Transformers general

[Meshugger]

I saw it yesterday. This is what i remember:

 

- Chevys

- Camaros

- Nokia

- Apple

- Mountain dew

ful. - Xbox360

- PS2 and a dancemat

- Samsung

- Burger King

- F-22

- Predator

- Other military blablabla-equipment

- Silly hacker from highschool knowing the chinese "style" of hacking

- Hotwiring a 1930's radio with a computer to send morse-code

- Airforce 1 is wirelessly connected to every computer in the Pentagon, CIA, NSA and so on

- No Soundwave

- No Grimlock

 

 

Damn you Michael Bay, damn you to HELL.

 

Someting tells me you weren't going to like the movie regardless of what was done.

 

Easy, ditch the productplacement, the AWESUM references military equipment, stupid technology-errors + 50% human screentime and i would've liked it. And Paul Verhoeven should've directed it.

 

Come, now. You were looking for things to complain about. Product placement in a huge summer blockbuster movie? Big effing deal. Did it make you feel you had to go out and buy any of those things? Doubt

 

And complaining about technology "errors" in a movie about giant transforming robots from space seems a bit nitpicky.

 

You wanted these things to distract you from liking the movie. Admit it.

 

Again, easy. I haven't seen a "Summer blockbuster" since Armageddon, and there sure wasn't nearly as much productplacement there as in this movie. I remember none of it. Also, it's really disingenious and stupid since it breaks the fourth wall between the viewer and the movie itself. Yes, technology in a Transformers movie shouldn't be much of an issue if it wasn't as blatantly stupid as in this one.

 

Christ, admit what? That i can see crap for what it is? The original movie from 1986 was way better than this, but maybe i am too nostalgic.

 

Action-movies in general has gone from hilariously bad, with some exception, such as Die Hard 1, in the 1980's to just irritatingly stupid. Or maybe it's because Michael Bay has done the "biggest" lately.

[Meshugger]

I didn't notice Apple, PS2 (noticed the dancemat, but geesh, someone playing DDR? That NEVER happens), Samsung, or Burger King. I also don't understand why there'd be a complaint about military equipment being in the movie. Oh no, F-22s are in it!

 

She also never claimed to know the chinese "style" of hacking. She just knew whatever was going on was far more advanced than the chinese (or anyone else) was capable of.

 

You're just become too cynic to notice it. And yes, she says "That's not their style". She later tries to explain to Jon Voight that it's more advanced than anything else.

 

I just checked my movie collection. The newest movie is Kill Bill, followed by Lord of the Rings. Everything else is early late 60's to early nineties. I have become an old, elitist movie-geezer. My bad

[Tale]

Being a cynic or not, some of that complaint is definitely petty. Obvious product placement detracts from a movie, but when they're used in a real world manner, they become scenery. Otherwise you might as well be complaining about the product placement of SMEAT in movies.

[Meshugger]

Being a cynic or not, some of that complaint is definitely petty. Obvious product placement detracts from a movie, but when they're used in a real world manner, they become scenery. Otherwise you might as well be complaining about the product placement of SMEAT in movies.

 

In this case, it was VERY obvious. But ofcourse, i haven't seen any of the Spiderman movies, X-Men, King Kong, The Hulk, Fantastic Four, the new Superman or whatnot. Things must've changed alot since the The Rock and Armageddon in the 90's.

[Deraldin]

The cars were very obvious and I'll agree on that. Every one of them had a nice long shot of the company logo on the front grille. The SD card was another one that bothered me because you have the close up of the card and as the woman pulls it out she shows it off to the camera for a couple seconds before pocketing it. The Nokia comments were a little over the top. How many times can we cram the word Nokia into one scene.

 

The military equipment is not a problem at all. The military was a major focus of the movie (not one that I agreed with, but I can deal with it) so the presence of all the high tech military gear was completely justified, but it should have all be stomped into the ground IMO.

 

I missed the references for Apple and Burger King so I can't comment on that. The PS2 just faded into the background. It was part of the scenery and not the focus of any one shot so I wouldn't classify that as product placement at all. That would be product placement that I can live with as it really isn't distracting. The Mountain Dew vending machine and the 360 were a little more intrusive, but they weren't as bad as some of the other items so I can overlook them.

 

No Grimlock and Soundwave though, that's just totally unforgivable. :D

Edited July 8, 2007 by Deraldin

[Hurlshort]

I'm confused how you think these big budget movies with A-list actors and top notch SFX get made without corporate sponsors. This isn't a home movie, you had giant robots crashing through buildings and freeways.

[Meshugger]

I'm confused how you think these big budget movies with A-list actors and top notch SFX get made without corporate sponsors. This isn't a home movie, you had giant robots crashing through buildings and freeways.

 

Francis Ford Coppola blew up an entire island at the intro of "Apocalypse Now!" (Marlon Brando, Martin Sheen, Robert Duvall, all highpayed actors) And blew up a forrest and a village as well without Colonel Kurtz drinking a nice can of Coca-Cola. Need another example?

Edited July 8, 2007 by Meshugger

[Hurlshort]

I'm confused how you think these big budget movies with A-list actors and top notch SFX get made without corporate sponsors. This isn't a home movie, you had giant robots crashing through buildings and freeways.

 

Francis Ford Coppola blew up an entire island at the intro of "Apocalypse Now!" (Marlon Brando, Martin Sheen, Robert Duvall, all highpayed actors) And blew up a forrest and a village as well without Colonel Kurtz drinking a nice can of Coca-Cola. Need another example?

 

I would like an example that wasn't made over 20 years ago, yes. Read over this trivia, and you can probably see why movies aren't made like this anymore.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/trivia

[Deraldin]

I'm confused how you think these big budget movies with A-list actors and top notch SFX get made without corporate sponsors. This isn't a home movie, you had giant robots crashing through buildings and freeways.

 

Product placement is fine as long as you make at least some attempt at being subtle with it. Having 3 second long shots of the front grille of a car so you can clearly see the badge is not my idea of "good" product placement.

[Cantousent]

It just seems odd to me to worry about product placement in a movie in which the main characters are all products. Anyone who watches and loves Transformers has already bought into product placement.

 

It's like the old joke: A man walks up to a woman and says, "Would you have sex for a 100 million dollars?" She says, "for that much money? You bet!" The man says, "I have a dollar, will you have sex with me?" She says, "How insulting! One dollar, what do you think I am? A prostitute?" The man says, "We've already established that. Now we're just bargaining for price."

 

Maybe not a funny joke, but it's certainly how I see the whole argument regarding product placement in a movie about toys.

[Meshugger]

I'm confused how you think these big budget movies with A-list actors and top notch SFX get made without corporate sponsors. This isn't a home movie, you had giant robots crashing through buildings and freeways.

 

Francis Ford Coppola blew up an entire island at the intro of "Apocalypse Now!" (Marlon Brando, Martin Sheen, Robert Duvall, all highpayed actors) And blew up a forrest and a village as well without Colonel Kurtz drinking a nice can of Coca-Cola. Need another example?

 

I would like an example that wasn't made over 20 years ago, yes. Read over this trivia, and you can probably see why movies aren't made like this anymore.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/trivia

 

I am well aware of the story behind Apocalypse Now, it just shows that Hollywood has become more like a stock portfoolio with outside, sponsored investors, not willing to risk to go beyond PG-13 (Which is not Transformers related anyhow) since the risk is too high. The 1970's are long gone. Outside of 80's action (a guilty pleasure of mine), there's little action-movies that i've seen.

[Meshugger]

It just seems odd to me to worry about product placement in a movie in which the main characters are all products. Anyone who watches and loves Transformers has already bought into product placement.

 

It's like the old joke: A man walks up to a woman and says, "Would you have sex for a 100 million dollars?" She says, "for that much money? You bet!" The man says, "I have a dollar, will you have sex with me?" She says, "How insulting! One dollar, what do you think I am? A prostitute?" The man says, "We've already established that. Now we're just bargaining for price."

 

Maybe not a funny joke, but it's certainly how I see the whole argument regarding product placement in a movie about toys.

 

An understandable point, but the original series weren't as intrusive. There were of course commercial during the show, but never embedded in the program itself. I have never condoned movie-based merchandise when it's broadcasted outside the movie/episode itself.

[Calax]

It just seems odd to me to worry about product placement in a movie in which the main characters are all products. Anyone who watches and loves Transformers has already bought into product placement.

 

It's like the old joke: A man walks up to a woman and says, "Would you have sex for a 100 million dollars?" She says, "for that much money? You bet!" The man says, "I have a dollar, will you have sex with me?" She says, "How insulting! One dollar, what do you think I am? A prostitute?" The man says, "We've already established that. Now we're just bargaining for price."

 

Maybe not a funny joke, but it's certainly how I see the whole argument regarding product placement in a movie about toys.

 

An understandable point, but the original series weren't as intrusive. There were of course commercial during the show, but never embedded in the program itself. I have never condoned movie-based merchandise when it's broadcasted outside the movie/episode itself.

except that, GI Joe and Transformers were both giant walking talking commercials. I mean they designed all the characters to be toys rather than to be animated characters. How much more product placement do you need than "We've already made the toys children!"

[Meshugger]

It just seems odd to me to worry about product placement in a movie in which the main characters are all products. Anyone who watches and loves Transformers has already bought into product placement.

 

It's like the old joke: A man walks up to a woman and says, "Would you have sex for a 100 million dollars?" She says, "for that much money? You bet!" The man says, "I have a dollar, will you have sex with me?" She says, "How insulting! One dollar, what do you think I am? A prostitute?" The man says, "We've already established that. Now we're just bargaining for price."

 

Maybe not a funny joke, but it's certainly how I see the whole argument regarding product placement in a movie about toys.

 

An understandable point, but the original series weren't as intrusive. There were of course commercial during the show, but never embedded in the program itself. I have never condoned movie-based merchandise when it's broadcasted outside the movie/episode itself.

except that, GI Joe and Transformers were both giant walking talking commercials. I mean they designed all the characters to be toys rather than to be animated characters. How much more product placement do you need than "We've already made the toys children!"

 

Really, no difference at all? Take some newer shows with even more blatant self-marketing, like Pokemon. Are people driving around in GM cars? Are they playing the Nintendo Wii? Are they drinking Pepsi-Cola? Are they using Motorola cellphones? All of that filmed slow-paced, making sure that you don't miss it.

 

Another reason on why i disliked the military "F*CK YEAH!" attitude in the movie, earth military had nothing on the Transformers. Such things were simple mosquito stings for them. It was more of a "F*CK NO!".

 

But these errors are only scratching the surface of a movie that sucked a lot, even for a summer blockbuster perspective.

[Hurlshort]

I'd imagine if you were a big fan of the TV series and the original movie, it would be harder to be a fan of this one. Personally, I was pretty young when I played with the toys and watched the TV show, and I never really got too into it. So I guess that's why the Spec Ops squad laying down fire on that Scorpion thing was more exciting than inaccurate to me. I loved the use of military technology in the film.

 

The problem for you Mesh, is that it's gotten critical acclaim, I've heard nothing but positive buzz from most folks,a nd it's definitely having box office success. So although you may feel it sucks, unfortunately all other signs point to "great movie".

[Meshugger]

I'd imagine if you were a big fan of the TV series and the original movie, it would be harder to be a fan of this one. Personally, I was pretty young when I played with the toys and watched the TV show, and I never really got too into it. So I guess that's why the Spec Ops squad laying down fire on that Scorpion thing was more exciting than inaccurate to me. I loved the use of military technology in the film.

 

The problem for you Mesh, is that it's gotten critical acclaim, I've heard nothing but positive buzz from most folks,a nd it's definitely having box office success. So although you may feel it sucks, unfortunately all other signs point to "great movie".

 

No.

 

By that criteria, everything mainstream (MTV-yoyo's, hack movies and popular culture in general) is considered great.

 

Never, EVER use popular magazines and box office results as an indication for a good movie/music CD/game. Use your own criteria on what you think that is good or entertaining, think for yourself. I never had a problem with people thinking it's a good movie, judging from want they think about it. If you like it, good. If i don't like it, good.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Im going to see it in a few hours, the paper reviewed it as "bottomlessly bad" but Im seeing it only for the effects... which Im entitled to do, being a computer graphics person and all

 

 

so its "research"

[Meshugger]

Im going to see it in a few hours, the paper reviewed it as "bottomlessly bad" but Im seeing it only for the effects... which Im entitled to do, being a computer graphics person and all

 

 

so its "research"

 

Oh, CGI-effects were top-notch. If you're going to see for only that reason alone, then you're not getting disappointed.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Verdict:

 

 

Great effects and some really cool action scenes, but to focus on humans in a film about robots is madness. Also, the Transformers new design isnt working, they lack visual personality and its sometimes difficult to actually tell them apart.

 

 

 

It seems that whenever Hollywood adapts something into a film, theres always some completely clueless people behind the wheel who thinks theyre improving the base concept when in fact theyre pissing all over it. This film wasnt too bad, but in some cases its like you come to them with a recipe for chocolate cake and the end product is a tiny, tasteless muffin.. coloured brown but without actual chocolate.

[Walsingham]

I agree, kaft. Every time Hollywood gets involved they trample the original creative genius. To borrow your baking metaphor it's like somebody invents a new muffin idea. kunquat and carob or something. And because it's special and tasty it sells well. A big Hollywood bakery turns up with 'specialists' and they decide that what the public really want is a blueberry and chocolate muffin. Then they are annoyed when the public fail to get excited.

[Nartwak]

I really liked the movie. There was a great crowd at my theatre and I just went with the flow. Personally I don't notice products at all, so when they filmed some cars who were also the main characters I didn't **** myself in fury. Of course as an adult I also realize ninety-nine percent of the objects I interact with on a daily basis are brand name goods; so that may have something to do with it.

Edited July 9, 2007 by Nartwak

[Sand]

Saw the movie. I wasn't impressed.

[Cantousent]

I agree, kaft. Every time Hollywood gets involved they trample the original creative genius. To borrow your baking metaphor it's like somebody invents a new muffin idea. kunquat and carob or something. And because it's special and tasty it sells well. A big Hollywood bakery turns up with 'specialists' and they decide that what the public really want is a blueberry and chocolate muffin. Then they are annoyed when the public fail to get excited.

 

The public got excited. I mean, the comic book guys out there are probably all bunched up in rage, but the film has been received very well by the public. I'll probably end up seeing it on DVD.

[Tale]

I saw it twice.

[Arkan]

I saw it twice.

 

iJealous