Independence Day for Transformers Live Action

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. "

Comments

Homepage

[FrontalLobe]

They've already got their homepage set up.
Homepage

Re:Homepage

[ErikZ]

bah. You kids and your bandwidth hogging HTML pages. I actually visited the Mosaic offices when they were working on the first internet browser. "Pictures? You know how long it takes to download pictures over a modem? And look how much space those markups are taking up."

Yeah, if only we could go back and live in 1993 forever man.

Interesting, however...

[opposume]

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"

Re:Interesting, however...

[AKAImBatman]

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.

Re:Interesting, however...

[garcia]

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"

Are you somehow trying to infer that the reason that AI "flopped" was because of the actors not successfully pulling off acting like the director's vision of humanlike robots?

If that's what you meant, I'm sorry to inform you that you are absolutely wrong. The actors did an incredible job of staying true of the vision of humanlike robots. The rest of the story, in typical Kubrikish fashion, was probably less than enthralling for 90% of the viewers because they expect non-stop-action to keep them "entertained". 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.

AI was an excellent movie in those regards and should be watched again by you, and anyone else who thinks otherwise, you might see something you didn't the first time... Perhaps you were only regurgitating what you heard in the media around the release date though?

Re:Interesting, however...

[blighter]

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.

Re:Interesting, however...

[Bitsy Boffin]

The only reason that AI was a _box_office_ flop is that the morons in the world (the majority) when they heard it was a "Science Fiction" movie were expecting guns, shooting, robots killing robots, robots killing humans, explosions, implosions...

AI was an excellent movie, it's not an action movie, perhaps that's part of the reason it's an excellent movie.

Re:Interesting, however...

[Aeiri]

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.

Re:Interesting, however...

[dasunt]

The only reason that AI was a _box_office_ flop is that the morons in the world (the majority) when they heard it was a "Science Fiction" movie were expecting guns, shooting, robots killing robots, robots killing humans, explosions, implosions...

Instead we had a fairy tale that took place in the future, so it was 'Science Fiction.'

So in addition to disappointing those who wanted a popcorn click, it disappointed those who were looking for something more then a retelling of pinocchio with androids.

Re:Interesting, however...

[sgant]

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.

Re:Interesting, however...

[sgant]

The end was pure Spielberg that's for sure. To me, the end should have been with David down at the bottom of the ocean staring at the "blue fairy" for ever...caught in a loop.

Camera pulls out. Screen Goes black. Directed by Steven Spielberg.

No aliens, no cloned mother. Ambiguous ending.

Re:Interesting, however...

[Gulthek]

Wow. Get a good view from that Ivory Tower? Perhaps not.

AI was drek passed off as sophistication by people who fool themselves into thinking it was something profound when it was merely hack philosophy and storytelling. Eloquently presented crap is still crap.

Ooooh, it's so insightful! Wow, that scene really captured the pain of unrequited human emotion even though he is a robot. Look how he never blinks...until the end, that's amazing! Yes, destroying robots highlights the harshness of human nature...but you almost pity the humans at the robot destruction rally because they will never truly experience the beauty of life as robot boy has. The robot boy creates his own belief system that never grants him peace, but science does! What an amazing, insightful commentary on organized religion!

Ok...I feel nauseated now. Great. Maybe I'll go watch Blade Runner so I can watch real insight in a beautiful film. That'll make me feel better.

Re:Interesting, however...

[metamatic]

Get over yourself you miserable fuck. [...] [Y]ou elitist asshole. Wanking off to haughty, overblown crap doesn't make you any more intelligent - it just shows you value a different brand of crap. [...] No pacing, no coherent connection between action and effect, just "here's some shit I thought of when I was fucked up on coke... it's ART. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU DON'T APPRECIATE ART!"

No you idiot your random shit isn't art. And you're not half so smart as you think you are. So please, shut the fuck up, asshole.

What is this, "Ebert and Bill O'Reilly Go To The Movies"?

Re:Interesting, however...

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

were expecting guns, shooting, robots killing robots, robots killing humans, explosions, implosions...

And don't forget hot girl on girl... oh wait, did you say science fiction?

More Than Meets The Eye

[bc90021]

For those who are curious about what "live" action might look like for a robot movie, start here with an intro to the Citroen commercial, and then get the commercial here.

With Spider-Man 3 (May 2007) and the Transformers (July 2007) coming out in the same summer, it looks like I'll be spending a lot of time in the theatre in 2007!

Re:More Than Meets The Eye

[Marc2k]

With Spider-Man 3 (May 2007) and the Transformers (July 2007) coming out in the same summer, it looks like I'll be spending a lot of time in the theatre in 2007!

Yes, precisely. I'd estimate about 4 hours, which beats the crap out of the number of hours I've spent at the theatre this summer.

Re:More Than Meets The Eye

[FauxPasIII]

> You watch comic book movies?
> No wonder women wont suck your cock.

Your double-entendre kung fu is stronger than mine.
Well done.

is it just me

[SirSlud]

I love Transformers. Therefore, I could care less about the movie, because there already *was* a TV show and a movie. I like new ideas, not infinate interpretations on a theme.

Speilberg!?

[deft]

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?

Re:Speilberg!?

[xMilkmanDanx]

Maybe he's already done his Academy Award bid picture for that year and he's looking for his cash a big ole movie check picture?

Not sure that this'll be big money maker though. I mean, I liked the transformers way way way back but come on, that was like...... aww shit I feel old now.

Re:Speilberg!?

[Sawopox]

Speilberg's reason looks like this:

Mr. Speilberg, $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.00 has been deposited to your account. Thanks for the Transformers movie.

Re:Speilberg!?

[mbbac]

If Dreamworks is involved with a movie, it is highly likely that Steven Spielberg will be an executive producer of it.

Speilberg's directing?

[Neil Blender]

Oooo, you know it will be good then.

Stop *planning* for sequels before the first movie

[garcia]

"It will be GREAT," Murphy continued, "and then we will make sequel after sequel. There is no doubt that this is true."

I wasn't aware that a movie being GREAT was a prerequesite for sequels. In fact, why even bother to *plan* on sequels when they aren't necessary?

Why not spend all the time you can being true to the original intent derived from the cartoon and making sure that *this* movie doesn't get the raving piss-poor reviews that Fantastic Four did (people going to see it on opening weekend doesn't mean it's good folks).

Just make the movie and let the market decide whether a sequel is necessary. We're not talking about a story that deserves sequels (like LOTR) either.

Just because it was a serial cartoon doesn't mean the movie has to be.

Transformers: The Movie

[mcsnee]

The article gives short shrift to the animated 1986 "Transformers: The Movie," calling it "little-loved". Personally, I thought it was great... am I the only one?

Re:Transformers: The Movie

[MrAndrews]

It was little loved by my brother, who woke up crying every night for days because Optimus died. On the other hand, it is one of the most quotable movies of all time. They just don't write scripts like they used to...

I love how

[Tebriel]

the movie hasn't even gone through pre-production and people are already extolling/condemning the movie.

Can't we at least wait until there's something a bit more concrete before warring over it?

Why all these remakes?

[kooganani]

Why all these remakes of crap shows? Why can't they do cool shows from the Olde Days like Falcon Crest or Knott's Landing?

Ah, product marketing...

[geders]

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...

After that will be...

[Chosen Reject]

Next will be Thundercats!

Make sure it is the 1980's version

[John Seminal]

Not the 90's armada version.

I was a huge fan of the transformers in the early 80's. It was a great block of cartoons. There was He-Man, then Transformers, and then GI Joe (which I thought was weak). Oh, and for a couple years, they had Robotech, which was awesome, followed by Voltron. Talk about good cartoons, I don't think even Thundercats could dethrone those cartoons. Nothing good today like those cartoons.

Back to the Transformers. The new series stunk. It was not true to the old one. I don't think I even saw Megatron, at least not the way I remembered him. He was fairly smart back in the 80's, not crazy like starscream. The new series has no thought in it, that is why i dislike it. It is just like one thoughtless attack after another, no strategy.

And what happened to the robot that replaced Optimus Prime, when he died, I remember this robot was stuck inside a comet or astroid, and he had to be found.

Oh, and bring back the big mega robot, that is combined by 5 smaller ones, the green one that is all the construction machines that form a big robot.

Please, please, please, get this movie right. It will be a delight for all of us who watched the original series. Put most of the money in the script, something really good. I would rather have an awesome story and so-so graphics than a bad story and million dollar graphics.

Re:Make sure it is the 1980's version

[KanSer]

Put most of the money in the script, something really good. I would rather have an awesome story and so-so graphics than a bad story and million dollar graphics.

Do you have any idea who Michael Bay is??? He's going to shit on your childhood 10 times worse than Lucas could ever dream of. It's going to be Bad Boys 2 meets Transformers.

Re:Make sure it is the 1980's version

[Dark_Lord_Prime]

Armada was not "true to the old one" because it WASN'T the old one. It was a whole new series, set in its own continuity. Megatron was the big green tank leading the Decepticons, until he got "powered up" and turned into a big white tank. Also, Armada was preceded by Robots in Disguise (which would be the crappy 90s version you're thinking of), which was also set in its own little universe. Energon followed Armada, and was a direct "sequel" series. Both of them sucked, although Energon was by far the worse of the two. Now we have Transformers: Cybertron, which is a lot better than the previous three. The green combiner was Devastator, and was composed of 6 smaller robots. I believe Predaking was also a 6-bot combiner, and the ones who followed were 5-bots. The robot who replaced Optimus Prime was Hot Rod, who became Rodimus Prime after he took the Matrix from Galvatron and opened it during the climactic battle inside Unicron. He's not in the newer series because, again, they are not part of that continuity. Oh, and the live-action movie is (loosely) based on the 1980s Generation 1 version.

Re:Make sure it is the 1980's version

[hal200]

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

Re:Make sure it is the 1980's version

[chrysrobyn]

I was a huge fan of the transformers in the early 80's. It was a great block of cartoons. There was He-Man, then Transformers, and then GI Joe (which I thought was weak). Oh, and for a couple years, they had Robotech, which was awesome, followed by Voltron. Talk about good cartoons, I don't think even Thundercats could dethrone those cartoons. Nothing good today like those cartoons.

Friend, I don't know how to break this to you, but don't see these cartoons on rerun. Keep your memories alive. They were great when we were kids, but anything with a computer in it was too. If you were forced to watch an entire episode of any of those old series, you'd need a huge shot of nostalgia to keep you from impaling yourself on your TV remote just to end the pain. Nostalgia and childhood inexperience are the two things that make those cartoons great (with the possible exception of Robotech, which I was not privvy to). Those old TV shows made Star Wars (insert your least favorite number, likely "I") sound like it had good writing.

Transformers: The Movie was the only film I have cried in. I'm nearly 30 and still to this day, when I play the Transformers sountrack (you're a fan, so you have it, too, right?), I can't help but get chills and a tear in my eye when Optimus goes to the bright UPS in the sky.

Back to the Transformers. The new series stunk. It was not true to the old one. I don't think I even saw Megatron, at least not the way I remembered him. He was fairly smart back in the 80's, not crazy like starscream. The new series has no thought in it, that is why i dislike it. It is just like one thoughtless attack after another, no strategy.

There are several new series. Not all of them have the cliche, "the world is always reset to the zero state at the end of the show so you can see it in any order". Megatron was indeed changed, as were all the characters. They went with the recent CGI fad, which presented a completely different style. Arguably, they had to mix up the characters some because the graphics were so different.

Personally, I'm learning that some remakes are acceptable. I don't know about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and any version of A New Hope where Han doesn't shoot first is blasphemy, but the new Battlestar Galactica is clearly its own work inspired by the original. Take it beyond video for a minute, and I enjoy Leaving on a Jet Plane by either Chantel Creviazuk or Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, but not John Denver or Peter, Paul and Mary. Additionally, I can't stand Prince, but I enjoy Darling Nikki by the Foo Fighters.

And what happened to the robot that replaced Optimus Prime, when he died, I remember this robot was stuck inside a comet or astroid, and he had to be found.

I think you mean Hot Rod. Wikipedia has a better explanation than I can.

Re:Make sure it is the 1980's version

[KanSer]

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...

Re:Make sure it is the 1980's version

[srstoneb]

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.

Woah.

[njfuzzy]

At first glance, I didn't parse "The Rock) will direct; " very well. Man was that a scary moment.

Re:Woah.

[otis wildflower]

What, Michael Bay isn't scary enough?

At least it isn't Paul W.S. Anderson or Uwe Boll.. The other members of the axis of stinkbombs...

Re:Just Great

[xTown]

You mean, of course, another live-action He-Man movie.

Maaaaan was it terrible.

Live Action? Hmmm...

[cshark]

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.

Re:Why Michael Bay?

[poopdeville]

From Team America: World Police:

I miss you more than Michael Bay missed the mark
when he made Pearl Harbor. I miss you more than that movie missed the point,
and that's an awful lot girl.

And now, now you've gone away,
and all I'm trying to say
is Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you.

I need you like Ben Affleck needs acting school,
he was terrible in that film.
I need you like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part,
he's way better than Ben Affleck.

And now, all I can think about is your smile
and that shitty movie too.
Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you.

Why does Micheal Bay get to making movies?
I guess Pearl Harbor sucked
just a little bit more than I miss you.

Where's The Blog

[BRock97]

So, how long before we get Optimus Prime's blog up on that site! It would be awesome:

Planning For The Trip
Monday, July 11th, 2005

My bags are packed and I have an Energon snack pack since the trip to the space bridge is a couple of ours by way of Jetfire. Got another message from Elita-1 which says that it will be good to have me home. I don't know. You know the old Cybertronian saying, "You can't go home...". I have never felt that as being more true than right now. I am so nervous, my energy storage unit is backed up into my Matrix of Leadership....


Damn it Spike
Sunday, July 10th, 2005

I swear I don't know what I am going to do with that human. Just as I issued the orders to roll out, he hopped into Bumblebee and came on the last defensive of the human's oil refinery. Sure enough, he gets caught in an explosion and almost fell into the Earthen sea. I hate to do it, but I think I will have to make Bumblebee his care taker from now on. That goldbug has been asking for a promotion anyways...


Energon
Tuesday, July 5th, 2005

God, I love energon. Just thought I would let you guys know that.

Re:Where's The Blog

[enrico_suave]

I hope Optimus recovers from his bout with prostate cancer

Re:Where's The Blog

[matasar]

How about an Optimus Prime advice column?

Ben

Re:Where's The Blog

[PsiPsiStar]

So, how long before we get Optimus Prime's blog up on that site!

As soon as he figures out how to transform his optimus keyboard?

Re:Where's The Blog

[johnnyb]

A keyboard that can be modified -- what will they think of next?

Re:Where's The Blog

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

A keyboard that turns into a robot... 1,000,000 times its original size?

Re:Am I.....

[Shkuey]

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.

Writers?

[j1ggl3x]

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.

Credits

[mbbac]

OK, so we know Michael Bay has done The Island and The Rock, but what movies has Steven Spielberg done?

Re:More than meets the eye?

[Klintdog]

But just think, if it is like TMNT, we'll be blessed with Vanilla Ice coming out and doing the Transformer Rap! Go Optimus, Go Optimus Go!

I have only one thing to say.....

[xlr8ed]

If there is even one single Autobot with "spinners" on their wheels...I am going to go completely postal....

Re:Lord of the Rings IV

[Dogtanian]

I'm holding out for "Lord of the Rings IV".

That's not going to happen, as such. However, after finishing King Kong, Jackson is supposed to be working on a cash-in prequel- "Lord of the Rings 0" if you like, although the rumoured name is "The Hobbit".

Apparently they contrived some stupid story about a guy who appears at the start of the first LOTR film.

What a cheap cash-in. Scum.

Re:Please explain...

[I_Love_Pocky!]

And NEWSFLASH, that 56k modem ain't 56k, I have looked at over a dozen dial-ups, and the best I EVER saw was 8k a second, most are like 4k or 5k a second. If a 56K modem ever gave a consistant 35k a second, broadband never would have caught on like it did.

That is 56 kilobits per second, not 56 kilobytes. In kilobytes, a 56k modem should be able to do up to 7 kilobytes per second without compression.

Re:Please explain...

[CuriHP]

Wow. This is just for your benefit. A 56k modem can and will give 56k (Actually I believe they're limited to 53k, but close enough.). The problem you are having is the inability to differentiate between the following two symbols: k K

A 56k modem is 56k (56 kilobits). The number you see on your download is 5K (5 kilobytes). One byte is eight bits. So, with a little basic math, 56k = 7K. So 5K is actually pretty good, and your 8K is impossible.

Hellooooo, 1980's?

[Spy der Mann]

But the cartoon sucked. Always sucked.

OK, let's review...

Transformers was aired in 1984. Cartoons (anime or otherwise) with good storylines were rare, if not unique. After all, what was the competition?
He-man? Voltron? Mazinger Z (pfft) ?

Transformers was written for young, gullible kids. Yes, it was also made to sell toys, but what difference does it make with other cartoons of today?

Anyway, it was a show about good vs. evil. And the evil characters were REALLY evil. I loved the way Megatron planned the destruction of the autobots, he was evil, and i just loved that (well actually i hated him, but you get the point). We rarely see characters like him today. And remember, in 1984, kids weren't aware of conspiracies, and intensive drama was definitely taboo. We were children! We didn't have to worry about terrorism, drugs, or our best friend committing suicide. We just wanted to play, have fun, and watch some TV.

Call me naive, but it was a show perfectly adapted for our young, innocent mindsets. And we loved it.

I have a bad feeling...

[sl8763]

...that the part of Soundwave will be played by an iPod.

Wa-wa-wa-wa

[NaDrew]

As long as they make that sound when they change forms, I'll be happy.

This is a joke, right?

[Zobeid]

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.

Transformers are perverted

[Dogtanian]

With live action, how are they going to reproduce Megatron? He's as big as an 18 wheeler truck in robot form, but is a handgun in disguise.

A really damn *big* handgun... ought to get attention from some people.

"Is that an 18 wheel truck in your pants, or are you just happy to see me?"

Anyway, I think that "Ravage" (who transformed into an audio cassette) would have the same problem- can you imagine how unthreatening a robotic panther the size of a C90 would be?

This isn't an issue anyway, as neither Ravage (nor his ghetto-blasting cassette-deck buddy Soundwave) will be appearing in the movie, having become rather unfashionable and outdated.

Apprently, they will be replaced by an iPod that transforms into a style-conscious robot. "iKill" will, claim producers, be the first openly gay Transformer.

Sadly, the loss of Ravage and Soundwave deprive us of the opportunity to witness some extremely screwed-up psychosexual issues, as "cassette" Ravage hides inside his "cassette player" buddy Soundwave.

This loss is a double-blow to Ravage, who never recovered fully after someone recorded a Debbie Gibson album on him in 1989.

My favorite T:TM quote

[halivar]

"Shit!"

Admit it, it was yours, too.

Re:Lord of the Rings IV

[AtariAmarok]

"What a cheap cash-in. Scum"

What do you expect from a guy who actually made up the title of the second Lord of the Rings movie to cash in on the WTC tragedy. Shameless.

Burn baby burn!

[hellfire]

Yep, I can bet I'm gonna burn a lot of karma on this one.

*transforms into an industrial strength flamethrower and proceeds to turn you into a slashdot burger*

It wasn't just a cheesy SatAM cartoon designed as a half-hour long toy advertisement. It was a Cheesy SatAM cartoon with the greatest action cartoon character of all time, Optimus Prime designed as a half-hour long advertisement for really fuckin' cool toys. You're a slashdotter you can get understand really fuckin' cool toys can't you? :)

Re:wow Hollywood does it again.

[hubie]

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.

Someone in Hollywood please, please get this....

[bloxnet]

For the love of God, your only hope of success is to make this movie take place in the 80s.

Oh, it gets much worse.

[LiberalApplication]

Do you have any idea who Michael Bay is??? He's going to shit on your childhood 10 times worse than Lucas could ever dream of. It's going to be Bad Boys 2 meets Transformers.

The screenplay is being co-written by the moron who brought us the bombs "The Core" and "Catwoman", so my guess is that John Rogers will be the one shitting all over our childhoods, and Michael Bay will simply be sculpting it into offensive shapes and taking pictures of the result.

Isn't it interesting...

[patio11]

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."?

Re:The Embassy gave Nike crabs ...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Does that mean we have to get Marty Kudelka to play Jazz, too?

(For anyone looking confused right now, Marty is Justin Timberlake's choreographer, and did the motion capture for the Citroen ad. Probably not the fantastic spoof though, I'm guessing...)

Re:wow Hollywood does it again.

[aug24]

OMG, they cut the guns out of cartoons?!!! And the current most successful tv for 8-and-olders is Doctor Who, in which people die, in agony on a regualr basis.

Not to mention, in the same universe, thousands of Americans die from guns every year, and they are still barely controlled. But yeah, lets not have them in cartoons, just in case some kids don't realise they are dangerous.

Go figure...

J.
(A Brit)