Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Independence Day for Transformers Live Action

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the decepticons-were-always-cooler dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Transformers, the long-planned, live-action movie based on the robot-morphing cartoon, comic and toy franchise, will roll into theaters July 4, 2007, DreamWorks and Paramount Pictures announced Wednesday. Michael Bay (The Island, The Rock) will direct; Steven Spielberg will executive produce. "

16 of 437 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting, however... by opposume · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let's hope it's not another AI flop. Seriously though, cool concept, but I'm curious as to how they're going to pull it off "live action"

    --
    I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on disk somewhere.
    1. Re:Interesting, however... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let's hope it's not another AI flop.

      I was waiting for someone to mention that. You must understand that A.I. was not Speilburgs movie! The movie was Kubrick's, but he died before he could finish it. Out of professional curtesy and respect for Kubrick himself, Speilburg finished the movie.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    2. Re:Interesting, however... by blighter · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I agree, to a point.

      AI is a very good movie (I'm kind of reserved about excellent, though many of Kubrik's films do qualify in my estimation) up until the point (SPOILER!) where the child robot finds the blue fairy at the bottom of the sea.

      When the scene faded out from him wishing over and over again I thought it was an absolutely beautiful and profound movie.

      Then came the 20 minute welded-on happy ending that completely ruined it for me. I've always wondered if the ending was concocted and hacked on by Spielburg or if Kubrik put it in there himself.

    3. Re:Interesting, however... by Aeiri · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Rather than paying attention to the beauty of the movie and the hard work those actors put in they were bored by long stretches of quiet time and scenes that required thought.

      So, if people put a lot of work into a movie, it is automatically good?

      I have to disagree. I saw AI, and it was not "beautiful". It was not only boring, but the story was horrible, and the scenes were dull. I even like the majority of what Kubrick puts out.

      If you are wanting a strange, beautiful, weird, and strange movie, I would recommend Brazil or The Life Aquatic.

    4. Re:Interesting, however... by sgant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This WAS Kubricks pet project for a long long time. He's the one that developed the story/screenplay from the short story. But it was also said that a long time ago he decided not to direct it and always had Spielberg in mind to direct it while he produced it.

      From the IMDB: "Stanley Kubrick worked on the project for 12 years before his death, but along the way decided to let Steven Spielberg direct saying it was "closer to his sensibilities". The two collaborated for years, resulting in Kubrick giving Spielberg a complete treatment and lots of conceptual art for the film prior to his death."

      But in the end, you're right, it wasn't a Kubrick movie, it was a Spielberg movie and perhaps it would have turned out a tad different if Stanley was alive during the production. But who knows, everyone can play the "what if" game till the cows come home to roost or whatever.

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
  2. Speilberg!? by deft · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wow, how did they get speilberg to sign on for a toy movie? I wonder what his motivation is since he can do whatever the hell he wants... and it's my beloved transformers...

    anyone have any insight?

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
  3. Ah, product marketing... by geders · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can't wait to go to the theater and watch them slaughter the current generation of tranformers to help introduce this years "New and Improved" series of transformer toys! It will be like 1986 all over again...

  4. Live Action? Hmmm... by cshark · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Define live action.

    Seems to me that there would need to be so much computer animation in it to make it work that it might as well be a cartoon anyway.

    --

    This signature has Super Cow Powers

  5. Re:Am I..... by Shkuey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So the transformers was a masterpiece of cartoon art with riveting plotlines? I loved Transformers when I was a kid too, but it was because it was fun. Frankly I doubt they could come up with a less plausible storyline for the movie than the cartoons featured. Hoping to rehash all your nostalgia is most of the reason people hate the rehashing of old greats, and to me this is an unrealistic expectation.

  6. Writers? by j1ggl3x · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's see, according to imdb, here are the billed screenplay writers:
    John Rogers (screenplay) and
    Roberto Orci (screenplay)
    Tom DeSanto story
    Alex Kurtzman screenplay

    Googling around, it seems like John Rogers will be the head writer. His creidts? Catwoman and The Core.
    (Budget/US Box Office)
    Catwoman: $100 million/$40 million
    The Core: $60 million/$30 million

    Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman? Episodes of Alias, the Island, MI3, Zorro sequel. I highly doubt the Island will be good, and sequels just for money usually don't have stellar stories, so not looking too great.

    The only possible saving grace in the bunch is Tom DeSanto who is credited for the story in X-Men. Hollywood must seriously be about the connections. I just don't know how anyone would be willing to invest money in the guy who wrote Catwoman or The Core.

  7. This is a joke, right? by Zobeid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Isn't it a bit late for April Fool hoaxes?

    I mean seriously. . . Transformers? What's next, a big-budget movie adaptation of HR Pufnstuf?

    Yep, I can bet I'm gonna burn a lot of karma on this one. But I just don't get it. We're talking about a cheesy SatAM cartoon designed as a half-hour long toy advertisement. Right? On top of that, its heyday was 20 years ago.

  8. Re:wow Hollywood does it again. by hubie · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It is all a matter of age. When GI Joe, et al. came out (20 or so years ago) I found them all unwatchable and annoying then (poor animation, cliche stories and characters, etc.), just as you find unwatchable whatever they're pushing now. Especially since, to me, GI Joe was supposed to be 9.5-inches tall and had Kung-Fu Grip!

    And it was always irksome then that TV went heavy into a "what about the children?" mode where the cartoon censorship got heavy. I grew up on Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner Show reruns and I still get annoyed when I see a Looney Tunes cartoon with an obvious censored cut such as a removal of a gunshot. GI Joe and other cartoons rubbed me the same wrong way as well. You'd have the HUGE plane crash/explosion and everyone would come running out of the flames unhurt. It was even more annoying in the live-action stuff like The A-Team: the roof-less jeep explodes and flips over, but they make sure to show you that the two riders in the jeep crawl out OK.

  9. Re:Make sure it is the 1980's version by hal200 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Perhaps he's talking about "The Return of Optimus Prime"...Here's a plot summary of part 1...

    Humans using a new experimental metal pilot their ship into the star in
    which the ship piloted by Optimus Prime is burning up. They recue the body and
    bring it back to Earth. One of the scientist has a grudge against Prime and
    Transformers and wants to use him as bait to set the other Autobots up. The
    scientists discover their ship has been covered in spores that induce hate and
    plan to use these on the Autobots. Another scientist warns the Autobots of the
    trap, but she is not informed of the whole plan and the Throttlebots and
    Aerialbots, as well as many Autobots are infected. The Decepticons arrive,
    intending to steal the metal, but are themselves infected, except for
    Galvatron. The infected Transformers go on a rampage, infecting Transformers
    and humans alike. Rodimus escapes and shuts down Metroplex, but is pursued and
    infected by Ultra Magnus. Sky Lynx follows his previous orders and captures a
    Quintesson to rebuild Optimus. They arrive on Earth and Optimus is brought
    back to life.


    Taken from http://www.portents.com/marek/transformers/tfepgd. txt
    --

    I just want to take over the world...Why does that automatically make me EVIL?

  10. Isn't it interesting... by patio11 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How in movies you can say "This will open two years from now on July 4th" and everyone knows it probably will but with video games if you said the same thing anyone with an ounce of sense would say "Third quarter 2008 at the absolute earliest."?

    --
    Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
  11. Re:Make sure it is the 1980's version by KanSer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Any of the Mainframe shows were really good. They were this awesome studio out of Vancouver that are most notorious (depends who you ask) for Reboot. They did subsequent versions of transformers that I absolutely LOVED. Transformers meets a real writer.

    Seriously man, the Mainframe beauties are to transformers what DS9 is to Star Trek. That really awesome show with great production value, entertaining dialogue, massive story arcs, plot twists and damn fine effects. And both are completely unsung and often ignored.

    After this evil director lays this turd is when you should have your first watch of these shows (if you haven't seen it). Just to drive home everything that's wrong with hollywood...

    --
    • MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward Wednesday April 20, @4:20
  12. Re:Make sure it is the 1980's version by srstoneb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not sure how a post that reads like a parody got modded to +5 Insightful. (At least I hope it's a parody. I've certainly seen parodies that are almost identical.)

    He starts out saying how awesome the original series was, then questions why the recent shows which are clearly set in a different continuity aren't just like the old show, and then "reminisces" about the show by half-remembering a few things and misremembering a few others. And he decries the "90's Armada version", which began in 2002.

    It's like saying, "Man, I hope they get this new Superman movie right. I loved in the old stories how Clark Kent was all suave, getting all the ladies, like that reporter chick he worked with sometimes. And then he would go off and fight a really brilliant and cunning villain like Mr. Mxyztplk. If they stay true to those stores, it will be a delight for all of us who watched them."

    Honestly, I don't care if people can't remember anything about their childhood cartoons aside from liking them. I don't care if people haven't re-watched these things as adults and seen their flaws firsthand. But if they haven't, then their opinions on these things are uninformed ones, and they should present those opinions accordingly.

    When a new line of TRANSFORMERS comics was first announced a few years ago from the now-bankrupt company Dreamwave, their president, Pat Lee, made a similar comment. He explained how Sideswipe had always been his favorite character, and how upset he was when he died in the movie. Except... Sideswipe isn't IN the movie. He doesn't appear in a single frame. He was never heavily featured in an episode of the cartoon, or in the comic book. His entire "character" is that he's brash, and he wears a jetpack. Oh, and that one time he made a tunnel with his pile drivers. This is what passed for character development in those days.

    "I really liked that show when I was a kid. I hope I like the movie, too," is a perfectly reasonable wish. But that is not the same thing as hoping they make it just like it was in 1984. The animation is a mess of errors, every other episode involves the invention of a new and powerful device which gets destroyed and never rebuilt, and practically every character, including (if not especially) Prime and Megatron is a complete dumbass.

    When Megatron made a clone of Prime, he carefully explained his plan to Soundwave, then brought the clone out. Soundwave exclaimed, "It is Optimus Prime!" and cowered in fear. When the Autobots realized that there were two Primes, they couldn't tell them apart even though one of them didn't know any his troops' names. They decided to discover the real Prime BY HAVING A RACE.

    "Transformers" was a great children's program, and it has a lot of heart, and a lot of fun ideas. I still enjoy it, but for its nostalgia value, campiness, and lighthearted goofiness; not because it's some sort of perfect series of yesteryear that those cartoon makers today can't match. I watch a *lot* of cartoons, and have since I was young, and in my opinion the programming being produced today is better than ever before. At least, in terms of my current tastes. If I were 10, I don't know whether I would prefer the new TMNT to the old one, or Justice League Unlimited to Superfriends. Young-me *might* like the older shows better, but, I would guess not.

    For anybody who is serious about wanting to reminesce about the Transformers cartoon, I recommend The Cybertron Chronicle, by far the most thorough TF cartoon website there is. As well as transcripts of every episode and an extensive character guide, it also has a bunch of interviews with voice actors, a producer, and the voice director. Nice sites for an overview of all of Transformers history (and in considerably less depth than the Chronicle) are Unicron.com and Ben's World of Transformers.