Transformers Age of Extinction

Sad Professor

So who is playing the Shia role? Reynor or Wahlberg?

Mickeroo

pixelburp wrote: »

Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, shame on me
Fool me a third time, I possibly have brain damage.

A fourth time? No, just no. I figured #3 might be tolerable if I went as part of a big group - safety in numbers and all that - but errrrrgh. This time I absolutely mean it - Transformers 4 shall not purloin my wallet again damnit.

You're right of course, but I know I'm going to end up seeing it.

People are assuming that he will be playing a lead, for all we know he may have 10 minutes of screentime. Yes Bay released a statement regarding him but with What Richard Did getting great reviews and opening in the US soon it would not surprise me to find that Bay simply wants to be know as the man who discovered this talent.

Galvasean

That's a good point Darko. Didn't he try to take credit for discovering Will Smith shortly after his falling out with Megan Fox?

Squ

I enjoyed the first film, second one was beyond crap, so didn't bother with the third one.

But with no. 4 being the start of a new trilogy, might give it a look.

DirkVoodoo

Deleted User wrote: »

People are assuming that he will be playing a lead, for all we know he may have 10 minutes of screentime. Yes Bay released a statement regarding him but with What Richard Did getting great reviews and opening in the US soon it would not surprise me to find that Bay simply wants to be know as the man who discovered this talent.

Well, I'm not sure why he wouldn't just say "I've cast a really great young Irish guy in T4", instead he said:

I just hired a great new actor for Transformers 4 to star against Mark Wahlberg

To me "star" and "against" have a very specific meaning in movies, although I suppose it wouldn't be beneath Bay to simply do this to garner publicity for what you are suggesting.

Galvasean

"great new actor" implies that he's looking to take discovery credit alright.

DirkVoodoo

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Well, I'm not sure why he wouldn't just say "I've cast a really great young Irish guy in T4", instead he said:



To me "star" and "against" have a very specific meaning in movies, although I suppose it wouldn't be beneath Bay to simply do this to garner publicity for what you are suggesting.

Remember that Bay did try to take credit for discovering Will Smith and while Bay did give his career a massive boost, Smith was well on way to being a big name.

brianregan09

Why do we need a Shia character in the 1st place .....worst part of the 3 movies

pixelburp

brianregan09 wrote: »

Why do we need a Shia character in the 1st place .....worst part of the 3 movies

Audience surrogate.

krudler

Just drop having it set on earth altogether and set it on Cybertron, you know the war at the beginning of TF3 we briefly glimpse? that.

wampyrus77

is sam back

when going put Spike and Sparkplug in the movies

paddy kerins

wampyrus77 wrote: »

is sam back

when going put Spike and Sparkplug in the movies

No. And never, probably

ThirdMan

Spielberg lends his name to an awful lot of crap. How can he reminisce, almost teary-eyed, at the loss of an era and the magic of movie making, while simultaneously 'producing' these bloated pieces of anti-cinema? There's nothing wrong with blockbusters, special effects or franchises. We all have different tastes, and it's great that there's something for everyone. But there's no reason for directors to presume that there audience are sexed up and dumbed down idiots.

Galvasean

ThirdMan wrote: »

But there's no reason for directors to presume that there audience are sexed up and dumbed down idiots.

Based on the popularity of Jersey Shore and it's 6 million knock offs, I'd have to disagree with that statement.

ThirdMan

A mainstream blockbuster doesn't need to be idiot-proof to be hugely successful. That's all I'm saying. I'm not concerned with what's happening on television.

Inception is a good example of an intelligent blockbuster with golden box-office receipts. Of course not every mainstream movie will be as successful, and not everyone wants an intelligent movie. But I'm speaking specifically about Spielberg, and the type of projects he lends his name to.

He is possibly the most powerful person in Hollywood. As a fan of his, I'd like to see him endorse more projects which are worthy of the standards he has set for himself for so long. Even when he's at his most commercial he displays a level of integrity that Michael Bay, etc. just cannot match.

I know I'm just a random guy offering an opinion, but I'm not speaking out of bitterness. I'm not a huge Transformers fan, but I have fond memories of the franchise all the same. It would just be great to see these things handled a little better, and not just milked dry. Again, I'm not a G.I. Joe fan, but have you seen how ridiculous the new trailer looks? The bar has been raised in terms of Summer blockbusters, particularly by Christopher Nolan. And you can't help but feel that if someone like Spielberg started to push this type of filmmaking then might it become more regular.

But that's just how I see it. I'm sure plenty of you will feel different.

Galvasean

I see where you're coming from and definitely take your point re: Spielberg lamenting the golden age of cinema, but sticking his name on absolute cack. He's something of a hypocrite in that regard.
I guess with stuff like Transformers though, they do see things like Jersey Shore doing so well and decide to tap into the market. Stupid movies for stupid people - Hollywood being lazy. It's a shame that Transformers can't have a smarter movie adaptation. As a fan I can testify that there have been some cracking storylines over the course of the near 30 years of Transformers stories being written. Heck, some episodes of the old 'toon were an awful lot more thought provoking than the last couple of movies.
Next month sees the reissue of the original Jurassic Park. I think somebody should take Spielberg to see it and remind him of the time when his name was seen as a mark of quality.

ThirdMan

I agree. The more people respond to a certain product, the more it will be churned out.

You can see it on TV with the proliferation of those talent shows. Why would ITV risk developing a new Sunday night drama (like they used to), when they have the X-Factor, a show based on an unchanging format, that can be repeated over and over and over and over.*

Likewise, why should the big movie studios develop thought provoking blockbusters when the by-the-numbers stuff is raking it in? Well, actually, the answer here is more complicated, because even though studios don't need to develop these movies, they should. Because as Inception, The Dark Knight and The Avengers have shown, there is huge profits to be had when these productions hit the sweet spot.


* Like a monkey with a miniature cymbal.

BlitzKrieg

the avengers was great fun with very entertaining characters...but thought provoking?

krudler

I really wish they'd just write the Transformers themselves as actual characters and not interchangeable, indistinguishable robots. We don't care about Shia, or his dumbass parents, or their humping everything dog, or his college friends or crazy boss, we. don't. care. Nobody, not one person went to see TF2 or 3 looking to see how Sam's story progressed, it's all about the Transformers. There's a huge backlog of mythology and stories to take from the TF universe, no need to write dumbed down stupid crap for these.

ThirdMan

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

the avengers was great fun with very entertaining characters...but thought provoking?

I thought The Avengers was a successful film, and certainly more sophisticated than a lot of the comic stuff. But you're right. I use the words thought-provoking and I shouldn't have. It's nowhere near Inception in that department.

Incidentally, have many people here seen The Adjustment Bureau. It's not without its problems, but it was an interesting enough piece. It almost tripled its production costs at the box-office. That's not a huge amount when you consider the type of profits these companies do be chasing. Nonetheless it shows there is room in the market for 'ideas based' sci-fi.

markfinn

There is only one transformers movie. It has 80's rock playing continually from the first second of footage through to the last name on the end credits. Its primary plot premise is that "Good Guys" can continue to function as a team despite the death of their charismatic leader, while "Bad Guys" will bicker among themselves until dominated into obedience.

Starscream25

michael bay really messed up the transformers franchise for me, it really is a big load of donkey ****e, it wont be redeeming itself if they stick with him but as someone said earlier its all about the money and unfortunately there is a market for this type of thing. the cartoons were great stuff tho. this always gives me a laugh tho
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1_6D9QS9Y

Galvasean

ThirdMan wrote: »

Incidentally, have many people here seen The Adjustment Bureau. It's not without its problems, but it was an interesting enough piece. It almost tripled its production costs at the box-office. That's not a huge amount when you consider the type of profits these companies do be chasing. Nonetheless it shows there is room in the market for 'ideas based' sci-fi.

Didn't realise it was such a big success. Have it on BluRay. An interesting little piece for sure.

pixelburp

ThirdMan wrote: »

Spielberg lends his name to an awful lot of crap. How can he reminisce, almost teary-eyed, at the loss of an era and the magic of movie making, while simultaneously 'producing' these bloated pieces of anti-cinema? There's nothing wrong with blockbusters, special effects or franchises. We all have different tastes, and it's great that there's something for everyone. But there's no reason for directors to presume that there audience are sexed up and dumbed down idiots.

Well now, see here's the thing, it might make it easier for people to dismiss the Transformers films as fodder for the great unwashed idiots out there, but plenty of us here on Boards saw the films if we threw our hands up and admitted it. Hell, I don't mind owning up that I saw all 3 in the cinema, by my own volition (albeit using a group to dampen the pain). I'm not an idiot, ok I'm no J. Ultimate but I like to think that my taste in films is fairly refined, wide-ranging and tasteful, and yet for my sins I have seen the Transformers films. Heck, I kinda enjoyed parts of #1 & Spielbergs influence could be seen in that first film.

I don't think it's so cut and dry to just chalk these films up as catnip for the Jersey Shore generation; clearly they're cinematic dross - on that we can all agree (although I recall erstwhile posters around here claiming otherwise) - but still they draw us in all the same; whether it's with promises of "this time it'll be good", or the tug of the nostalgia strings, or maybe just the secret love for inane tits & explosions we dare not admit, who knows.

Maybe it's just that they're the cinematic equivalent of the late-night greasy burger - there's no way in hell we'd ordinarily chomp down on such garbage during the day-time, but in moments of weakness we think to ourselves hey, they could be allright?

Starscream25

they really are bad films in my opinion. have seen the 1st one a few times, fell asleep watching 2nd one, i didnt bother seeing the third one, i couldnt endure anymore, more of a kids films really, id put them in the same vein as the newer star wars films, very brightly coloured and cheesy as ****, they know their market and selling as many toys and actions figures as possible afterwards seems to be a more primary objective nowadays than producing a well scripted more refined film with these sort of blockbuster type shows. but each to their own, film is what brings us together.
autobots role out

Galvasean

pixelburp wrote: »

but still they draw us in all the same; whether it's with promises of "this time it'll be good", or the tug of the nostalgia strings, or maybe just the secret love for inane tits & explosions we dare not admit, who knows.

That's what brought me to part 3. That and the sirenic trailer. I saw it in the cinema. Hated it. They were playing the trailer on the way out and my initial reaction was, "That looks awesome... hey wait a minute!"
I'm one of those who enjoys the first one for what it is. It's no classic, but it gets kind of a bad rep. based on its follow ups. Heck, #2 even has its charm, in a surreal "Why the hell is Shia Lebouff in robot heaven" kind of way....

JP Liz V1

Kelsey Grammer and Stanley Tucci have joined the cast

krudler

Sideshow Bob in a Transformers movie, score

constitutionus

well at least the cast is good.



i fully expect bay to do what he usually does though. grammer DID manage to put something decent into his role in the god awfull third x men film so maybe he can squeeze a bit of gold into the 4th TF one.