View Full Version : Transformers

01-02-2012, 09:39 AM
This is for discussion pertaining to all three Bay films, the G1 cartoon/movie, Beast Wars, TF:Animated, TF:Prime, TF:Rescue Bots, TF:Kiss Players, etc., etc., etc.

But mostly the Bay films and any news on TF4.

Anytime I catch someone trolling these movies (or any others) for not being what they aren't, I pretty much just refer them to this hilariously badass and poignantly insightful rebuttal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTWZhu3BugQ&feature=BFa&list=FL9HZDZmK6NyU ozEBpf5H87A&lf=mh_lolz

Pretty in-your-face trailer, lol. I'm half-surprised Bay didn't pick this up and push it as an official trailer!

Anyway, I love this franchise. I love these movies.

Can't wait for TF4, in whatever form it takes.


Here's some cool TF stuff I thought I'd post to get things started:

First TF Commercial Ever
(For the '84 Marvel Comics Debut)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9-7RjhFzpM&feature=BFa&list=FL9HZDZmK6NyUozEBpf5H87A &lf=plpp_video

Every TF TV Intro
(Part One of Four)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZuzP_JANkw&feature=BFa&list=FL9HZDZmK6NyU ozEBpf5H87A&lf=plpp_video

TF: Rescue Bots Intro
(Brand New Cartoon for Kiddies)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGQle0Zo7Mw&list=FL9HZDZmK6NyUozEBpf5H87A& index=1&feature=plpp_video
TF: Kiss Players
(Transform and Perv Out!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZvUg2c649Y&feature=BFa&list=FL9HZDZmK6NyU ozEBpf5H87A&lf=plpp_video

Instruments of Destruction
(G1/Movieverse Decepticon Tribute)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gl0qvaSWwo&feature=BFa&list=FL9HZDZmK6NyUozEBpf5H8 7A&lf=plpp_video
Ironhide Tribute

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OaSGN5rloE&feature=BFa&list=FL9HZDZmK6NyU ozEBpf5H87A&lf=plpp_video

bobbie solo
01-03-2012, 01:00 AM
ugh. sorry, you're not convincing me, and probably alot of others people on here. and that ballet/opera argument just solidifies why i don't like either of those genres. you can do big action like Bay does without dumbing it down SO much that it's silly and unwatchable for most adults. It doesn't have to be practically perfect like The Dark Knight/Inception/T2 etc, but it doesn't have to be the inane stupidity of Transformers 2 either. there is a middle ground.

01-03-2012, 02:05 AM
ugh. sorry, you're not convincing me, and probably alot of others people on here. and that ballet/opera argument just solidifies why i don't like either of those genres. you can do big action like Bay does without dumbing it down SO much that it's silly and unwatchable for most adults. It doesn't have to be practically perfect like The Dark Knight/Inception/T2 etc, but it doesn't have to be the inane stupidity of Transformers 2 either. there is a middle ground.

agreed, I'm pretty sure its not trolling to say 'I didn't like the movies due to them being confused grab bags of action scenes and cliched plot'. Other films have gotten the balance right.

Anyway, my favorite piece of Transformers was my old video cassette of 'The Return of Optimus Prime', I watched it so much I wore it out. Which is odd as I can barely remember what happens. Something to do with evil red dust, the matrix and lots of people/robots fighting. Come to think of it, it probably makes about as much sense as the Michael Bay movies. Ahh the rose tinted nostalgia glasses...

01-03-2012, 12:41 PM

This is the only thing that even made me remotely consider watching the 2nd movie. Though i can see the appeal of them i just can do it.

01-03-2012, 01:33 PM

This is the only thing that even made me remotely consider watching the 2nd movie.
It's an absolutely accurate review, which actually prompted me to shell out my own money and watch Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen — The IMAX Experience. I read somewhere that Michael Bay himself didn't even watch the IMAX version (which has different shots from the theatrical release).

This experience in turn prompted a group of friends and I to go watch Dark of the Moon at a drive-in theatre, hoot with laughter at the sheer audaciousness of its ridiculous plot, and throw popcorn at each other in a kind of nihilistic baccanalia.

01-03-2012, 11:10 PM
I for one am not afraid to admit to enjoying the films. Well... aside from Revenge of the fallen. ROTF was pure rubbish after watching Dark Of The Moon.
DOTM was the epic Sequel to the first movie we should have received. In fact, in preperation of going to see the 3rd movie, I made my girlfriend watch number 1, which she never saw, and I told her, you don't need to see number 2, trust me. After watching the 3rd, we skimmed the 2nd after and she agreed the 2nd was just a waste of time and pure crap and shouldn't have been in the trilogy.

I thought the 3rd was rather epic, the final 30 minutes of movie was just truly amazing with the whole battle betweem the autobots and deceptacons. THAT last 30 minute battle scene is why we go to these movies, THAT is what we want... 2 hours of robots fighting each other. I don't care about the humans or the acting or the storyline, it's a transformers movie for christs sake, you know it's not going to win an Oscar, but you know that going into it, you know exactly what you are getting before going into it, so anyone who comes out complaining it was shit isn't a true fan.

I mean, when did the TF ever have an in depth story? It was always about Decptacons trying to gather as much energon as they could to take over Cybertron and defeat the autobots. The human sidestory crap is just a marking scheme from Bay and the studio to try and widen the audience to as broad as a spectrum as they possibly can, because they know the average film goer wants more then 2 hours of robots fighting.

But i'll gladly support this franchaise to continue, just bought the blu-ray for dark of the moon and it looks beautiful!

01-04-2012, 07:15 PM
The reason I can't really forgive the sequels is because I actually thought the first had a pretty good script. REALLY GOOD if you are considering the genre and subject matter. So you know these guys can come up with something decent where story and characters are concerned. Its almost like they just decide not to, which would almost be fine if the movies weren't so god damn long.

Emil Dorbell
01-05-2012, 04:33 AM
Fuck Harry Potter. Transformers 3 was cut from imax theatres early because EVERY FUCKING IMAX THEATRE IN THE WORLD had to show Harry Potter and ONLY Harry Potter. I was in LA this summer and had plans to see it (we don't have imax in Sweden), no such luck.

02-06-2012, 03:06 AM

02-10-2012, 03:43 PM

Cost of Ride: 150 Dollars

Length of Ride: 5 Minutes

Average Cost: 30 Dollars per Minute

Getting Shit Out of Devastator's Ass in 3D:


Conan The Barbarian
02-10-2012, 04:14 PM
so its basically spider man the ride.

02-10-2012, 09:25 PM
Hmm, Well I'm going to be in LA this weekend, and when I found out the Transformers Ride wasn't going to be open til May I was a little choked...
But after seeing that, I can say I'm not missing much. thanks random ride bootlegger from Singapore!

02-13-2012, 01:18 AM



By Daniel Henninger

Pope John Paul II, surveying from his seat in the eternal hereafter the battle between the American Catholic Church and the Obama administration over mandated contraception services, must be permitting himself a sad smile. The pope knew more than most about the innate tensions between the state and its citizens.

The Obamaites will object that it is unfair to liken their government to the Communist Party of Poland. That is not the point. What the former Karol Wojtyla knew is that any state will claim benevolence on behalf of doing whatever it thinks it needs to do in pursuit of its goals.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney invoked the good in defense of the Obama law's universal reach: "The administration decided—the president agrees with this decision—that we need to provide these services that have enormous health benefits for American women and that the exemption that we carved out is appropriate."

The American Catholic Church, from left to right, is now being handed a lesson in the hierarchy of raw political authority. One hopes they and their supporters will recognize that they have not been singled out. The federal government's forcings routinely touch other groups in this country—schools, doctors, farmers, businesses. The church's fight is not the whole or the end of it.

Since he appeared, no other word has been invoked more often to describe Barack Obama's purposes than "transformative." Last year, Mr. Obama began to be criticized by some of his supporters for being insufficiently transformative while holding the powers of the presidency—this despite passing the biggest social entitlement since 1965, an $800 billion stimulus bill, raising federal spending to 24% of GDP and passing the Dodd-Frank restructuring of the U.S. financial industry. Naturally an interviewer this week asked Mr. Obama why he hadn't been more "transformative." The president replied that he deserved a second term, because "we're not done." In term two, it will be Uncle Sam, Transformer.

For many years, Catholic Charities U.S.A. has taken federal money to enlarge its budget. The people who run the Catholic Church, though not everyone in the pews, thought this was a good bargain. Here is the head of Catholic Charities, in 1997, describing the relationship: "We have been partners with government to help government do what it wants to do and what we believe it should do."

This 1997 statement was in response to criticism leveled at Catholic Charities back then by freshman U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who attacked the organization for its opposition to welfare-reform legislation. Mr. Santorum said welfare hurt rather than helped poor families.

Over decades, this deal with the federal government didn't change, even as Catholic bishops closed churches and parochial schools across the country for lack of funds. Here is Sr. Carol Keehan's statement when the House in 2009 passed the Obama health-care bill with only one Republican aye vote: "The Catholic Health Association applauds the U.S. House of Representatives and President Obama for enacting health care legislation that will bring security and health to millions of American families." Let the record show that the Catholic bishops opposed the legislation, fearing a conflict with the church's beliefs.

So here we are, with the government demanding that the church hold up its end of a Faustian bargain that was supposed to permit it to perform limitless acts of virtue. Instead, what the government believes the deal is about, more than anything else, is compliance.

Politically bloodless liberals would respond that, net-net, government forcings do much social good despite breaking a few eggs, such as the Catholic Church's First Amendment sensibilities. That is one view. But the depth of anger among Catholics over this suggests they recognize more is at stake here than political results. They are right. The question raised by the Catholic Church's battle with ObamaCare is whether anyone can remain free of a U.S. government determined to do what it wants to do, at whatever cost.

Older Americans have sought for years to drop out of Medicare and contract for their own health insurance. They cannot without forfeiting their Social Security payments. They effectively are locked in. Nor can the poor escape Medicaid, even as the care it gives them degrades. Farmers, ranchers and loggers struggled for years to protect their livelihoods beneath uncompromising interpretations of federal environmental laws. They, too, had to comply. University athletic programs were ground up by the U.S. Education Department's rote, forced gender balancing of every sport offered.

With the transformers, it never stops. In September, the Obama Labor Department proposed rules to govern what work children can do on farms. After an outcry from rural communities over the realities of farm traditions, the department is now reconsidering a "parental exemption." Good luck to the farmers.

The Catholic Church has stumbled into the central battle of the 2012 presidential campaign: What are the limits to Barack Obama's transformative presidency? The Catholic left has just learned one answer: When Mr. Obama says, "Everyone plays by the same set of rules," it means they conform to his rules. What else could it mean?

Anyone who signs up for more of this deal by assuming that it will never force them to fall into line is getting what they deserve.

Write to henninger@wsj.com


I'm a member of a TF fansite that doles out "News Credit" points to its members for referring them to TF-spottings to post on their TF news-site, so when my dad, who subscribes to the WSJ, showed me this article I thought FOR SURE I'd get my first News Credit.

I wound up with an fucking INFRACTION instead, the ungrateful assholes!

I'm a fucking n00b there and it was my first stab at contributing to the news forum, but they brought the banhammer down anyway.

Apparently, there's an obscure, site-specific rule there about NO DISCUSSION OF POLITICS, RELIGION, OR ABORTIONS.

D'oh! Triple-Whammy!

We're talking about a movie with a cameo from BILL FUCKING O'REILLY, mind you.


02-13-2012, 01:44 AM

the rest is fucking garbage

02-13-2012, 09:29 PM
for JUNE 29, 2014!!!



There has been a lot of speculation about what I'm going to do next and when or if I will do another Transformers. So let me set the record straight.
I have just concluded a deal with Paramount to do two movies, but it won't be two Transformers.

I will first do 'Pain & Gain' with Mark Wahlberg and Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson.

Then I will do the next Transformers for release on June 29, 2014.

-Michael Bay

http://www.michaelbay.com/blog/files/1151a5b01c72685dd3aec0809b964f31-749.php (http://www.michaelbay.com/blog/files/1151a5b01c72685dd3aec0809b964f31-749.php)

MUST. NOT. DIE. (http://daycalc.appspot.com/06/29/2014)

02-13-2012, 10:27 PM
Michael Bay, you're a cunt and I hope you die!

02-16-2012, 01:52 AM
Michael Bay, you're a cunt and I hope you die!

Nah, it has potential.
AKA: No more Shia Labeouf and just 2 flat hours of giant robots fighing, and i'm sold!

Highly Psychological
02-16-2012, 03:22 AM
The whole franchise is really gross and disgusting. Spending 200 Million on such crap. Just seems like so much money these studios are throwing around, like it means nothing. Just to exploit impressionable people, seeing Tranformers 4 is not going to benefit anyones life. They are calling it 'Cinema'. Pawning off an art form. And saying it all just FUN!! All that matters is special effects......If the films were not so boring i would not give a shit, its just the films are so subpar people should not have to stand for such low standards. Like they dont care about the product they are putting out as long as they make money. Was really evident in the second film. Made people's hair fall out. Just stress from it all.
This is all so that Studio Execs and Michael Bay can get rich and buy loads of Porsche's, Cocaine, Speedboat's, and get laid with 21 year old Blonde, fake titty Hollywood desperate wannabe actresses.
Michael Bay has macho, boyish charm attached to him....i just find him repulsive.
Seriously though the second one was so bad.. and it made 900 million. Thats like the GDP of a third world country. A film about robots......

02-16-2012, 07:11 AM
Just to exploit impressionable people, seeing Tranformers 4 is not going to benefit anyones life.

I don't go to see movies because I think they're going to benefit my life, who the fuck even thinks that. The greatest movie ever made wouldn't have any effect on my life.

Anyway, Bay was pretty adamant that he was done with this franchise after the third one came out, looks like they threw enough money at him that he couldn't resist. I'll end up going to see it, if they cut out all the bullshit that was present in the other movies then it could be supremely bad ass. But I doubt they'll do that so we'll probably get an hour of robots fighting and an hour and a half of dumb humans talking to each other.

02-16-2012, 12:40 PM
But I doubt they'll do that so we'll probably get an hour of robots fighting and an hour and a half of dumb humans talking to each other.

I'm curious if you add up all the footage of robots fighting in each of the 3 movies seperatly (not together), if it would even equal one hour screen time per film, something tells me that's doubtful. The 3rd one might come close, with it being damn near 3 hours. But These movies are like the Alien Vs Predator ones, or freddy VS Jason you get so excited about the premise, only to find out 90% of the movie is about stupid teenagers doing stupid things.

03-15-2012, 05:57 AM
So I was recently been temp-banned by the thought-police at the Heirophant-of-Transformers-fansites (in SO many ways, lol) and had my threads locked unjustly for my controversial-yet-clearly-insightful interpretations of various elements of this film, but the ban was likewise recently lifted and I came out swingin' and, imho, UTTERLY DESTROYED the opposition with my rebuttal:


As I've already established within my earlier thread, The Red Cup FREAKOUT Scene is THE CORE OF THE MOVIE (http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-movie-discussion/510454-red-cup-freakout-scene-core-movie.html), John Malkovitch's character of Bruce Brazos is not only clearly a symbolic cipher for Bumblebee (http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-movie-discussion/510437-bruce-brazos-bumblebee-100-serious.html) but is ALSO a character who serves as a literary device for delivering KEY bits of foreshadowing which encapsulate CORE elements of the movie in a nutshell with his extremely subtle and cleverly conceived dialogue.

Yet another clear-cut example of this is to be found in his lesson to Sam about the importance of choosing the correct career path following one's graduation from college. As the second Transformers film dealt with his collegiate matriculation and the third film begins with his subsequent job search after completing his college studies, Bruce Brazos' brief yet overwhelmingly poignant life-lesson for Sam may likewise be seen as an overview of the entire third film itself, in terms of the overall moral of its story and the film's lessons to its own audience.

And what ARE these lessons?

I hereby submit that the bulk of the film concerns itself with the importance of dealing properly with the "hard decisions" in life, a point readily visible at the very center of the film's primary conflict between Optimus and Sentinel Prime, for example.

One of this film's most controversial masterstrokes is the liberation of Optimus' character from the constant dithering and self-doubt which had so often plagued him in past incarnations, as well as his idealism-to-a-fault which had painted the character into so many corners and kept him from finally winning the war for Cybertron, a problem from which Sentinel clearly did not suffer. As Optimus himself confesses to Sentinel, "I've wondered what might have been if you had fought the final battle instead of me."

The animated 1986 Transformers film even went so far as to kill off Optimus entirely and replace him with the far more rash and impulsive yet likewise definitively more decisive Hot Rod to circumvent this problem, whose ascension as leader of the Autobots as Rodimus Prime even suggested that all previous Primes were mere warm-up acts for he, "the chosen one," who would lead the Autobots to ultimate victory and finally save Cybertron from complete destruction.

In the absence of that role, however, the live action films instead resolve this issue by teaching Optimus himself to settle and work through his doubts for the sake of the greater good by forcing himself to commit to making these hard decisions on his own; in a way the final, greatest, and most morally complex lesson taught to him by his wayward mentor Sentinel.

At the heart of their philosophical battle, of course, was the choice to either forsake their homeworld entirely in favor of adopting Earth as their new home, or else to forsake their ideals as Primes -- "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" -- and to indeed forsake Earth itself in favor of rebuilding Cybertron with the enslavement of humanity, the age-old war over which had claimed countless Cybertronian lives over thousands of years, ravaged Earth, and indeed rendered Cybertron itself a dead world.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...

03-15-2012, 05:58 AM


Absolute filmmaking GENIUS!!!


Furthermore, one might easily extrapolate from this primary visual and thematic motif a greater sense of understanding for the moral dilemmas faced by the rest of the principle characters as well.

The stunted-yet-ultimately-rekindled romance of Simmons and Mearing and his played-for-a-laugh punishment for being so bold may seem like a strange endpiece for the entire film -- and it certainly is, lol -- but as it directly echoes this same overall moral with its resolution of the choice he makes to pursue and reignite the passion they shared in Quantico rather than remaining mired bitterness in the wake of having had his heart torn out by her when she left him, I believe it begins to make a bit more sense as a celebratory emphasis of this central idea. Their smiles say it all. CORRECT PATH.

Sentinel Prime, obviously, chose wrongly and betrayed his own idealism and consequently paid dearly. He sided with the Decepticons rather than the Autobots and chose Cybertron instead of Earth and paid the ultimate price for it, even spending untold hundreds of years in stasis and half-dead on the Moon before being revived and finally executed for his betrayal by Optimus. LIFE-SUCKING ABYSS.

Optimus Prime, conversely, faced his dilemma and maintained his ideals as a Prime courageously, earning his final reward of a new home and, ultimately, victory and peace at last, following his finishing off of Sentinel and rejection of Megatron's too-little-too-late and disingenuous offer of a truce. CORRECT PATH.

Even Megatron himself was originally able to see the ultimate folly of his ways in the original script (until his fate was reconsidered, of course) and set aside war to instead strive for peace and harmony. Elements of this change-of-heart remain in the film and are front and center in the comic and novel adaptations despite the more violent and decisive end of the finished film...but still. CORRECT PATH.

Well, almost anyway...haha.

Nonetheless, Megatron finds himself in either case also faced with the realization that his plans to rule over all of Cybertron AND Earth have been subverted and that he will no longer be master of both planets but rather "nothing more than Sentinel's bitch." A bit of a darker spin on it, lol, but still. CORRECT PATH.

Up until the new, more violent and decisive conclusion of his battle with Optimus, that is!

Wisely, I think, the filmmakers chose to downplay Megatron's honor and instead gave Optimus the chance to make another hard decision and redeem himself while also acknowledging Megatron's historically all-or-nothing, war-mongering evilness. LIFE-SUCKING ABYSS.

Speaking of which, Carly begins the film utterly unable to cope with Sam endangering himself, even for the sake of saving the world, due to the trauma she suffered at the loss of her brother. Yet by its conclusion she ultimately redeems herself from this mistake by seeing the virtue and wisdom involved in Sam's decision and likewise heroically throws herself into danger by facing down and outwitting Megatron himself to trick him into saving Optimus and, ultimately, the entire planet Earth. CORRECT PATH.

And Dylan of course had multiple opportunities to redeem himself and return to the side of good, particularly once he was no longer forcibly rendered subservient to the Decepticons after passing his wristwatch-bot torture/control device off to Sam and after the Autobots were clearly en route to victory, but instead he chose to maintain his turncoat allegiances and remain enslaved to evil all the way up to his painful and inglorious death. "You chose sides? You chose wrong!" ORLY? Bam. LIFE-SUCKING ABYSS.

Even NEST and the Autobots themselves are forced to decide between honoring the commands of Earth's leaders or -- in their own, more noble way -- to essentially turn traitor themselves and act against those orders for the greater good. CORRECT PATH.

Which leads me to Sam Witwicky.

In many ways he starts the film facing the same dilemmas of maturity most youths are faced with in the real world. He and Bumblebee are old friends with a bond literally beyond words, yet in the wake of their parting for Sam to go to college and the responsibilities they both face with their respective jobs they inevitably grow apart and see less and less of each other. Sam, of course, tries to deal with his abandonment issues and fill this void with surrogates (echoing the Autobots' own abandonment issues and their newfound home on Earth and *ahem* NEST) by attempting to replace his missing pal Bumblebee with his lackluster Datsun and a new job and even his new girlfriend Carly (http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-movie-discussion/510437-bruce-brazos-bumblebee-100-serious.html), to varying degrees of success.

But, naturally, the principal dilemma he faces in this film is dealing with recapturing his former status as HERO versus the more ignoble and unfavorable role of MESSENGER, neatly and cleverly echoed and reinforced by Sam's OTHER dilemma of figuring out a way around the wristwatch-bot torture/control device which forces him to turn traitor against the Autobots and aid in Sentinel Prime's enslavement of humanity by essentially turning him into a human wiretap-spy who's forced to comply under the threat of grievous physical agony (*ahem* "Visceral betrayal (http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-movie-discussion/510454-red-cup-freakout-scene-core-movie.html)," anyone?).

Of course, in the end he's able to outwit his evil new masters by subtly hinting to Optimus that his worthiness of trust has been bitterly compromised -- "No other HUMAN will ever know," he says...and just check out that telling reaction shot of Optimus' face upon hearing it -- and Sam is able to once more save the day and indeed the entire planet Earth for a third time, ultimately reclaiming his status as hero and returning to the arms of his newly-freed lover.

"If we just do what they want, how will we ever live with ourselves?" he asks Optimus, himself, and indeed the very audience of the film.

And the entire film demonstrates to us all how to overcome this dilemma; by making the hard decisions and never forsaking your ideals.


That's how I see the whole thing anyway, and furthermore PRECISELY what I believe the filmmakers intended throughout.

Sure, there's a ton of spectacle to help the medicine go down and some ham-fisted delivery here and there, but I feel it is indeed the overall message of the film and -- surprise, surprise -- that message is either blatantly supported by or otherwise subtly hinted at by almost every single element along the way.

Thank you, Bruce Brazos!


Hope that helps clarify a few things for everyone.


03-15-2012, 11:15 AM
You definitely put more thought into these movies than anyone involved with actually making them did. I'm sure the writers wouldn't have a clue what the fuck you are talking about.

bobbie solo
03-16-2012, 12:39 AM
you're probably going to get banned here one day if you keep bloviating like that...which is all you basically do. here's to hoping.

03-16-2012, 09:02 AM
Haha, I may perhaps have been a bit overly-defensive about it all...but then the threads were put under attack in the first place.

Just trying to share on-topic observations and discussion, man!

Doesn't particularly seem like a rational cause for banning and there's absolutely no need to be so rude and insulting about it. You can feel free to click something else or just skip my posts when you get to them if that's all you've got, thanks.


03-27-2012, 09:50 AM

While Star Trek and Transformers fans seem to have greatly enjoyed Leonard Nimoy's work within BOTH franchises, I don't think it's generally appreciated just HOW cleverly his character's role in Star Trek has been woven into Transformers: Dark of the Moon, an oversight this topic aims to resolve.

Firstly, Nimoy's no stranger to the Transformers franchise, having already voiced the character of Galvatron in the animated '86 movie. But that correlation extends beyond simply voicing Galvatron then and Sentinel Prime now.

Galvatron, of course, was simply Megatron after he'd been saved from the brink of death by an unimaginable power, a situation clearly echoed by Sentinel's resuscitation with the energies of the Matrix, the energy from which was established in the same animated film as being equal to or mightier than the powers of Unicron, Megatron's savior and the creator of his "reformatted" new self as Galvatron. Naturally, Galvatron rebelled against his master to serve his own interest, an overall dynamic similar to Sentinel's rejection of the tenets of the Primes and their belief in never exploiting or sacrificing other sentient life forms, not even for the sake of their own survival or Cybertron's.

Some might call such parallels "reaching." I would however readily counter that if one can accept that the "helmet" of Sentinel Prime was clearly designed to resemble the "helmet" of Rodimus Prime -- and it most certainly was -- and that considering casting Nimoy as The Fallen and later Sentinel stemmed largely from his previous work on the animated film rather than simply his availability to Bay through familial relations, then one must also consider the likelihood that the intentional connections DO NOT simply end there.

If they were going to go through the trouble of courting him for the role of Sentinel Prime in the first place, then they were damned sure going to make it something interesting and worth his while. A feat I believe they've achieved to a superlative degree.

However, those elements merely demonstrate some degree of general correlation between both of his roles in the Transformers franchise. Interesting as that may be, it all positively pales in comparison to the extent to which they've played upon his past in the Star Trek franchise with his role as Sentinel Prime.

Regarding those particular further parallels, their strong facial resemblance to one another is a good place to start.

Yes, the character design for Sentinel began with the directive to re-imagine the face of Sean Connery as that of a Cybertronian. However, many fans have likewise noticed striking similarities to Peter Cullen's and Leonard Nimoy's faces in Sentinel's as well. Certainly, a visual homage to the voice actor of Sentinel's protege Optimus isn't out-of-the-question any more than the possibility of CGI animators referencing video footage of Nimoy's voice-acting sessions for the finished film's facial animation, a very common and effective practice in the field. Yet one must similarly accept that the faces of any number of dour and stern-looking old men could likewise be found to resemble Sentinel's own.

However, it is by the same token worth pointing out that only Nimoy had previously played Spock. Bearing that in mind, I believe that the "antennae" above Sentinel's "eyebrows" resembling exaggerated versions the world-famous Vulcan eyebrows of Spock is by no means coincidental.



And then there's the matter of Sentinel's goatee.

While Sean Connery and Peter Cullen have both had some interesting facial hair over the years, it is again Nimoy who most famously wore a goatee. More to the point, he even did so specifically for an extremely popular and well-known episode of "Star Trek," entitled "Mirror, Mirror," in which we meet Spock's evil doppelganger from a parallel universe gone sour. This of course is echoed by his turn as Sentinel, himself essentially an evil Prime who just so happens to wear his facial "hair" in a style noticeably reminiscent of "Evil Spock's" own primary distinguishing feature:


Which leads me to Spock's dark side, so to speak.

In the reboot/sequel film Star Trek, we meet yet another Spock from a parallel universe, who himself meets his own counterpart...the Spock from the original series!

Following this revelation, Spock reveals to his younger, parallel-universe-self that back in the continuity of the original Star Trek shows and movies he'd embarked upon a quest to save an entire planet using his species' advanced technology. In the course of this failed attempt, however, he was tragically responsible for setting in motion the events which led to the destruction of his own homeworld.

This very same Star Trek film was also written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the same two writers who were the principle writers of the first two live-action Transformers films. Intriguing! Furthermore, in an attempt to more easily distinguish the two Spocks within the same film, they were forced to create a more specific name for the original Spock. In keeping with the idea of a reboot, of course, their parallel universe Spock was simply the new "Spock."

And, that same film also being a sequel, what did they come up with to call the original "Spock" in this new continuity...?



Haha, that's a pretty fun play on the new Star Trek writers' collective background as "the Transformers guys," obviously. I'm sure Ehren Krueger (their co-writer for TF:RotF and principle writer for its sequel, of course) and the rest of the crew thoroughly enjoyed incorporating so many Star Trek-related winks-and-nods into their Transformers film as much as Orci & Kurtzman enjoyed their own subtle little wink-and-nod to Transformers fans in their Star Trek film, albeit one glimpsed only briefly in the end credits.

And the winks-and-nods don't end there!

One could likewise easily make the case for the ultimate destruction of Sentinel's homeworld bearing a purposely distinct resemblance to the ultimate destruction of Spock's homeworld:



Which leads me to the subject of space bridges.

Yes, the space bridges of the Transformers franchise were rather clearly inspired by the transporter beams of the Star Trek franchise. They do originate from the same Transformers cartoon which even recycled the sound effect of Star Trek's doors, after all! Of course, the idea of teleportation as a trope of science fiction predates both franchises, but the transporter beams of Star Trek are by far the most famous and well-known example of the concept.

So one can't help but appreciate the absolutely wonderful congruence of a character with the voice of Spock having invented the pillars to form a space bridge! Genius!

And speaking purely in terms of visuals, the space bridge of TF:DotM is also a rather striking departure from the appearance of Jetfire's space bridge from TF:RotF. However, there IS an altogether different and, I believe, tellingly revealing visual connection to be made with the newer visualization of the space bridge instead...



In fact...



I could also almost SWEAR I've heard Spock, or someone from Star Trek anyway, actually say "commencing transport" in some place or another...but with all the episodes of all the shows (creeping up on 1,000!) not to mention soon-to-be TWELVE movies, I'm expecting to be looking for that one for quite some time, lol. But still. Given the numerous instances of Star Trek references pervasive throughout the Transformers franchise and TF:DotM specifically, I don't particularly think it's getting ahead of myself to chalk this one up as yet another intentional reference, particularly in light of its context.

Haha, I can easily see Nimoy having a good chuckle to himself over THAT line in the recording booth for Sentinel's dialogue!

03-27-2012, 09:51 AM
Speaking of which...

Aside from the more overt Star Trek references in TF:DotM -- Wheelie watching "Star Trek" on TV, Sam describing Dylan's office with "It looks like the Starship Enterprise in here," Bumblebee sampling Spock's dying words to Kirk -- there are unquestionably several more subtle references to Star Trek throughout the film, as detailed above.

Yet there is clearly ONE such reference which is hands down the most subtly blatant and polarizing of them ALL...



A classic Star Trek line blatantly echoed in a Transformers movie.

You either LOVE IT or you HATE IT.

Now, ONE frequent complaint about this scene is rooted in a general misunderstanding of Sentinel's application of the phrase. "How can he say that when we seven BILLION Earthlings EASILY outnumber a couple hundred Cybertronians?"

This issue is however nimbly side-stepped by simply pointing out that we the audience have no real data on the sum total of surviving Cybertronians and must simply assume there are more of them than there are of us.

But I feel that one key word in his statement tells a different story:

"How doomed you are, AUTOBOTS; you simply fail to realize
that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

He's not talking about humans there. He'd already expressed his utter disdain and complete lack of respect for us QUITE clearly by that point.

No, he's talking about the Autobots.

He's addressing them from the point-of-view of a defector to the Decepticons, and just like his evil collaborators he views us as nothing more than insects and a means to an end. We don't factor into his decision making process at all, beyond whatever diabolical use he has for us as his slave laborers. Again, he's talking about the Autobots there, who barely number in the double-digits, mind you, versus the hundreds of Decepticons he's aligned himself with against Earth and its protectors. As if to further underscore this point, he even says that line at precisely the same moment as a Decepticon carrier ship is cruising by right beside him, brimming with invading Decepticons and their attack ships.

Likewise, he's delivering to his former Autobot colleagues the ultimate justification for his plan to defect to their opponents right as he's finally activating HIS solution to their shared problem and just when he's mere moments away from attaining the crowning achievement and purpose of his entire defection in the first place.

In light of all that, his meaning should be completely obvious to anyone paying full attention to the movie or at least that scene. With all those points driving his message home and all in that same, single scene, no less, it's truly baffling how often people still manage to completely misunderstand his plainly straightforward and strongly reinforced meaning with that simple and direct statement. Yet they still do. Ugh.

But the OTHER big problem people seem to have with that scene is of a different sort. "It just feels out of place and is an insult to what the line meant in Star Trek II!"

Needless to say, I couldn't disagree more.

Sentinel is using the same cold logic Spock was demonstrating with his sacrifice -- the logic in both cases essentially being that the ends justify the means -- but in Sentinel's case he's not justifying logically his own sacrifice, but rather the sacrifice he demands of others. And from a viewpoint of pure objectivity his logic is sound. He's trying to save his entire planet and species, after all.

Which is exactly why Sentinel forgave Optimus earlier in the film when he confessed to Sentinel that he often felt doubt in his own leadership. Sentinel reassures him, "Never mourn the past, young warrior; because of you our race survives," because the ends are all he cares about and because Sentinel was attempting to indoctrinate him into his way of looking at "hard decisions," or to at least confuse him long enough to keep him out of his way. Sentinel's goals and intentions were completely noble, he just went that extra step too far and betrayed the very ideals and virtues which represent the best of his species. In contrast, Optimus maintained his high ideals and in turn essentially spelled doom for his planet and people, whereas Sentinel was able to forsake his ideals and would have restored his planet and people at the cost of all that was good in them.

This dynamic, echoed by Sentinel's quote from Spock, is representative of the core messages of the film regarding right and wrong and the hard decisions in life.

Optimus Prime's failure as a leader for being too virtuous is mirrored inversely by Sentinel Prime's failure as a leader for losing his virtue altogether. Optimus essentially sacrificed his planet and his people to end their war the only way he could find to do so, just as Sentinel sacrificed his virtue to save his planet and his people the only he could find to do so. In the end, thankfully, Optimus is able to learn this final lesson of "making the hard decisions" from Sentinel without completely forsaking his nobility and ideals and to instead form a synthesis of their two diametrically opposed approaches to "make the hard decisions" of killing both Sentinel and Megatron, no matter how much they begged or offered truces, and to thereby finally end the war once and for all. In the past, he might well have extended his hand in peace to both or allowed their retreat, but by the end of the film Optimus finally knows what must be done, which values he must forsake to win the war, and where he has to draw the line to preserve what good remains.

Which is succinctly echoed by the entire point of his monologue at the very end of the film. He understands that in the fog of war he will question himself and his decisions and that even his allies may turn against him -- he may even lose his home planet and possibly seal the fate of his entire species -- but THIS planet and THESE people he will NEVER forsake at ANY cost.

Which is in turn what Spock was saying with his final words, Spock and Optimus were simply noble enough to sacrifice themselves even for those who view them as alien and to count them among "the many" or even at all when weighing the positives versus the negatives of their actions, whereas Sentinel was decidedly not.

Spock and Optimus both demonstrate for us all that there are ideals worth dying for and sacrifices worth making for the greater good. The ends do justify the means sometimes. When Spock kills himself to save his crewmates and when Sentinel activates the control pillar to save his planet and when Optimus kills Sentinel and Megatron to end the war, they're ALL using the same justification for different purposes and are all essentially noble characters performing ignoble deeds for a noble end. One of them just simply went too far and tipped the balance over to outright unjust evil.

The choice to sacrifice oneself or kill others is a hard decision that should never be made lightly, but while it can easily be done for ill it can likewise be done for good. The key difference is the ideals and goals which justify the loss of virtue in the deed itself. Finding that balance between the correct path and a life-sucking abyss (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/565-Transformers?p=22352#post22352)is the hard decision Optimus must make and around which practically the entire film revolves.

That concept is CENTRAL to the entire film -- indeed to the very character of Sentinel himself -- and the Spock-quote plays to that idea PERFECTLY.

The fact that the same actor had previously used the line in a noble fashion elsewhere rather than its more malicious context in THIS film dramatically underscores and intuitively demonstrates what Optimus said about Sentinel betraying himself in a way that no other dialogue could have managed.

Many fans seem to think using such a well-known quote while simultaneously turning its meaning on its head was nothing more than an ill-conceived mistake and a bastardization of the quote's source. But what they seem to be missing is that the filmmakers had a chance to use our shared cultural history with Star Trek audiences everywhere to their advantage in demonstrating the lessons of THIS movie, one of the biggest worldwide hits ever. To that end, replacing it with any other line or even omitting it entirely would be sheer folly.

Especially when they're using a Star Trek veteran's voice anyway.

Especially when that voice belongs to a character who's using technology suspiciously similar to Star Trek's transporter beams.

Especially when that voice belongs to a character who's absolutely defined by his betrayal of his own ideals.

Not only does the Spock-quote work, it works on levels which no other line could POSSIBLY have matched, DESPITE the inchoate complaining and misguided nerdrage of a vocal minority.

In short, whether they liked it or not, the ends justified the means.

Or, to borrow a phrase, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.


Conan The Barbarian
03-27-2012, 10:02 AM
Goddamn son LOL.

11-09-2012, 01:36 AM

Well, looks like they've officially cast Mark Wahlberg (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/11/08/transformers-4-gets-a-new-logo-and-mark-wahlberg/) in the next turd. Interesting choice, I guess. Still, I can't wait to not go see this!

11-09-2012, 02:05 AM
^^Who knew there'd be another one?!
In other knews, here's what happens when Michael Bay looks in the mirror/into his wallet: SO FUCKING NSFW (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Ejaculation_educational_ani_short.gif)

Space Suicide
11-09-2012, 03:01 AM
^^Who knew there'd be another one?!
In other knews, here's what happens when Michael Bay looks in the mirror/into his wallet: SO FUCKING NSFW (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Ejaculation_educational_ani_short.gif)

Who knew such gif images were on Wikipedia, damn.

I know this is ironic due to my avatar but there really doesn't need to be any more movies! Freaking overkill!

Not a big fan of any of them really. More of a fan of the cartoon and video games.

11-09-2012, 10:56 PM
I'm actually excited for another movie. People can hate on these movies all they want, but they are fun summer actions flicks, I enjoy them.
Interesting to see what route they take this time around and how they are going to incorporate Mark into the franchaise. Don't really care for him as an actor, but he's better than another episode of Shia LaGoof.

Besides, nobody goes to these films for the acting or what actors are cast. We just want to see the robots fighting. Could care less who they cast in the human roles.

11-18-2012, 04:02 AM
Personally, I'm pretty excited about Mark Wahlberg's inclusion in TF4. He consistently does good work so I'll watch him in pretty much anything. Definitely looking forward to Pain and Gain, too!

Although I was definitely invested in Shia's portrayal of Sam, however. I think it's a shame that they couldn't continue to follow his character, especially considering that after the events of the second film he's essentially what I like to think of as WITWICKY PRIME, closely mirroring the arc of Buster Witwicky from the old Marvel TF comics, and additionally considering that by the third film he's finally met his future wife and the mother of his son Daniel...assuming they follow the arc of the '80s cartoon.

But since TF4 is said to only take place four years after TF:DotM, Daniel wouldn't really be of much use to anyone yet, I guess. Unless they're making Transformers 4: Rescue Bots, lol. Here's hoping that a bit further down the line we can pick things back up with the next generation of the Witwicky family! Maybe once Shia's hungry for another couple billion dollar blockbusters in his career he'll even be willing to return as an older, wiser Sam to help keep Daniel in check when Grandma and Grandpa Witwicky finally explain the-birds-and-the-bees to their grandson, hahahaha.

It would be cool to see Simmons or Lennox or Epps or just N.E.S.T. in general make another few appearances in the meantime, too. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

I also certainly miss Orci & Kurtzmann as the principle writers, but it's good to know that Ehren Kruger will have had over two years to work on the script this time around, at least. Between the writer's strike hamstringing TF:RotF and the last minute firing of Megan Fox coupled with the departure of Orci & Kurtzmann for TF:DotM, we haven't really seen a Transformers movie firing on all cylinders since the FIRST and I think it's about time for them to slow things down and sharpen things up a bit with this new installment.

Regardless, we've still got the Autobots themselves to maintain continuity with the previous trilogy and Peter Cullen's still on board as Optimus so I'm immensely excited about the new movie!


Only 588 days to go!


11-18-2012, 04:30 AM
after part 2, this franchise will get no more of my money. These are some shitty movies.

11-18-2012, 05:33 AM
I'm just hoping TF4 has the Dinobots or at the very least the Unicron story arc, but not sure how likley that is to ever show up in live action format.

Soooo, dinobots and i'm happy!

11-18-2012, 11:57 AM
after part 2, this franchise will get no more of my money. These are some shitty movies.

Amazing how all the bloviating in the world can be undone by two sentences of sheer truth lol. It's fuckin' robots fighting and Michael Bay thinks the movie-going public is full of morons. I wonder if somewhere out there, someone has written a 20 page essay on the movie 'Clueless'? 'Cause that shit's deep, too.

11-18-2012, 01:10 PM
Oh come on, the movies are not that terrible as far as effects and action goes. Now add a good script and some kind of plot that is actually interesting; I would not mind getting another 4 Transformer movies.

01-08-2013, 04:17 PM
Amazing how all the bloviating in the world can be undone by two sentences of sheer truth lol. It's fuckin' robots fighting and Michael Bay thinks the movie-going public is full of morons. I wonder if somewhere out there, someone has written a 20 page essay on the movie 'Clueless'? 'Cause that shit's deep, too.

Hey, there. Kindly go fuck yourself.

Moving on...


I just hired a great new actor for Transformers 4 to star against Mark Wahlberg. Jack Reynor, he is an Irish kid that came to America with 30 bucks in his pocket. Pretty ballsy. Seriously who does that? Anyway I spotted him in a great little Irish movie WHAT RICHARD DID. This kid is the real deal.

Transformers 4, is not a reboot. That word has been floating around on the net.

This movie takes place exactly 4 years after the war in Chicago. The story makes a very natural transition, and reason as to why we have a whole new cast. This Transformers will feel very different then the last three. We are embarking on a new trilogy.



01-08-2013, 04:45 PM
Still gonna suck ass.

01-08-2013, 11:01 PM
No, Transformers can do no wrong.
Most of the time anyway, lol. Revenge of the Fallen was pretty much rubbish.

But I have faith in the new one. The first one was awesome, and I even enjoyed the 3rd one. Nothing beats that 30 min "war" scene in Chicago at the end.
Makes me curious which autobots and deceptacons are even left for the 4th movie. Almost every one of them got annihilated in that movie.


03-20-2013, 06:12 PM

That article has some supposed story details for the next movie, specifically this: "....- all while an ancient, powerful Transformer menace sets Earth in his crosshairs." I don't want to get my hopes up, or even think that they would do it justice, but that sounds a bit like Unicron to me.

05-01-2013, 09:22 AM

That's a short video of test footage of a transformation from ILM. Looks a lot more like the original cartoon versions, would've been pretty cool.

05-01-2013, 10:14 PM
Apparently they've cast the lead human villain for Transformer 4...



09-03-2013, 06:59 PM
Considering it's about time they take this franchise out back and put it out of its own misery, the title's pretty fitting...


09-08-2013, 05:48 AM
All these "Age of" movies coming out is starting to get about as annoying as the "Rise of" movies from recent years, but it's a pretty decent title.

Much better than the titles of the second and third films, at least.

I mean, The Fallen didn't exactly get his revenge and Pink Floyd or whoever obviously cockblocked the title they really wanted the last time around.

Anyway, I'm SUPER excited about this. By all accounts, it seems like the Dinobots are finally going to be brought into the fold here. So between that and the fact that the Cybertronian species is possibly still at death's door without the AllSpark or any alternate source of Energon, a focus on "extinction" makes a lot of sense.

Dying to see this movie!