Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:I said 'sort of' because it isn't really true to say films like Star Wars were made when it wasn't about toys, or that Star Wars was made with toys in mind.

I'm a little surprised at you Sebbie, it isn't like you to put words into peoples mouths. I'll copy and paste what I wrote so you can tell me where I said that Star Wars was made with either of those ideas you just listed,

Ahtman wrote:Star Wars was the first to release the toys along side the movie

Hmm, that doesn't seem to say that the movie was or wasn't about the toys, just that they were released along side the movie. I only mentioned it because dietrich had said that they came after the films. Which they weren't. They were ready to go with the film. Now I think Dietrich had said that movies are often made out of toys, which may be what you are thinking of.

Ahtman wrote:One of the things Star Wars (the movie, not the franchise) is remembered for is revolutionizing film merchandising.

That sounds awfully familiar...

sebster wrote:Its that Star Wars was the movie that changed that, made toys a big deal.

Wow, you just basically repeated what I said. I guess you are 'sort of' right to.

Actually,it wasn't until Empire Strikes Back that the "Toy line" was "ready to roll".
When The first Star Wars was released,there was nothing for several months...but this.

People always make fun of Michael Bay for putting too many explosions in his films. I thought that this was mostly an exaggeration - typical internet hyperbole. I mean, Transformers, Bad Boys and all those films certainly had lots of explosions, but not enough to make it seem extreme or over the top.

Then I saw Transformers 2, and found out how wrong I was. My God that movie must've had a pyrotechnics budget that would rival some country's GDPs! I had never seen that many explosions in a film before ever. It was insane.

As far as the Transformers movies themselves go, well I liked 'em. I'm a big G1 fan, so I was expecting to hate them, but I thought they were ok. Stupid, over-the-top, and Michael Bay needs to learn how to zoom the feth out when filming complex hand-to-hand fighting scenes between multi-story robots, but lots of fun. Flawless? Not at all. There were so many stupid parts in both films that you kind've lose count, and so many things that failed or fell flat that you just want to grab Bay by his collar and scream 'No you stupid fething man-child - make the movie this way!!!

But I was in JB-Hi-Fi the day before yesterday and saw something I didn't expect to see. They had their usuall wall'o'flatscreens, and one very nice Bravia TV was playing the first Transformers film. It was the climax in the city, and as it went on a crowd gathered to watch it. I stepped back and looked at the 20 or so people who were all watching it and realised something about these films - no matter the internet whining, the nerd-rage, the fanboyisms, and even the genuine flaws that Bay has in his Transformers films, they're still fun and people still want to watch them.

So bring on Transformers 3. It certainly can't be any worse...