Just view the trailer, watching it fullscreen asks you to install some spyware viewer or something first.
Anyway - WOW! Only fleeting glimpses at the Transformers themselves, but it still gives me the chills. I'm still iffy on many of the designs, but at least the vehicle modes look like real vehicles again.
Just to be clear, though: do NOT look for a good story in this film. It's a friggin' MICHAEL BAY movie, for which a well-thought-out story is usually an afterthought. However, we'll get to see oodles of GIANT ROBOT SMASH done incredibly well, which is reason enough to plunk down your $10. Roll out!
posted
If the trailer is any indication, Michael Bay has completely missed the whole mood and idea of Transformers the show. The Transformers themselves do look cool though. I won't pay to see this but I will check it out when its on the tube or on DVD.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
I'll be there to see this movie with every other nerd that grew up in the 80s. It's not the greatness known as G1, just yet another version like the dozen others that followed.
-------------------- I'm slightly annoyed at Hobbes' rather rude decision to be much more attractive than me though. That's just rude. - PsyLiam, Oct 27, 2005.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Yick.
Aslo, HAY STROKES PALCEMNET LAWLZ. I bet they have at LEAST one song on the soundtrack.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I liked the trailer by and large, except for that little nauseatingly cute poolkid and the obvious PG-13:ness of it all, but then again this is Transformers, not anime.
Oh and good luck making us care about some jock dude and Vogue girl hanging from a building and maybe-falling-but-probably-not when there are 20' robots flying around.
The design of the robots remind me of the APU:s from Zion Defense Force and, like I said before, RoboCop 2, the junkie-robot, which is good. Didn't like the attempt to establish the new transforming-sound, it was nothing like the original, no homage of any kind, more like a Peter Jackson ring-wraith whisper.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Has the movie been rated yet? Personally, I'm hoping that it gets a PG rating, because I know my son (who's in first grade) will want to see it. There are people my age who grew up with this stuff that would want massive carnage, but they need to remember that when the series premiered on TV, they were pre-teens themselves. Anything targeting that age range is going to have some cutesy and campy stuff.
So, yeah, I'm not expecting the story to be anything earth-shattering, but I am expecting lots of eye-candy.
Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't want massive carnage. Except maybe in an abstract way, to establish that the Decepticons are TeH eViL�. I don't like how Prime's head transforms along with the rest of him. I went to the forums where the creatos of this movie were posting about the development process, and I lost all faith once I noticed that they were blatantly ignoring any criticisms of what they wanted to do. And once again, they're not robots. I know the original tagline said "robots in disguise", but aren't Robots are non-sentient constructs under another's control. That's what the original Diaclone constructs were, but once they established the Transformers as being sentient aliens, that flew out the window. At the least they're artificial life forms -- like Data, but I will always refer to them simply as inorganic life forms.
--Jonah
P.S. The only bit from the trailer that I liked was the helicopter (I still think of him as Vortex) revealing himself at the military base.
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
The term "robot" in science fiction goes well beyond the original, real-world meaning of a non-thinking, programmed machine.
In Asimov's works (and in Futurama), the word "robot" is used for them, and it works better than calling them inorganic lifeforms (IOLFs?), artificial intelligences or cybernetic entities. It's also catchier too.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I'll be there to see this movie with every other nerd that grew up in the 80s. It's not the greatness known as G1, just yet another version like the dozen others that followed.
You seriously need to re-visit those old episodes before attaching words like "greatness" to the G1 anything. The nostalgic fondness of your ten-year-old self of yesteryear for the cartoon will not hold up to reality, i'm afraid.
As to the movie, it wont win any awards for story, but will probably be as good (better hopefully!) as the typical comic-book turned movie schtick.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree. A friend of mine is a diehard "if it wasn't animated in the 80s, it's CRAP" kind of guy. When the first season came out on DVD, he was first in line to pick it up. He sold them off a month later, and doesn't want to talk about Transformers anymore. Seriously, it does NOT hold up over time, the second and third seasons even less so.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
