ("Yayayarst Cluster") The original GoBots, who have been explicitly crossed over with Transformers thanks to fans turned pro ("Gargent") The real-world continuity family ("Quadwal Cluster")
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:If Rodimus is the same as Hot Rod, then Megatron is the same as Galvatron. Lord help us all :(
The are the same "person", just in a different body and, like real people with real personalities, their circumstances and environment changed them.
How is it so difficult for you to understand that the differences in Rodimus/Hot Rod are the he simply "matured" and his physical changes are due to possessing/implantation of the Matrix of Leadership.
You have not provided anything solid to prove that Megatron is a different character to Megatron.
He looks different, acts differently and has a different name, not to mention that in a couple of the universes Galvatron is a separate character. Typically when someone announces they're a Megatron fan then you say "yeah, I also like Galvatron" they'll look at you funny.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: He looks different, acts differently and has a different name, not to mention that in a couple of the universes Galvatron is a separate character. Typically when someone announces they're a Megatron fan then you say "yeah, I also like Galvatron" they'll look at you funny.
G1: Galvatron AND Galvatron II are both Megatron reformats from different timelines
Unicron Trilogy: All THREE Galvatrons are Megatron upgrades
Robots In Disguise/Car Robots: Megatron upgrade
Shattered Glass: Megatron upgrade
The only series where he's a different robot is Beast Wars II in Japan. I don't count the Galvatron drones from Autobot stronghold because Drones aren't sentient and thus aren't characters.
In fact, at the end of Season 3 in G1, he talks to Optimus about "the good old days" when they used to fight. The only time before that point they ever interacted was when Galvatron was Megatron.
Canonically, they're the same bot and nothing you say will change that.
Actually, Platuan, in the recent updated continuity in the IDW comics, Galvatron IS a distinctly different Transformer than Megatron, so it's no longer just in Beast Wars II. Granted, the series is a complete separate continuity that's unrelated to the others except in how the story is like a G1 reboot, but still.
And as far as the fans go, even though he's technically just an upgraded Megatron, his nature and form are different enough that most TF fans tend to consider them two separate characters rather than "Character 2.0." It's usually a given that at some point in a series Megatron will undergo the transformation to Galvatron, but it's less the revival of Megatron and more the introduction of his replacement. They act and look different enough that there's a need to differentiate between the two, and the fact that he doesn't go by the same name any longer is one of the indicators.
Edit: Also, I refuse to accept Hot Rod as a Prime. I've actually done this in real life - people have said "Rodimus Prime" and I tend to reply "Which bot now? I could have sworn you said Hot Rod there." (Note that's it's in good fun - I just really didn't like the whole "Rodimus" thing at all, so I joke around about it. He was an inferior choice and a rubbish commander, if he can even be called that.)
DiscoVader wrote:Edit: Also, I refuse to accept Hot Rod as a Prime. I've actually done this in real life - people have said "Rodimus Prime" and I tend to reply "Which bot now? I could have sworn you said Hot Rod there." (Note that's it's in good fun - I just really didn't like the whole "Rodimus" thing at all, so I joke around about it. He was an inferior choice and a rubbish commander, if he can even be called that.)
Who, of the living Autobots in The Movie, would have been a better choice?
Ultramagnus already proved he didnt have the stones...
Honestly, I would have wanted Ironhide to become the new Prime, because it would have made the most sense, but then they decided to kill him off early and remove him from the equation. It's rather unfortunate that out of the surviving Autobots, Hot Rod was the best choice due to Magnus not having the balls to step up.
DiscoVader wrote:Honestly, I would have wanted Ironhide to become the new Prime, because it would have made the most sense, but then they decided to kill him off early and remove him from the equation. It's rather unfortunate that out of the surviving Autobots, Hot Rod was the best choice due to Magnus not having the balls to step up.
DAMN YOU, ULTRA MANGUUUUUUSSSS!
He doesn't have the time to deal with that now!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DiscoVader wrote:Actually, Platuan, in the recent updated continuity in the IDW comics, Galvatron IS a distinctly different Transformer than Megatron, so it's no longer just in Beast Wars II. Granted, the series is a complete separate continuity that's unrelated to the others except in how the story is like a G1 reboot, but still.
News to me. However, IDW is part of the G1 Universal Cluster, so is related to G1.
Also interesting is that Simon Furman wants to pick up from where he left off in the Marvel comics run and produce a Transformers #81.
Also, Cannerus, in IDW, Bumblebee DOES lead the Autobots, just without the Matrix.
I've honestly been loving the IDW series a LOT - aside from the stupid canon hiccups that happened in All Hail Megatron, it's been an absolutely stellar run and a fantastic take on the G1 universe. I would absolutely love to see them make an animated show based off of it.
DiscoVader wrote:I've honestly been loving the IDW series a LOT - aside from the stupid canon hiccups that happened in All Hail Megatron, it's been an absolutely stellar run and a fantastic take on the G1 universe. I would absolutely love to see them make an animated show based off of it.
Sadly, I haven't gotten the chance to read Zombies yet - the store I usually go to (which is also my FLGS) hasn't ordered them in, and I haven't had the time to go out and look for them elsewhere recently. >: I really want to read it though.
you can tell yourself, well at least they put the original on DVD, so the memory of how awesome they were, was saved for future generations.
s your 
