Slashdot Mirror


Transformers Full Theatrical Trailer Available

roelbj writes "The full trailer for Michael Bay's upcoming Transformers movie is now finally available on Yahoo. Unlike the teaser trailers that have only hinted at what the final effects would deliver, we can at long last get a much better feeling for how the live-action CGI Transformers will look."

352 comments

  1. Something to put my mind off Spiderman by Spaztian · · Score: 1

    Excellent! I've been waiting a long time for this. Finaly, something to help me get over the dissapointment that was Spiderman 3mo

    1. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Be skeptical - this is a Michael Bay film. Here's what to expect:

      1) Absurd and inappropriate love story
      2) Countless quick, nausiating cuts
      3) Horrible dialog

      Lets hope transformers are awesome enough to make up for Bay's movie making "skills".

    2. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by BackwardHatClub · · Score: 5, Funny

      Be skeptical - this is a Michael Bay film. True, but don't forget the golden rule of Michael Bay movie-making. If it starts with "The" it will be good. The Rock, The Island good movies. Pearl Harbor, Bad Boys II bad movies. Since this movie is "The Transformers" I have high hopes!

    3. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by ozbon · · Score: 1

      It's Old News - the trailer's been on Apple.com for a good couple of weeks now.

      Hell, here in the UK, I saw this trailer when I went to see that sack of shit known as Spiderman 3...

      --
      I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
    4. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by Mushdot · · Score: 1

      Hope you didn't get excited as my mate. I emailed him the trailer this morning and he replied:
      "I saw the trailer before Spider man and I came a little bit."
      Lord knows what's happened to him now I've just sent him the exclusive trailer.

    5. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      True, but don't forget the golden rule of Michael Bay movie-making. If it starts with "The" it will be good. The Rock, The Island good movies. Pearl Harbor, Bad Boys II bad movies. Since this movie is "The Transformers" I have high hopes!

      I guess we're screwed, then. It's titled "Transformers."
    6. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by Squozen · · Score: 1

      This trailer is different to the one I'm seeing on the Apple site...

    7. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by gerrysteele · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I somewhat enjoyed The Island. Its exactly the kind of Sci-Fi I like.

      However I honestly objected to paying to see the film. After they got out in particular, I don't recall a scene that did not involve me being sold something.

      Here in the UK most of our TV adverts are more subtle about trying to push their products that "The Island" was.

      Bay claims the made less than a $million in placement, but I don't believe him. Either that or the advertisers got a great deal.

      Here's a spreadsheet: http://numsum.com/spreadsheet/show/7807/

    8. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by ystar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hope all you want, but you'll probably be let down. The two human actors seem like they're going to be the ones that really drag the movie into the dirt. Awkward lines, awkward romance, annoying quips...all in just a few seconds of the trailer. I haven't watched much of the transformers series (before my time) but the original movie was interesting...I think Welles really captured the insensitivity, the lack of compassion, that really makes a robot a robot. And yet there's so much humanity in the autobots. I don't mean to get all deep, I'm just saying these are some of the themes that would undoubtedly make the movie GOOD, not just actiony, the latter of which seems to be all Michael Bay is concerned with.

    9. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This trailer was just released yesterday afternoon, but thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

    10. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by shotgunsaint · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can hold Michael Bay responsible for making a Martin Lawrence/ Will Smith vehicle suck. Maybe he's not the best director, but even Francis Ford Coppola couldn't make that movie worth watching.

      --
      The future isn't here until I can type "car keys" into Google and have it say "You left them in your pants last night."
    11. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm old enough to remember the original cartoon and young though I may have been I could still see marketing driven drivel when I saw it. Seriously it was a rubbish cartoon designed to make people buy the toys.

    12. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, you thought The Rock and The Island were good movies?

      Bwahahaha...

    13. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by Shihar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here is the one problem.

      Michael Bay is a fucking idiot.

      Michael Bay embodies all that is good and bad about Hollywood. This movie will have kick ass special effects for sure, but at the same time it is going to have a fucking stupid romance that has no place in the movie and will surely result in the IQ of the audience dropping a few points. Hollywood loves to jerk off to its own cliches, and a quick glance at the movie trailer shows that it goes through a Hollywood check list to make sure all that is cliche and irritating about Hollywood got thrown in, no matter how utterly inappropriate it is for the movie. So yes, go see this movie for the eye candy, but keep a loaded .45 ready to save yourself from the horrible mind numbing romance and Hollywood cliche that will quickly follow.

      "Man, we can't have action movie about space robots without a horrible romance or else girls wouldn't like it!"

      Yeah Hollywood, I bet all the girls out there that don't want to watch sci-fi noticed the romance in the preview and are now dying to go see this movie.

      Fucking idiots.

    14. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by Keebler71 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Be skeptical - this is a Michael Bay film. Here's what to expect:

      1) Absurd and inappropriate love story

      2) Countless quick, nausiating cuts

      3) Horrible dialog

      Lets hope transformers are awesome enough to make up for Bay's movie making "skills".

      Michael Bay made the Star Wars prequels? I thought that was George Lucas..??

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    15. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 0, Troll

      re:"the original movie was interesting"

      Um - yah - if by "interesting" you mean utterly horrible. Aside from killing off as many characters as possible to bring in a new line of toys the rest of that pile-o-flop was painfully bad. Below MST3K bad. I downloaded a copy and watched it (I recalled it being "poor", but wasn't going to risk 5 bucks to double check at the BlockBuster video) only to delete it as soon as the last scene passed. My hard drive still feels dirty.

      If you're worried that this could suck worse? Um - watch "the origonal" again and taste-the-suck!

    16. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by saboola · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude.. it's just a movie. There are far worse things in the world to be upset about.

    17. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by schon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Michael Bay made the Star Wars prequels? I thought that was George Lucas..?? You ever see them together in the same room?
    18. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by Tekzel · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yea, but which one is the secret identity?

    19. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by seaturnip · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was a rubbish mercantile cartoon that was totally awesome.

    20. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by Hassman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Zoink!?! "The Island" was not good. Not even close.

      Bad Boys II was the epitome of what an over-the top action movie should be...well actually, Transporter II was, but BBII was pretty close. Regardless, it was fantastic. Those types of movies don't need to make sense. They aren't suppose to. They are just suppose to be non-stop in your face action. Don't confuse these with 'real' action movies like Indiana Jones or the original Die Hard, where the story is and characters are as important as the action.

      He is very hit or miss. If you go in to be entertained (via his action movies) he won't disappoint. If you go in wanting to see a serious or semi-serious story then...well...just don't go to see the move.

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
    21. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by kalirion · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dude.. it's just a movie. There are far worse things in the world to be upset about.

      Another way of thinking is "Dude, there are enough bad things in the world. Let's not add to them."

    22. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by icepick72 · · Score: 2, Funny
      it is going to have a fucking stupid romance
      the horrible mind numbing romance
      without a horrible romance
      noticed the romance in the preview


      Let me guess you're a very single nerd, hanging around on /. Ya. I feel for you bro.

    23. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by Trails · · Score: 1

      So, wait, George Lucas is the Polkaroo? It explains where Jar Jar came from.

    24. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by Chris+whatever · · Score: 1

      yes!!! they could waste pellicule on showing the american flag 100 times in the movie just to remind us that it's in america.

      Michael bay has a thing with the flag that borders on creepyyyyyy!!!!!!

      I'm betting that he has U.S flag underwear and a set of bed sheets to match.

    25. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by mbourgon · · Score: 1

      L. Ron Hubbard.

      --
      "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
    26. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by cyberfunkr · · Score: 1

      Michael Bay made the Star Wars prequels? I thought that was George Lucas..?? You ever see them together in the same room?

      Yes, well no. I mean, when I first looked there was no Michael Bay, but when I watched the video again I saw Michael in the background along with some ewoks and a some lanky guy with a snout and long ears.

    27. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by robco74 · · Score: 1

      Well, according to his bio on IMDb:

      He is a very close friend of writer/director George Lucas from whom he often seeks advice.

      Zeus help us...

    28. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by tumbaumba · · Score: 1

      >I guess we're screwed, then. It's titled "Transformers."

      But note that it starts with 'T'. There is hope after all.

    29. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by sYkSh0n3 · · Score: 1

      First of all, most cartoons back then were rubbish. Have you watched an old episode of He-man lately? That's the most homo-erotic thing ever put on television.

      The toys were what made it great. See, you've got it backwards. The toys got ppl to watch the cartoon, not the other way around. I can only barely remember the cartoons, but i remember hours and hours of playing with the toys. To this day, i can't walk by a transformer without at least transforming it once.

      Something that i already don't like about this movie is the way they transform. In the cartoon, you could watch one transform and thats exactly how the toy did it. (well megatron only kinda did, that annoyed me) But the others took into account the size and shape of what they were suppose to be and then turned into a robot, These kinda look like big clumps of metal that just kinda morph into what they are suppose to be and hide it behind fast movements.

    30. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by exley · · Score: 1

      Shit yeah it was. And who cares if the cartoon was just a vehicle for selling toys? Those toys kept us entertained and fueled our imaginations as kids. I love it when people think they're all cool and oh-so hardcore by they complaining about things like a "mercantile cartoon" -- because I'm sure they've never fallen victim to advertising before.

    31. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by seaturnip · · Score: 1

      Most cartoons are still rubbish. Have you watched a new episode of Naruto lately?

    32. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by sYkSh0n3 · · Score: 1

      yeah, like UWE BOLE movies. :D

    33. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by allanc · · Score: 1

      I think you might be thinking of the Go-Bots. The Transformers' transformation sequences were always a sort of blurry hand-waving affair, as I remember it.

    34. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Since this movie is "The Transformers" I have high hopes!


      That may be the most unjustified conclusion I have ever heard! :)
      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    35. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      It looks nothing like what I would expect as a transformers fan. The robots don't looks smooth and have way too much wire. They don't look like bots from any of the TF generations. This is going to be a disappointment like godzilla. Hollywood directors don't understand that toys/videogames/anime cult concept. It never had. Look at movies like double dragon, mortal kombat annihilation, street fighter urghhh........ Why is there even an autobot logo. This movie is so far off from any of the animations. Why bother calling it transformers.

    36. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say homo-erotic like it's a bad thing...

    37. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude.. it's just a movie. There are far worse things in the world to be upset about.

      Dude.. its the internet. Where its fine to complain about whatever you want.

    38. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by binarysins · · Score: 1

      1) The original animation was driven by toy designs. In other words, toys couldn't transform without being all blocky and crap. They were, really, pretty stupid - even as a kid I preferred Dunbine, Dougram and Mospeada toys to Transformers.

      2) These are alien robots - why wouldn't the transformations appear alien?

      3) These robots do transform, hence the moniker "Transformers" is actually fitting.

      4) Optimus Prime's trailer in the original series *appeared and disappeared out of fucking thin air*. How stupid is that?

    39. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the apostrophe, asshat. Fucking RUINED my evening.

    40. Re:Something to put my mind off Spiderman by mink · · Score: 1

      Do you remember a transforming robot toy (was not transformer). I think it was from some anime that was never exported that had a car/pickup (cant recall) and a trailer. They both were the "parts" of the robot (trailer bit integrated into the car bits). I seem to remember white and blue being prominent colors.

      I seem to remember bits of the untranslated anime being show at sci-fi conventions back in the late 70's early 80's. Something to do with a farm where the workers were using mecha as labor units and the car/trailer thingy was a well armed "enforcer" unit for dealing with any worker who got out of line. I also seem to remember the main house for the family could transform into a huge red robot but was broken and they were trying to fix it. There were competing farms as well as bandits.

      I could also be mixing up several things.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  2. Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by karmatic · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those who don't have something that can read qtl files, here are some direct links:

    "Exclusive Trailer".

    Theatrical Trailer.

    Teaser Trailer.

    1. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by tolomea · · Score: 1

      those first two links seem to go to the same file

    2. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Informative
    3. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      For those who don't have something that can read qtl files, here are some direct links:

      I got quicktime and it didn't know what to do with it . . .

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    4. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by tigerhawkvok · · Score: 1

      I suggest you try the K-Lite Mega Codec Pack. Aside from letting you delete the two spawns of Satan (otherwise known as Quicktime and Realplayer), you can download streaming files -- including the *.qtl file. Or watch it streaming, for that matter.

      --
      Blog
    5. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by suv4x4 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, for those of us who don't have Core Quad Extreme and 50 yard screens, the 480p version:

      Exclusive Trailer

    6. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by karmatic · · Score: 1

      Plays just fine on my Macbook, and my Dual Core Athlon 64 laptop - the latter downclocks itself down to 1GHz when not plugged in, and can play 1080p files without too much difficulty (_really_ high motion scenes cause it to jitter a bit). The only downside is the 40 minute battery life. What software are you using to play these?

    7. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by suv4x4 · · Score: 2

      I can't even reach the play button, my horizontal resolution 1280 so it's outside on left somewhere.

      BTW, I found an easter egg on the trailer. I wonder if 1080p helped you see it better :P

    8. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      K-Lite sucks imo, fucks stuff up.

      CCCP is better.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    9. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by Cobron · · Score: 1

      I have notepad... :-)

    10. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by yakumo.unr · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you can't deal with QTL files then your quicktime or quicktime alt install needs to be reinstalled to fix up the file associations.

      And/or you need to check your mime type application/x-quicktimeplayer opens with the OS default handler ( I used the MIME edit addon to fix firefox just now so I could watch this new trailer).

      When it's working Quicktime will load it up, or Quicktime Alt will popup a menu asking what you want to do (download to location / download and play with MPC or WinMplayer / Stream)

      Forcing .QTL to open with a browser, or directly with a media player doesn't work.

      finally, if you download it, and have media player classic with coreAVC installed, rename the file to .hdmov and it will open with directshow and coreavc instead of quicktime, and playback speed will be much improved.

    11. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Vuze, commercial arm of Azureus Java client has torrent

      http://www.vuze.com/details/QZ7CUAV5ENW2HC34CBKUTR Y6ZZ7DGLDG.html

      I am posting this link since Vuze has no copyright issues it seems (all reviewed) and Azureus is multiplatform/oss java 5 client for torrents.

      Also 1080 people are getting right now.

    12. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All codec packs suck

      MuldeR's Mplayer for Windows plays all codecs.

      http://mulder.dummwiedeutsch.de/home/?page=project s#mplayer

    13. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Care to let us in on the secret?

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    14. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, you misunderstand, it was just an easter egg.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    15. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Care to let us in on the secret?

      Watch carefully the Camaro dashboard sequence, the first time the boy goes inside.

      You'll see a little black square with cube logo saying "CODEBLACK" which looks pasted-on in post-production.

      I googled around and it turns out this is some sort of passcode to SectorSeven.org, which has the same logo, and a password box...

    16. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      uh I downloaded the QTL and opened it directly in Quicktime.. worked fine. Then after it downloaded the source i saved it to my desktop... maybe you're not on a Mac?

      Playback works fine and looks great on my 30 in. ACD, though 1080p always looks a little small at 100% ;-p

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    17. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by jellomizer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What is with all you guys with antiquated under powered computers, most PC's made 2 - 3 years ago have enough Horse Power to view this stuff. Heck my 5 year Old 667 Mhz Powerbook can run the 720P stuff pritty good, the 1080p was choppy on it. It is one thing to be bitter because Linux cannot view the files but it is an other thing that you are running a computer that is so out of date that it cant support it. Expect newer software to be more CPU intensive and more demmanding. If your system cant support it get a new one. If you can't afford it then don't complain.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    18. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by yakumo.unr · · Score: 1

      Obviously I'm not on a mac or I wouldn't be talking about Quicktime Alt, Media Player Classic, and CoreAVC.

      All windows packages that help assist in not having to install Quicktime itself, as a lot of people find it rather abhorrent.

      Only OSX machines have Quicktime built in from the get go, rigorously enforcing it's file associations, so they're infinitely less likely to have had something else screwing up their MIME types before, or after a Quicktime system is installed.

    19. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by Tmack · · Score: 1

      Easter egg? I knew something smelled funny...

      --
      Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
    20. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's a viral marketing site for the film - entering "takara83" at the password prompt is supposed to get you in. Some discussion can be found at this site.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    21. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually entering CODEBLACK got me into the site from www.sectorseven.org..

      Interesting flash site, nothing really compelling for me. Supposed to emulate some custom OS from inside the film I guess.

    22. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by Ecuador · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmm, strange. This seems to indicate that Transformers are related to Klingons? At least on the parent-mentioned website, after you log in, the buttons are marked with Klingon letters.

      If they are not related to the Klingon homeworld, I do hope they at least have a license from Paramount (who are well known for their strict copyright policies).

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    23. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      I do hope they at least have a license from Paramount

      Alphabets have been copyrighted now, too?

    24. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      Welcome to our planet.
      While I have no idea if Paramount claims a copyright over the alphabet itself (that part of my post was for entertainment purposes), they certainly do claim that the Klingon language is copyrighted, or at least the Klingon dictionary. Most people would consider this absurd, but then again you never know how a judge would interpret things...

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    25. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by karmatic · · Score: 1

      I'll grant you Quicktime Alt and Media Player Classic - it's quite possible to use CoreAVC on a Mac. Just not with "officially released" versions. :)

    26. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I played 720p Quicktime files via Mplayer-PPC on my G4 Mini since Quicktime choked a bit. It showed it 25-30 fps fine.

  3. Yes by highwaytohell · · Score: 1

    They look.... pixelated.

  4. I'm Sold. by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At first I wasn't sure about this. The designs of the Transformers, when I first saw them, seemed way too busy and overcomplicated. Now that I've seen it in motion, especially the awesome transformation sequences, I'm sold on this film.

    From the previews, it seems to me the weakest part of this flick may not be the robots in disguise, but their human counterparts.

    1. Re:I'm Sold. by WebCrapper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yea, I was the same. When the helicopter transformed though, I was hooked.

    2. Re:I'm Sold. by ErikInterlude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I used to be a huge Transformers fan (the original series before the movie, and the movie. I wasn't too into everything that came after). It's sort of left me split on how to feel about this movie. On the one hand, it's clearly got action, great visuals, and I like that they're keeping that sound the Transformers make when they change form (it's a small point, I know).

      On the other hand, this is a Michael Bay film. I heard he got his start as a director of music videos, so that might serve him well in a film like this. The problem is he goes for big explosions and fancy camera shots over good storytelling. And the purist in me kinda wishes they stayed with the original designs.

      That said, it's pretty much a given that I'm going to go see it.

      --

      --Erik
    3. Re:I'm Sold. by the+unbeliever · · Score: 1

      I'm the same way regarding michael bay, but then I realize that it's being produced by spielberg, so that sort of counteracts my distaste for michael bay.

      Same thing with pirates of the caribbean...I hate most jerry bruckheimer movies, but johnny depp sort of cancels him out too.

    4. Re:I'm Sold. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > but then I realize that it's being produced by spielberg,

      If Spielberg were directing instead of producing, and michael bay were in no way whatsoever involved; I might agree. I have too much of a suspicion that, even with Spielberg looking over his shoulder, michael bay will find some way to royally fuck it up. This is a wait-for-HBO one for me.

      > Same thing with pirates of the caribbean...I hate most jerry bruckheimer
      > movies, but johnny depp sort of cancels him out too.

      Meh. I must be one of the freak few who didn't care for POTC. Not that it was appallingly bad; but I don't think it was anything special. And even Johnny Depp couldn't change that. Maybe if they'd had Tim Burton direct...

      cya,m
      john

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    5. Re:I'm Sold. by weicco · · Score: 1

      From the previews, it seems to me the weakest part of this flick may not be the robots in disguise, but their human counterparts.

      You are absolutely right! I really hope they didn't mess this up with somekind of stupid love drama or some freedom crab (they can never take away our freedom!!! - I hate those speeches in movies). I was so pissed when they screwed up Alien vs Predator! There was like 5 min aliens, 5 min predators and rest of the film was about some whiny woman. Hopefully this film is 30 min Optimus, 30 min Megatron and 30 brainless mayhem :)

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    6. Re:I'm Sold. by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      "Same thing with pirates of the caribbean...I hate most jerry bruckheimer movies, but johnny depp sort of cancels him out too."

      No it doesn't because the director sucks as well, Johnny Depp isn't that good to cancel both of those two negatives.

    7. Re:I'm Sold. by xero314 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The designs of the Transformers, when I first saw them, seemed way too busy and overcomplicated. Having seen all the trailers and a number of stills I have to say that I still don't like the Robots. The Japanese artists that designed the characters that The Transformers were based on, as well as all the incarnations of The Transformer Toy line, put alot of care into making sure that their transformations were realistic. Most of the original Transformer Line could have transformed without need for unrealistic physics. Working versions of The Transformers, as well as most Japanese Mecha, are physically possible (with the possible exception of the aerodynamics of the flying ones). You can't say this about the versions in the upcoming Movie. It won't stop me from seeing it, but it will bring down my enjoyment a bit. And when they finally do put out a toy line for the movie, and they will, the units will look cheap and the transformations will be both unrealistic and only a weak simulation of the movie.
    8. Re:I'm Sold. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are absolutely right! I really hope they didn't mess this up with somekind of stupid love drama or some freedom crab (they can never take away our freedom!!! - I hate those speeches in movies). I was so pissed when they screwed up Alien vs Predator! There was like 5 min aliens, 5 min predators and rest of the film was about some whiny woman. Hopefully this film is 30 min Optimus, 30 min Megatron and 30 brainless mayhem :)


      Have them make one of those speeches. Then have Unicron arrive to possess them and eat the planet. The irony will be amusing.

    9. Re:I'm Sold. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      put alot of care into making sure that their transformations were realistic.

      Yeah, like when Soundwave would transform from a 10 foot tall robot down to a 5 inch tall tape player. That was totally realistic...

    10. Re:I'm Sold. by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1

      Meh, I'm still not into this at all. The Transformers in the original cartoon were not complicated and looked like humanoid robots. The Transformers I've seen in the trailers look like gigantic robots with random bits of complicated fucking metal sticking out here or there and they only vaguely resemble humanoid form in that they've got a head, torso, two legs, and two arms. Other than that, they look nothing like the Transformers I grew up with as a kid in the early 1980s. I think I'll pass on this movie until it finds its way to Netflix like Fantastic Four.

    11. Re:I'm Sold. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 2, Informative

      From what I read, they did the exact same thing for the movie. They wanted realistic space taken up by vehicle and robot forms.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    12. Re:I'm Sold. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      When Megatron transformed into a gun...

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    13. Re:I'm Sold. by anothy · · Score: 4, Funny

      From the previews, it seems to me the weakest part of this flick may not be the robots in disguise, but their human counterparts.
      oh, good. then it matches the TV show well!
      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    14. Re:I'm Sold. by jmoriarty · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yea, I was the same. When the helicopter transformed though, I was hooked. "Stop... you had me at chooch chooch chech chech CHOOCH CHOOCH CHEECH CHEECH!"

    15. Re:I'm Sold. by falcon5768 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Um no they didnt, the movie animators had a LOT of trouble trying to make the G1 designs work. Very often the Japaneses animators cheated and removed a piece here or moved a piece to a spot it could never have gone to. If your looking for care in animation, watch Gundam or Macross, but Transformers G1 had very little care in how they transformed.

      The fact that OP is not a flat faced truck in this one is a direct result of them trying to make him one, and realizing there was no way in hell he could have realistically transformed and look how he did in the TV show.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    16. Re:I'm Sold. by icepick72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IMHO the robot that transformed out of the guy's old yellow car at the beginning of the movie looked like a lot more metal than the car originally had in it. Maybe it's just an optical illusion because of "camera angle".

    17. Re:I'm Sold. by elrous0 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      it seems to me the weakest part of this flick may not be the robots in disguise, but their human counterparts.

      Well, that and the fact that it's directed by Michael "Mindless Explosions" Bay.

      And what the Hell is it with Shia LaBeouf, anyway? Can anyone tell me how this guy has gotten so hyped, so quickly? Aside from his being Jewish in Hollywood (yeah, I said it), I can't figure out how this butt-ugly mediocre actor is suddenly being treated like a fucking cult figure. It's another one of those cases where an actor comes out of nowhere and suddenly seems to be in every movie and on everyone's lips for no apparent reason (following in the path of Seth Green, Jack Black, Keanu Reeves, etc.--do these guys have blackmail photos or something?). He must have the world's greatest publicist to be this hyped based on so little actual work.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    18. Re:I'm Sold. by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      I think I'll pass on this movie until it finds its way to Netflix like Fantastic Four.

      Why not continue to pass on it at that point? ;)

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    19. Re:I'm Sold. by MarsBar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, cos the crock of shit that was AI really made me want to watch another Spielberg Sci-fi movie.

    20. Re:I'm Sold. by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Rumour has it that the goatse guy is really Michael Bay and Shia LaBeouf (you mean that's *not* a girl's name???) got the inside track before casting for the film started.

    21. Re:I'm Sold. by bogjobber · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let me get this straight. You are talking about a series where good anthropomorphic intelligent alien robots that change into cars and planes come to Earth and fight evil anthropomorphic intelligent alien robots that change into cars and planes and you're worried that it's unrealistic? Somehow I don't think that's really the point :)

    22. Re:I'm Sold. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      yes. I always found the logic behind Megatron's transformation to be perfect. From a gun that fits in a human's hand to a 3 story robot monster. I hope they stick the the same physics model for the movie.

      I'd love to see a tiny Megatron yelling at a giant Starscream. Would make my day! (Hitler indeed)

    23. Re:I'm Sold. by lise · · Score: 5, Funny

      The rest of him turned into 1000 feet of extension cord.

    24. Re:I'm Sold. by sYkSh0n3 · · Score: 1

      The first one wasn't too bad. I don't see how it became what it is today. I'm starting to believe that Hollywood has spent the last few years perfecting mind control. So when they use words like blockbuster, ppl line up and all agree its the greatest movie ever msfr. Much like ppl saying spiderman 3 is the best of the trilogy. I guess it just doesn't work on everybody, or maybe it has the opposite effect on some, because i disagree 99.99% of the time. Give me Requiem for a Dream or Old Boy or something.

    25. Re:I'm Sold. by xero314 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Um no they didnt, the movie animators had a LOT of trouble trying to make the G1 designs work. Then I am guessing they didn't have any of the original toys sitting around. Having owned an Optimus, many other Transformers, a number of the original Diaclones, as well as many transformable Gundam, I can tell you that most of them are fully transformable with out the need for removing parts and the operate in robot form as well as vehicle form just fine (i.e. they roll in car form and are full possible in robot form). The original cartoon, including the original movie, where based very closely on these transformable model toys, wether the animators took care in that or not I can't really say, but the designers certainly did.

      the could have at least kept the surface area proportional. What the heck happens to all the body sheets on Bumblebee when he transforms? I mean before transformation he is fully surrounded by yellow sheet metal, but after transformation it's like he is in tattered rags.
    26. Re:I'm Sold. by xero314 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The scaling issues, such as with Soundwave, were due to the fact that the original toy line was not supposed to represent giant sized robots but were actually life size. Yes Bumblebee was supposed to be a toy car, and Megatron was a standard sized guy, and their robot forms were measured in inches not feet. This is also why in later versions of the Transformers those characters where either changed into different forms (Megatron became a cannon and not a gun) and a good thing that the move chose to not use those forms of the characters. But disregarding the scaling issue of the cartoon, Soundwave, and the cassettes that came with him were fully transformable.

    27. Re:I'm Sold. by steveo777 · · Score: 1
      Couple things. Michael Bay did "The Rock", "Armageddon", and "Pearl Harbor". All of which sucked because there was a lame attempt a sticking an actual plot in there. Now, I'm all for cookie-cutter action films. So if a group of terrorists takes over and island and holds California for hostage, and there is a lot of explosions, then fine. But please, please, don't try to get me to care about the sorry sod's girlfriend or daughter.

      I'm won't be able to watch the trailer until tonight, but if they did keep the original transforming noise, that's pretty much all I'll need. We used to try to transform the old metal toys in the time it took for that soundbite. Never really got it.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    28. Re:I'm Sold. by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      [quote]
      Having seen all the trailers and a number of stills I have to say that I still don't like the Robots. The Japanese artists that designed the characters that The Transformers were based on, as well as all the incarnations of The Transformer Toy line, put alot of care into making sure that their transformations were realistic. Most of the original Transformer Line could have transformed without need for unrealistic physics. Working versions of The Transformers, as well as most Japanese Mecha, are physically possible (with the possible exception of the aerodynamics of the flying ones). You can't say this about the versions in the upcoming Movie. It won't stop me from seeing it, but it will bring down my enjoyment a bit. And when they finally do put out a toy line for the movie, and they will, the units will look cheap and the transformations will be both unrealistic and only a weak simulation of the movie.[/quote]

      Ok, time to put on my geek hat here.

      It actually bothered me as a kid when the transformer toys did not look like their counterparts in the cartoon. Ironhide (the red van) and his palate swap buddy Ratchet were very non-human weird things when transformed and the cartoon versions looked nothing like the toy. Now I can appreciate the artistic reasons for such a change and I liked the cartoon versions better so I was mainly annoyed with the toys. Megatron also looked completely different but I figured that was because the trigger assembly on the toy when in robot form looked like a gigantic megadong.

      It also bothered me how the robots could change mass and dimension on a whim. First Megatron is a 50 foot tall robot, then he turns into a floating gun of the same dimensions, then he can shrink to be fired by a transformer-scale robot, then he can shrink to be used by a human. And why was it he fired bullets from his gun barrel but his scope could fire massive energy blasts far in excess of his main weapon? Heh. I can remember being 9 years old and arguing with a friend that the scope on megatron in gun form should still be able to fire energy blasts, just like when he's in robot form. Just proof that we don't turn into geeks, we're like this from birth.

      Overall, though, I don't get where the nostalgia for this show comes from. It has not aged well. I liked He-Man as a kid and moved into Conan and sword and sorcery as I got older. Interest in Transformers gave way to Robotech and that stuff is still cool today. GI Joe is laughable but it drew me into reading Clancy as a teenager. I thought Captain Power was cool at the time, seems lame in retrospect, but it left me primed for Babylon 5. But for all that, I just don't see how people can remain [i]seriously[/i] into Transformers. That just seems creepy, like religious people knocking on your door on Saturday morning.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    29. Re:I'm Sold. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, this is a Michael Bay film. I heard he got his start as a director of music videos, so that might serve him well in a film like this. The problem is he goes for big explosions and fancy camera shots over good storytelling.

      Doesn't seem like much of a mismatch to me - it's not like the original series was known for it's great storytelling.
    30. Re:I'm Sold. by xero314 · · Score: 1

      Now I can appreciate the artistic reasons for such a change and I liked the cartoon versions better so I was mainly annoyed with the toys. In most cases the toys where created before the cartoon representation, at least in the early days. Old schoolers like myself find the cartoon to be more annoying than the toys.

      It also bothered me how the robots could change mass and dimension on a whim. Again this is a flaw in the cartoon and not the toy line. The toys, as I have mentioned elsewhere, were intended as life size. The Transformers where toy versions of toy sized transformable robots, if that makes sense.

      Overall, though, I don't get where the nostalgia for this show comes from. Transformers was an edgy cartoon, specially if you look at the original movie. The humor was actually fairly adult, and the characters where better than most saturday morning crap. Mind you I don't sit around and watch Transformer cartoons now, nor do I have any Transformer toys since I have moved onto assembling Gundams and other Anime models, but really, as children's shows go, transformers was a decent one.

      Interest in Transformers gave way to Robotech and that stuff is still cool today. This makes sense being as the Robotech (Macross) Mecha were designed by the same people that designed the original Transformer toy line. But with that being said I don't see anything that makes Robotech any more adult than the transformers.
    31. Re:I'm Sold. by kni52 · · Score: 1

      That sound is in the trailer at least once. Plus I think the transformations pretty much look like we all imagined them as kids. So I think you might like it. Frankly if the story isn't so lame that that it interferes with the nostalgia and the "reality" of the live action transformers, I'll be happy. The sound will help too. I agree with you there. :)

      --
      My subtext is just a figment of your imagination.
    32. Re:I'm Sold. by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      It also bothered me how the robots could change mass and dimension on a whim.
      Again this is a flaw in the cartoon and not the toy line. The toys, as I have mentioned elsewhere, were intended as life size. The Transformers where toy versions of toy sized transformable robots, if that makes sense. So Soundwave was supposed to be a 25 foot tall tape recorder? "Hey, where did that gigant robot puma go? All I see this this oversized black audio cassette."

      Transformers was an edgy cartoon, specially if you look at the original movie. The humor was actually fairly adult, and the characters where better than most saturday morning crap. Mind you I don't sit around and watch Transformer cartoons now, nor do I have any Transformer toys since I have moved onto assembling Gundams and other Anime models, but really, as children's shows go, transformers was a decent one. Edgy? Hmm. I don't see it. Robotech, despite the censorship, was edgier as a saturday morning cartoon. Main characters died, adult sexual relations are implied, realistic consequences for violence, interracial (and interspecies!) relationships, transvestite hero in the third generation, etc. None of this is goundbreaking by adult fiction standards but for a young sprout as myself it was pretty intense. I still remember how slackjawed I felt when Ben Dixon snuffed it. I remember the hollow horror when Khyron and Azonia did a kamikaze run into the SDF-1 and killed Gloval, Claudia, the bridge bunnies, and who knows how many others. I also remember wishing Min-Mei was caught in the blast.

      This makes sense being as the Robotech (Macross) Mecha were designed by the same people that designed the original Transformer toy line. But with that being said I don't see anything that makes Robotech any more adult than the transformers. The whole interplay of the licensing was confusing back then. I think the Valkyrie was the only design borrowed for Robotech but pretty much everything else was licensed to FASA for Battletech. I think the only notable mecha excluded were the ostritch pods and the zentraedi power armor.

      Adult has nothing to do with the mecha designs, it's more about the themes explored in the show. Macross was the best of the three parts that went into Robotech. I haven't had a chance to see the original version, before it was adapted to Robotech, but I hear it's even stronger. But going back to the adult themes, you see people dealing with consequences. The population of Earth is wiped out. The Zentraedi are faced with their own civil war, deciding on whether they believe more in the Imperative or their own unexplored emotions. Nothing here is simple black and white "us good, them bad", you can see where both sides in the conflict are coming from while still seeing the historic inevitability of the war. None of this is new in adult fiction but it was heady stuff to encounter in a timeslot shared with Smurfs and Kissyfur.
      --
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    33. Re:I'm Sold. by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      It matches the original Transformers movie as well. I dunno about you, but for me, the only thing Spike did worth noting was yell "Oh shit!". Not something I'd want to be remembered forever for.

      Oh yeah, or this: http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p250/robert817/ transformers.gif

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    34. Re:I'm Sold. by xero314 · · Score: 1

      So Soundwave was supposed to be a 25 foot tall tape recorder? No, Soundwave was intended to be a 6 inch tall robot that transforms into a standard sized portable mini cassette player. But way to misinterpret my statement.

      Edgy? Hmm. I don't see it. Robotech, despite the censorship, was edgier as a saturday morning cartoon. Main characters died, adult sexual relations are implied, realistic consequences for violence, interracial (and interspecies!) relationships, transvestite hero in the third generation, etc. Hmm, Transformers had death, all be it of robots, at least in the first movie, including the death of the main character. The Transformers where damaged when shot at and did actually hit once in a while unlike GI Joe or the A-team. And come on, Transformers where Robots in Disguise, which is far more than would could say about Lancers silly get ups, and Bugs bunny was dressing in women's clothes long before Mospeada was created. I'm not saying that the transformers was an adult show, just that it was much edgier than most saturday morning cartoons. And Robotech didn't imply sexual relations any more than Muppet Babies did, since the only implication of sexuality in the whole thing was the birth of the color changing haired girl, Dana to Max and Mira. And as for the interracial thing, once again this was done by the Warner Brothers many years earlier with a Skunk who is in love with a cat.

      think the Valkyrie was the only design borrowed for Robotech but pretty much everything else was licensed to FASA for Battletech. Try again. Yes the Valkyries where the only Macros units that were a direct copy of a Transformer character, but all the of the Macros Mecha were designed by members of the team that designed the original Transformer/Diaclone toy line. FASA on the other hand did not license the use of the Macros Mecha designs which is why they stopped using them in later releases of the game and had to use their own, lesser, designs.

      I don't ever recall Robotech sharing any time slots with the Smurfs but by the time it was released I was not watching the Smurfs so I could be wrong.
    35. Re:I'm Sold. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Realistic?

      Because two factions of giant, sentient robots from the planet cybertron, warring each other on Earth, who can transform into vehicles is so very realistc to begin with, right?

      The whole concept is unrealistic, (and that's part of what made it so awesome when I was a kid), ad you're complaining that the transformation sequence, or rather, what Prime is supposed to transform into is realistic?

      Get a grip, it's Transformers, it's not supposed to be realistic.

    36. Re:I'm Sold. by kazad · · Score: 1

      I never thought I'd be arguing about Transformers on an internet forum, but here we are. I support you. Guys, realize that you suspend your disbelief when watching a movie. Sure, alien robots could have evolved. Sure, they could fight. Sure, they could come to Earth and fight. But make the body panels go somewhere! Make the mass roughly the same! (G1 Soundwave included... that bothered me even as a kid). Inconsistencies beyond the realm suspended disbelief jolts you out of the illusion. Star wars isn't "realistic" (or about as likely as transformers), but it's fine within that universe. But when they try to do crazy things like explain the force as being a physical property in your cells (ooh... can I have a force transplant?) the movie gets really bad really quick. My .02

    37. Re:I'm Sold. by ErikInterlude · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem like much of a mismatch to me - it's not like the original series was known for it's great storytelling.

      Well, yes, you're right it didn't win any awards, but the truth is that the writing was better than you think. I remember an episode where an Autobot found a forested area surrounding a lake with some kind of gold material in it. The Autobot was only interested in learning about the flora and fauna, but the Decepticons learned the material in the lake acted as some kind of super armor against weaponry. Soon the Autobots and Decepticons were fighting each other for control of the lake. At the end of the story, the first Autobot is just sitting there, looking despondent. The camera zooms out and we see the entire place has been destroyed.

      First of all, that was a pretty sophisticated morality tale for a cartoon show. I don't think that kind of writing shows up any more on non-cable TV channels (for cartoons, anyway). And the fact that I still remember that episode after all these years can only mean that it was a well-written story. The only stories people tend to remember are the really good ones or the hilariously bad ones.

      --

      --Erik
    38. Re:I'm Sold. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      First of all, that was a pretty sophisticated morality tale for a cartoon show.

      Sophisticated? You _must_ be kidding, that's about as sophisticated as a Smokey the Bear commercial. It's cheap featherweight crap.
       
       

      I don't think that kind of writing shows up any more on non-cable TV channels (for cartoons, anyway).

      In other words, you are as little familiar with cartoons and culture of the current era as you are with the cartoons and culture preceeding and concurrent with the original Transformers series. Simplified morality plays have been a staple of childrens television programming practically since the medium was invented. (And culturally it goes back much further than that - Grimm's Fairy Tales is nothing but a collection of such tales.)
       
       

      And the fact that I still remember that episode after all these years can only mean that it was a well-written story. The only stories people tend to remember are the really good ones or the hilariously bad ones.

      No. The fact that you remember it only proves that... you remember it. Nothing more, nothing less.
    39. Re:I'm Sold. by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      So Soundwave was supposed to be a 25 foot tall tape recorder?

      No, Soundwave was intended to be a 6 inch tall robot that transforms into a standard sized portable mini cassette player. But way to misinterpret my statement. No, I just misunderstood where the Japanese were going with it. After all, this is the culture of panty-vending machines and tentacoo wape, little makes sense at first glance.

      Hmm, Transformers had death, all be it of robots, at least in the first movie, including the death of the main character. The Transformers where damaged when shot at and did actually hit once in a while unlike GI Joe or the A-team. And come on, Transformers where Robots in Disguise, which is far more than would could say about Lancers silly get ups, and Bugs bunny was dressing in women's clothes long before Mospeada was created. I'm not saying that the transformers was an adult show, just that It's really a subjective point since so much of what someone finds influential depends on when it was encountered. I love Lord of the Rings but Star Wars (original trilogy) will still be a bigger wow due to when I encountered it. In fact, Star Wars is a good example for this since anyone who grew up in the same generation as Lucas would have seen all the parts and pieces as ripoffs whereas someone in my generation saw it all in Star Wars for the first time. I had the same experience when I was a little third grader thinking the Beastie Boys were the best thing since Grimlock. My dad heard me listening to it, said a few words I wasn't allowed to repeat at school, and broke out the Led Zep LP's. "This is where they're stealing the licks from."

      it was much edgier than most saturday morning cartoons. And Robotech didn't imply sexual relations any more than Muppet Babies did, since the only implication of sexuality in the whole thing was the birth of the color changing haired girl, Dana to Max and Mira. And as for the interracial thing, once again this was done by the Warner Brothers many years earlier with a Skunk who is in love with a cat. Well, if we want to go into things I wasn't likely to have seen up to that point, Fritz the Cat showed sex before Robotech, too. But I had not seen it up until this point.

      Try again. Yes the Valkyries where the only Macros units that were a direct copy of a Transformer character, but all the of the Macros Mecha were designed by members of the team that designed the original Transformer/Diaclone toy line. FASA on the other hand did not license the use of the Macros Mecha designs which is why they stopped using them in later releases of the game and had to use their own, lesser, designs. I bow to your superior geek-fu. And I do have to agree, the homebrew FASA designs are asymmetrical ass.

      I don't ever recall Robotech sharing any time slots with the Smurfs but by the time it was released I was not watching the Smurfs so I could be wrong. When my elders bragged about having survived disco and the 70's, I called 'em pussies: I survived 80's cartoons. Smurfs wasn't the worst of it, it wasn't even the beginning of the worst of it.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  5. Disappointed by Pikoro · · Score: 1

    Although it looks good, why drastically change the characters. I mean, I can't even figure out what Megatron is supposed to be.

    And Bumblebee? Named that way because he was a VW Beetle. I dunno.. It will probablly be a good movie but they could have at least used stylized versions of the original characters. Even a newer model VW woulda been ok...

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    1. Re:Disappointed by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 4, Informative

      No can do. Volkswagon refused. Something about not wanting to be associated with a war movie. Go figure.

    2. Re:Disappointed by CrackedButter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please mod parent +5 Whiny Fan boy.

    3. Re:Disappointed by Rank_Tyro · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude, you managed to "Godwin" a story about the Autobots.

      What were you thinking?

      --
      Today's show is brought to you by the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: 25
    4. Re:Disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? You have to have permission of a manufacturer to put a product in a movie now?

    5. Re:Disappointed by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      VW own the trademark on the design of the Beetle. This might, but probably doesn't allow them control over whether that image is used in a movie. But they could still sue, and it would still cost the studio a good deal of oney defending it.

    6. Re:Disappointed by bm_luethke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At this point that explanation seems kinda strange - yea they were involved with Hitler but so was pretty much every single German company around then. It doesn't bother me a bit to take Bayer Aspirin even knowing what went on then - todays company has little to do with back then. Not only that, but a vehicle for every person was one of the good idea's that Nazi Germany had that much of the rest of the world followed - the US's interstates were a derivative of what they saw with the Autobahn and I bet pretty much every USian drives on them.

      I could understand a reluctance to be a Decepticon - not only does the name suck from a marketing point of view but so does being the bad guy. However, for you car to be one of the freaking saviors of the world *ought* to be a good thing. Given what I have seen in the past from VW I could see a VERY successful campaign - then again given their current commercials I can also see why they felt it was bad to be one of the saviors of the world.

      This was a fairly ignorant move on the part of VW. I have fairly happy memories of playing with the VW beetle transformer in my sandbox as a kid. They are missing out on a great opportunity here because of some idiotic notion that few people buy into.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    7. Re:Disappointed by batkiwi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Using it as a general car in the background or random car the hero drives? No.
      Using the car itself as a main character and selling a toy with "VW Beatle" Stamped on it? YES.

    8. Re:Disappointed by CyZooNiC · · Score: 0

      Sources? I could just as well say GM wanted an exclusive deal to sell their cars.

    9. Re:Disappointed by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      No can do. Volkswagon refused. Something about not wanting to be associated with a war movie

      They don't have a right to "refuse". The studio may just have preferred to deal with someone who'd be happy to get product placement instead of hostile to it.

      If you think they do have this right, please explain which laws apply. It's not copyright, patent or trademarks. Granted; a large company can make your life hell regardless of the justice of their claim.

      I recall a long time ago a National Lampoon "advertisement", with a VW floating on a lake. The caption was "If Edward Kennedy had been driving a beetle, he'd be president today." I'm pretty sure VW wasn't asked for permission; and couldn't have stopped it if they wanted to.

    10. Re:Disappointed by cyberformer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is yet another example of how laws surrounding "intellectual property" have got more extreme over the last few years. Back in 1984, they could make a transformer in the likeness of a VW bug whether VW wanted them to or not. This is no longer the case.

    11. Re:Disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Coca-Cola has blood on its hands for creating Fanta, and IBM has blood on its hands for manufacturing the computers and systems used to process individuals held in Nazi concentration camps http://news.com.com/2009-1082-269157.html The U.S. doesn't even have the excuse of being under the control of a Fascist dictator at the time; just good old American corporate greed.

    12. Re:Disappointed by onsblu · · Score: 1

      Copyright is a moot point. They are only going to include cars from companies that pay big bucks for product placement.

    13. Re:Disappointed by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Dude, you managed to "Godwin" a story about the Autobots.

      What were you thinking? Two words: Space Hitler. Remember the Jews in Space segment from History of the World? Michael Bey directing, Speilburg.

      Oh, you don't think it could happen? Four words: Snakes on a Plane. Here's the way I see it: Gary Oldman reprises his character from the 5th Element, moving his soul patch back under his nose to become Space Hitler. Samuel L. Jackson plays an ass-kicking Ethiopian Jew with a penchant for MD 20/20 and saying "motherfucker" every other word. Space Hitler's battle fortress looks like a giant flying swastika, Mel Gibson plays Space Hitler's cyber-commando enforcer Otto Skorzeny, Sam Jackson is flying one of those star of david spaceships, Monica Bellucci plays his clothing-phobic sidekick, the entire last 20 minutes of the movie is just one long take of Space Hitler's exploding space fortress, and this will still be ten times better than any of the three prequel loafs Lucas pinched off.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  6. The sound !!! by The+Sith+Lord · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's got the sound !!!

    1. Re:The sound !!! by loteck · · Score: 5, Informative
      For anyone wondering what this is referring to:

      A) turn in your geek card and slashdot ID at the door
      B) check the trailer at 1:38-39. the sound prime makes as he is in his final stage of transforming is right out of the oldschool.

      Incredible how a simple sound can induce such vivid recollection of days long gone by. They've got me, hook, line, etc.

      How much is nostalgia worth? We'll find out July 9th, after its first full weekend.

    2. Re:The sound !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) turn in your geek card and slashdot ID at the door How about those of us older than 30? When 'The Transformers' came out, I rightfully thought cartoons were for kids.
    3. Re:The sound !!! by pureevilmatt · · Score: 1

      well then anonymous grandpa, you don't have to turn in your Geek card; you were never issued one.

    4. Re:The sound !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe I'm saying this, but:

      There is now NO WAY I am missing this movie.
      Based solely on that sound.

      (Captcha: "accept")

    5. Re:The sound !!! by Notquitecajun · · Score: 2, Funny

      The REAL challenge is in spelling that sound out. It's well-nigh impossible.

    6. Re:The sound !!! by knightf0x · · Score: 1

      I guess I get to keep my geek card!

    7. Re:The sound !!! by morari · · Score: 1

      The sound? I'm pretty sure Godzilla works that way as well ;)

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    8. Re:The sound !!! by dharbee · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Geezer said:"How about those of us older than 30? When 'The Transformers' came out, I rightfully thought cartoons were for kids."

      Wikipedia said:"Thirteen further episodes were commissioned for the first season of the series, and the pilot was re-aired, now with the title "More Than Meets the Eye." Running from September to December of 1984"

      Yeah, what the fuck would an 8 year old want to watch cartoons for. Bring on CNN!

    9. Re:The sound !!! by mnmn · · Score: 1

      I did miss the music though.

      And the mask-flip sequence.

      Actually the transformation sound isn't on the mark either. But it's good enough for me.

      My fear is this will be yet another Steven Speilburg movie where the focus is on the zoomed-in makeup-loaded faces of actresses rather than the action they're staring at. Too much movie time lended to the suspense factor rather than the action action action of the tv series which was all about the transformers, their transformations and the weapons. The trailer seemed a bit like Jurrasic Park where you don't see the dinos until the half of the movie with the suspense building before you see the first dino.

      --
      "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    10. Re:The sound !!! by Assassin_for_Atari · · Score: 1
      Man, this better not be a "well put in the trailer to get people pumped but not in the release" version crap. One movie that comes to mind is "half baked" when in the trailer Jim breuer jumps the parking meter. When I saw the movie later one, the seen was not present.

      overall though, I'm stoked for this movie. Robots+global domination = HELLA GOOD TIME!

    11. Re:The sound !!! by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those of us over thirty don't need geek cards - we invented geek. Anyone who has learned to code in assembly by poking two hexadecimals into an 8 bit computer will never - I repeat - never have to fear that his or her geekiness might be questioned by someone who was born after Apple created their first computer.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    12. Re:The sound !!! by Reader+X · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh sure, like you young'ns are geeks with yer "Internets" and yer "GUIs" and yer "hard drives"! All MY ones and zeros were painstakingly crafted in the old world tradition!

      And that's the way it was and we LIKED it!

      Transformers? Flibble-dee-flee!

    13. Re:The sound !!! by pureevilmatt · · Score: 1

      CHICKCHACKCHOKTOWAHGOWACK!

    14. Re:The sound !!! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Incredible how a simple sound can induce such vivid recollection of days long gone by. They've got me, hook, line, etc.

      You mean Unicron's in this movie ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  7. The good thing about trailers by Jacques+Chester · · Score: 1

    is that we know that the movie will be more than met the eye.

    --

    Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.

  8. mixed feelings by CPE1704TKS · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, I know they have to make the transformers look realistic and can't look like the cartoon. But frankly they just look like a jumble of metal, and there's nothing to help me figure out who is who. I mean even Optimus Prime barely look any different from the other robots, the only distinguishing factor is he is slightly red and blue. I guess I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping for the best.

    I hope they have the Dinobots...

    1. Re:mixed feelings by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, have you seen some stills of Optimus Prime? He doesn't look like his cartoon incarnation at all, imo. I understand that done "properly", Optimus wouldn't go over so well in the movie... but come on, can they at least get the faceplate right? Not to mention that Optimus doesn't have flames, I'm sorry. Call me a purist, but he's only the most iconic character from that franchise, you'd think they'd REALLY WANT to get him right.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    2. Re:mixed feelings by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to mention that Optimus doesn't have flames, I'm sorry. Call me a purist, but he's only the most iconic character from that franchise, you'd think they'd REALLY WANT to get him right.

      I'll quote the director losely (from memory):

      "At first we went with designs that looked much more like the original cartoon designs. Simpler, blocky, faceplates and all that. We all agreed they looked terrible in a live actions set. There are things that look perfectly fine in a cartoon or a comicbook but need to be modified to be believable in a live movie."

      Trust me, they want to make money on this film. If they could take the original designs and it'd be fine, they'd just do it. Why would they waste so much money on creating totally new designs, much more complex mechanics and try to animate all this?

      Because they're "evil" right? Wanna destroy your childhood memories. Them bastards.

    3. Re:mixed feelings by damsa · · Score: 1

      Trust me, they want to make money on this film. If they could take the original designs and it'd be fine, they'd just do it. Why would they waste so much money on creating totally new designs, much more complex mechanics and try to animate all this?
      So they can sell more toys?
    4. Re:mixed feelings by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      So they can sell more toys?

      No. Give it another shot, and try to make sense this time.

    5. Re:mixed feelings by xero314 · · Score: 1

      There are things that look perfectly fine in a cartoon or a comicbook but need to be modified to be believable in a live movie.
      Ah yes those things that never look right in moves. Things like actually vehicle designs that are in production, and realistic or at least believable physics. I'm not saying that the new designs are not flashier and won't appeal more to the younger generation, but if you can't make the Autobots look good on the big screen then I'm not sure you should be directing/producing a Transformers movie. Just Don't let these guys get there hands on the rights to Macross/Robotech.
    6. Re:mixed feelings by damsa · · Score: 1

      Michael Bay doesn't care about the fanboys because fanboys will see the movie no matter what. Therefore Michael Bay will make his version of robots and he thinks that Bumblebee looks better as a Camaro and this has nothing to do with GM sponsoring the movie. It is all due to Michael Bay's artistic vision.

    7. Re:mixed feelings by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      Therefore Michael Bay will make his version of robots and he thinks that Bumblebee looks better as a Camaro and this has nothing to do with GM sponsoring the movie. It is all due to Michael Bay's artistic vision.

      I asked you to make sense, is it so complex. Bay wanted VW as the Bumblebee but VW refused to license it to them. So he went with another car.

      Of course you have a solution for this too, I suppose. "He should've used VW anyway and took the lawsuit like a real man, he should!".

    8. Re:mixed feelings by xero314 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should direct the Transformers movie, since you bash so nicely. Maybe you shouldn't take it so personally. It's not like you directed the thing yourself. Look criticism is important, it's the only way we will ever weed out the crap and get more quality stuff produced. If you like it I'm all for it but tell me what you like not, "If you so smart why don't you do it yourself" what a load of crap. I also know Windows is a poorly written piece of crap and I happen to be a Software Engineer, but that doesn't mean I happen to want to put my effort toward writing a new OS, I'll leave that up to someone that actually has a passion for that kind of work. And until that magic OS comes out I'll just keep using the alternatives hoping MS will get the point, just as I do with most movies that I don't feel deserve a chance.

      Beyond updating a few classic cult films, the director of this film has not done anything work watching, let alone paying to watch. His awards, a measure of an entertainers abilities, are one Directors Guild award, and a hand full of MTV VMAs. I'm pretty sure Spielberg was not behind the unrealistic transformations, and the inability to license decent IP. My only hope is that his involvement can actually turn crap into gold.

      Yes I am going to pay good money to see this film, in the theater even, but I don't have very high expectations.

      And if you are the director or the directors brother or whatever, then take this as personal as you would like, just stop being a douche nozzle.
    9. Re:mixed feelings by xero314 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of course you have a solution for this too, I suppose. "He should've used VW anyway and took the lawsuit like a real man, he should!". First of all Bumblebee was not a VW Bug. There were no VW or Beetle insignia on any incarnation, and the design was different enough to avoid likeness, trademark and copyright. Bumblebees wheel base, for one thing, is significantly different than a VW Bugs. Bumblebee was a transformer that looked similar to a VW Bug. Hasbro was never sued by VW over the likeness, though they were died when they attempted to license to create an exact replica of the remodeled bug.

      The creative director behind the movie could have easily created a vehicle design that at least made the viewer think "bumblebee," but instead made, the intelligent, soft spoken, and emotional bumblebee into a classic american muscle car. I'm afraid at some point in the movie he's going to end up with a mullet, blasting Journey through cracked speakers.
    10. Re:mixed feelings by damsa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "They're gonna (complain) about everything, you know what I'm saying? Then you'll see them accept it," Bay says. "The things that really matter are there." Internet chat that Volkswagen didn't want the Beetle involved in an action movie are false, Bay says: "I just liked the other car better. I didn't want anything to do with the Bug because it reminded me of Herbie the Love Bug
      http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-04-1 9-summer-movies_N.htm/
    11. Re:mixed feelings by professorfalcon · · Score: 1

      Have you seen Thunderbirds?

    12. Re:mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've forgotten that this is Slashdot, where everything is just a matter of opinion, and no work of art is really better than any other.

    13. Re:mixed feelings by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      It may come down to the same problem with spandex and super-heroes. Other than Spider-man, Spandex rarely does well on screen - leather and looser clothing tends to look less dumb.

      TF may be the same way...the principle that the original toys were based on was that you could create either a good-looking car/plane or a good looking robot, but not both. The toy makers (Hasbro and its predecessors in Japan) went the car route...there wasn't an extremely good robot/car until the 20th anniversary Optimus Prime...and that truck isn't much on the road anymore.

    14. Re:mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The designs are just all wrong, and unappealing to the eyes. I doubt they'll be able to emote anything from the robots, and so far we have not seen any moments in which they speak.

      I will probably not be seeing this movie in the theater to my own shock and surprise. When it was first announced I was so happy. Then I heard Bay was doing the film and it knocked me down a notch but I said to myself, "Maybe it will be good."

      Yet, after watching this trailer, I can tell that the movie just feels wrong in every way. The robots are hunched over jumbles of metal that are indistinguishable from one to the next. Their designs are completely different than old-school, and the plot looks non-existent. The battle scenes are probably what caused my dismay the most, they just look campy and unimaginative.

      I think this is definitely a Michael Bay film as its trailer has caused the same reaction in me that Pearl Harbor and Bad Boys did. The movie just feels like a lifeless piece of metal.

    15. Re:mixed feelings by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      "I didn't want anything to do with the Bug because it reminded me of Herbie the Love Bug"

      That's fair. I don't want anything to do with Transformers because it reminds me of Pearl Harbor.

    16. Re:mixed feelings by cmcguffin · · Score: 1

      > Why would they waste so much money on creating totally new
      > designs, much more complex mechanics and try to animate all this?

      Obligatory snark:

      Because Michael Bay is a total and utter hack?

    17. Re:mixed feelings by aztektum · · Score: 1

      do you expect them to have megatron turn from a .45 pistol into a 6 story robot in this thing too? if you want the original watch the cartoons. also, about optimus, they didn't use the flat nosed cab style that optimus was orig based on because it is a smaller style truck and during testing, didn't feel like he had a large enough presence physically, since they worked to have the robots stay true to the vehicles they are based on in robot form

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    18. Re:mixed feelings by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Spider-man and Mrs. Fantastic you mean, right? Surely Jessica Alba in spandex is far far better than Toby? Right?

      Right?

    19. Re:mixed feelings by wissape · · Score: 1

      I am curious... the vid at 22seconds shows bumblebee as a late-model camaro, but the production pics from http://movies.yahoo.com/summer-movies/Transformers /1808716430/photos/17/2718 show it as a new-age mustang... I will assume they change mid production and are going with the camaro.

    20. Re:mixed feelings by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Right. Good gravy on a corn dog, how did I not mention THAT....

    21. Re:mixed feelings by Soulslayer · · Score: 1

      That's the 2008 Camaro. Bumblebee starts out as a 1969 Camaro and at some point in the film becomes a 2008 Camaro (which is a vehicle with design elements intended to evoke a '69 Camaro).

      --


      Once more unto the breach dear friends...
    22. Re:mixed feelings by mrzaph0d · · Score: 1

      i think bumblebee, like many new actors, "got hollywood". he probably had some work done and hoped no one would notice. i bet it pissed the production people off when he showed up for work one monday as a mustang instead of a camero. i mean, working in mark hamill's scars is one thing, but changing brands as a car? isn't that like getting a sex change op for a person?

      --
      this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
    23. Re:mixed feelings by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Hey, release some of those test animations and let us decide how bad they look.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    24. Re:mixed feelings by wissape · · Score: 1

      my bad I noticed the Chevy emblem and the tail lights after posting...

    25. Re:mixed feelings by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Agreed. 1970's mecha designs were laughably plain and vanilla. The trend through the 80's was to add more details and make for mecha that seemed more plausible. The crazy Voltron-like superbots that could go toe to toe with Godzilla were called super robots while the robots that were treated more like humanoid machinery were called real robots. Through the 90's design trends tended to get a bit loopy, some designers going for the slim an organic look of mecha like the evangelions while others went for bulky and improbable like Armored Core/Heavy Gear.

      I think the design failing of the Transformers in this movie is more fundamental than robot fangeekery, it's aesthetic: over-detailing. You're exactly right, I can't tell the difference from one robot to the next. The robots are also moving so quickly, it's hard to get a sense of the inertia we should be seeing here for objects of such size.

      I'm also getting tired of shakey-cam. I know, I know, I was really jazzed at first when we got to see shots that could have never been made using conventioanl equipment. There's a real "howdeydodat?!" appeal. But it ultimately serves to make the scene look less plausible. I actually like it in anime when they take pains to make it look like a hand-drawn scene was conventionally filmed; an example is in Cowboy Bebop where we see Spike take off in his fighter for the first time, we get a reverse angle shot from a "camera" strapped to the bottom of his fighter as he clears the Bebop's deck. When the camera is jerking around through the scene and you can barely get an appreciation for what's happening on the screen, what's the point? That actually gets to my one cinematic gripe with LOTR, the camera work in the battles was too close to the actors, you couldn't get a sense of what was going on. In a movie like Braveheart you still had shock and blood but could also gain a sense of the ebb and flow of battle.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    26. Re:mixed feelings by not-enough-info · · Score: 1

      You know, honestly, I was perfectly fine with the leather designs of the X-Men uniforms in those movies. And frankly, it really would have looked live-action absurd if Hugh Jackman was wearing yellow spandex. I expect the same for giant boxy robots.

      --
      ---k--
      </stupid>
    27. Re:mixed feelings by Faizdog · · Score: 1

      So, How do you explain this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5175Y06_Lk

      --
      -"Those who fought today will die tommorow."-
    28. Re:mixed feelings by VanessaE · · Score: 1

      I watched the youtube video and just about fell out of my chair as I watched what might as well have been a real-life Optimus Prime transform exactly the way he does in the cartoon! I have to ask....If what I've seen in the trailers is what I think I've seen, then why on earth isn't the upcoming movie going to use thwe sdame transform sequence used in that Youtube clip!? I'm still going to watch the movie when it comes out (well, when it hits DVD probably), but I feel utterly let down by whoever is responsible. /me sighs heavily.

    29. Re:mixed feelings by unicron02 · · Score: 1

      I read someplace that he will have a faceplate similar to the one that Optimus Primal had in Beast Wars - one that "pops up" or closes in from the sides when he prepares for combat.

      http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808716430/photo/970 432679 seems to indicate some kind of faceplate.
      http://movies.yahoo.com/summer-movies/Transformers /1808716430/photos/17/2575 another picture indicating a faceplate.
      http://movies.yahoo.com/summer-movies/Transformers /1808716430/photos/17/324 this pic is the best one that I have seen so far. The shadows hide enough such that he looks somewhat more like the classic Optimus.

      One of the main problems that existed in the original series and comics in terms of "reality" was the idea of mass shifting. This is most apparent with Soundwave as was pointed out earlier, where he would somehow go from a 10lb boombox to a multi-ton 20 foot tall robot. I have read that the production crew had a desire to limit mass shifting as much as possible, which is one reason why we get these robots with too much detail. They wanted to show exactly how a vehicle could transform into a roughly humanoid robot without trying to convince people that parts were disappearing and appearing out of nowhere between transformations and that it was perfectly ok.

      Good or bad, I am going to enjoy this simply for the visual effects and nostalgia factor. Anybody who grew up loving Transformers can relate I am sure. I hope that there are more of the subtle little things like the transformation sound that pop up throughout the movie.

  9. This movie is doubly insulting to me by Buran · · Score: 3, Funny

    Any movie that thinks it's OK to ruin the VW Beetle joke and try to foist a fucking CAMARO on us that is some piece of domestic shit and totally destroys the joke, rather than pulling the joke entirely and saying "fine, if we can't use a Beetle, we aren't going to use the name at all" is not good in my book.

    Any movie that thinks Beagle 2 was a Mars rover, uses footage of a Saturn 5 rocket in the launch shots when it's really easy to get stock footage of the actual launcher used for the Beagle 2 mission (Russian R-7 derivative, NOT the Delta 2 the trailer showed), and then goes on to show shots of a really badly-done Mars Exploration Rover copy, all in a 30-second trailer ...

    What the fuck are they SMOKING?

    If I see it at all I'll do it by waiting for the cheap DVD. Good going. Insult my VW-loving side AND my space-geek side.

    There are plenty of other movies I'd like to see this summer and this one isn't going to get my money.

    1. Re:This movie is doubly insulting to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. I suggest you extend this to your multimedia blog so the filmmakers will REALLY feel your wrath.

      (Let me guess - you never forgave PJackson for Tom Bombadil have you?)

    2. Re:This movie is doubly insulting to me by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 1

      Fine, don't go; I'll have a nice empty seat to hold my Roger-Ebert-sized tub of popcorn.

    3. Re:This movie is doubly insulting to me by Buran · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Fine; go; be exposed to 2 hours of BS made by people who can't even get their damn premise straight. And have fun paying for your overpriced ticket and overpriced popcorn and paying more than you would just waiting for the freaking DVD.

    4. Re:This movie is doubly insulting to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      So the main reason you will not go and see this film about GIANT SPACE ROBOTS* is that the footage used for the real space stuff in the trailer is inaccurate?

      *I think that deserved extra emphasis

    5. Re:This movie is doubly insulting to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buran, you are an angry little geek aren't you? Go get a life you Moron!

    6. Re:This movie is doubly insulting to me by Niten · · Score: 1

      Don't take it the wrong way, but you remind me of all those people who complained when they found out that Ronald D. Moore was going to make Starbuck a girl. So Bumblebee is a Camaro and not a VW... the movie as a whole isn't going to be any worse (or better) for it.

    7. Re:This movie is doubly insulting to me by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      That could be placeholder footage. These days the special effects are constantly being worked on quite late into production.

    8. Re:This movie is doubly insulting to me by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Whine all you want about it not conforming to your idea of the "right" way it should've been done. Those of us who loved the original are already sold on it from the trailers. You can't expect a movie made 15 years later to be able to stick to every detail from the original material (I hold up Battlestar Galactica as my example). Not only will it draw the loyal crowd, but also the general public (you know what happens when the general public doesn't buy into a move? "Serenity". A great movie, but it doesn't get to go anywhere). This thing is going to make a mint AND kick ass.

    9. Re:This movie is doubly insulting to me by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "This movie is doubly insulting to me"

      More insulting then a half hour commercial, I mean cartoon, designed to sell toys?

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    10. Re:This movie is doubly insulting to me by biscon · · Score: 1

      Oh come on you big crybaby ;)

      you'll go see it, just as I will.. even though I've never been particularly fond of transformers.
      I thought the cartoon sucked ass.

    11. Re:This movie is doubly insulting to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Starbuck in NOT a girl. Just like when you say "Star Trek" to me you are only talking about the original.

    12. Re:This movie is doubly insulting to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Starbuck in NOT a girl. Just like when you say "Star Trek" to me you are only talking about the original.

      Worst ... Fanboy rant ... Ever.

    13. Re:This movie is doubly insulting to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOD PARENT UP.

      Man... somebody actually gets it. There's no deep premise or need to be realistic: the whole Transformers thing was just one big advertisement to get 10 year old boys to buy dolls. Oops, I mean "action figures".

      Being nostalgic for Transformers is like being nostalgic for questionably nutritious but heavily marketed 'Sugar Pops'. And that your parents loved you so much that they let you get raised by vapid after-school TV shows.

    14. Re:This movie is doubly insulting to me by Rycross · · Score: 1

      So basically you're complaining that a live-action movie doesn't exactly follow every detail from a childrens' cartoon about giant space robots, made to sell dolls? Somehow, I don't think you were going to come out impressed even if this did live up to your lofty standards.

    15. Re:This movie is doubly insulting to me by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      which "Starbuck" would you rather spend a week alone with?

      I know which one I'd pick.

  10. This trailer is INCOMPLETE by Gerocrack · · Score: 5, Funny

    How can we judge the movie without seeing even a few seconds of one of the song and dance routines? This is a musical, right?

    1. Re:This trailer is INCOMPLETE by WwWonka · · Score: 0

      ...now everyone sing along with me,

      TRANSFORMERS! the acting that I despise,
      Transformers...hit them apple pies!
      (was reaching on the last line)

    2. Re:This trailer is INCOMPLETE by DaveCar · · Score: 1
    3. Re:This trailer is INCOMPLETE by yakumo.unr · · Score: 1

      For anyone worried about what the mysterious MPG is, and if it's worth clicking, it's the Transformer inspired dancing Citroen C4 ad.

  11. Looking forward to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although I'm looking forward to this movie, as a kid, I was never into Transformers.
    However this is the closest I'm going to get to seeing FASA's MechWarrior's on the
    big screen.

    G++

    1. Re:Looking forward to... by Sesticulus · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you want a bad implementation check out Robot Jox http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102800/

    2. Re:Looking forward to... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "However this is the closest I'm going to get to seeing FASA's MechWarrior's"

      If you were a true fan, you'd refer to it as "BattleTech."

    3. Re:Looking forward to... by sYkSh0n3 · · Score: 1

      With Puppetmaster 43 playing in the run down city. jesus, how can i remember that and not be able to remember my g/f's birthday?

  12. TERRIBLE! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    These trailers suck!

    I haven't actually seen them yet, but it's not for lack of trying. Yahoo's server is so crappy that I can't even see the video smoothly. I guess I'll have to get them on BitTorrent....

    1. Re:TERRIBLE! by elborrachogato · · Score: 0

      well i downloaded the mov file in 5 minutes. good luck with BT

    2. Re:TERRIBLE! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Good call. After opening the qtl file or whatever it was, using wget on the resulting http: path yields download success.

      It'd be nice if these websites would just give us links to the files instead of trying to push this "streaming" BS on us.

    3. Re:TERRIBLE! by ozbon · · Score: 1

      Why not go to the movie's site? It's got the trailers there, no worries.

      --
      I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
    4. Re:TERRIBLE! by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I thought the trailers in 1080p rocked hard. I also viewed them on a new 24" monitor though, so YMMV.

    5. Re:TERRIBLE! by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 1

      Um... pause it until the entire thing downloads, then play it?

      --

      Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
  13. Disappointing Transformations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like the modelers and animators didn't bother figuring out how to make them transform in a meaningful way. Instead they make a bunch of spinning metal with a ridiculous amount of motion blur and play the "transform sound" and it just makes a jumbled looking mess.

    1. Re:Disappointing Transformations by DrXym · · Score: 1
      It looks like the modelers and animators didn't bother figuring out how to make them transform in a meaningful way. Instead they make a bunch of spinning metal with a ridiculous amount of motion blur and play the "transform sound" and it just makes a jumbled looking mess.

      Michael Bay films never make sense. They're not even internally consistent. It's a wonder that his movies even make money considering how bad they usually are.

    2. Re:Disappointing Transformations by DaScribbler · · Score: 1

      I dunno...I personally got the impression that it was simply editing for the trailer.

      Almost as if they didn't want you to see the full effects. Every scene where the transformations take place literally span 1 second, and the trailer's music/sound masked a lot too.

      I won't pass judgement until the movie is released. But from what I see, it appears they still want to only throw teasers out to the public.

    3. Re:Disappointing Transformations by DrXym · · Score: 1

      That would be plausible if we weren't talking about Michael Bay. One second cuts and bombastic music blaring over everything are his trademark. I'm sure you might see some slower "transforming" or even slo-mo (another trademark) in places but do you really care to go and see the movie because of that? He's made so many shitty movies that the default assumption should be that this one will be bad too. Of course we might all be pleasantly surprised, but better to wait for critics to say as much before wasting an evening & money to find out.

  14. I am sure that this will be..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a major contribution to the World's literature and arts.

    Not.

    Seriously, have we no higher aspiration than this sort of thing? This really goes to the heart of why the rest of the world looks down on us...

    1. Re:I am sure that this will be..... by deft · · Score: 1

      Did you seriously just equate a movie with world opinion and foreign policy like the war in iraq is a side note to a Michael Bay film?

      When they invent bitch slaps that can go through a monitor you better f'ing duck.

      --

      There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    2. Re:I am sure that this will be..... by The+Sith+Lord · · Score: 1

      ... and to think that if you stopped at your first sentance you would have been modded "insightful" !

    3. Re:I am sure that this will be..... by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      It's just that sometimes you gotta slap a bitch, you know?

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    4. Re:I am sure that this will be..... by Rycross · · Score: 1

      America doesn't have a monopoly on bad and tasteless entertainment.

    5. Re:I am sure that this will be..... by Rycross · · Score: 1

      Well the war in Iraq and Michael Bay films are disasters, so I guess the comparison isn't quite so ridiculous.

  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. worst site ever by rhade · · Score: 1
    the only movie u can see without getting something that plays .qtl which is apparently quicktime which is a definite no no (worst media player ever (besides realplayer) and so by that i guess i mean worst still existing player)

    is terrible quality, what was the plan there

    --
    http://www.awfullybigmoustache.com
    1. Re:worst site ever by franksands · · Score: 1

      I have quicktime 7.1.5 on a winXP machine, and it still had no clue what to do with that qtl file.

    2. Re:worst site ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have quicktime 7.1.5 on a winXP machine, and it still had no clue what to do with that qtl file. You could... open it with the quicktime player. Or double-click it. Radical as that may sound.
    3. Re:worst site ever by franksands · · Score: 1

      Learn to read my friend. I said "it had no clue", as in Quicktime had no clue. I double clicked, pressed play, waited for a few seconds and nothing, it went back to the "play" button.

  17. Damn Yahoo. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When was simplicity forgotten. How hard is it to post a video? Seriously I download DVDRips, Telesyncs, R5, bad cam shots all the time.

    Yet when I want to view something as simple as a trailer, I have to jump hoops. I hate having to install unnecessary software.

    TYVM, I'll just wait for the leaked screener.

  18. Code Guardian by pipingguy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    On a related theme, how many here have seen Code Guardian?

    It's quite impressive.

    Please be nice and not Slashdot Goo..., er, youtube.

    1. Re:Code Guardian by franksands · · Score: 1

      Just goes to show you. This animation that probably didn't have 1% of the resources of the crapfest that is the transformers trailer, is a hundred times better. I'll skip the whole robot design thing and just say one thing: the camera focus on the freaking robot. Die Michael Bay, die a most hedious death.

    2. Re:Code Guardian by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      I find it to be quite amazing (maybe 80% quality of Hollywood for animation). Apparently some independent shop in Italy did the work, but I may be wrong. I really liked it.

    3. Re:Code Guardian by kellererik · · Score: 1

      Wow. To be honest, I'd rather see this as a movie.

    4. Re:Code Guardian by DrBdan · · Score: 1

      That is quite impressive. Great CGI work, good story.

      SPOILER!
      My favourite part was when the Code Guardian ripped off the Nazi-bots arm and beat it with it. Who hasn't wanted to do that? Awesome.
      END SPOILER

    5. Re:Code Guardian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  19. Sorry... by tm2b · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Give me Robot Jox any day.
    • No sound in space.
    • Correct orbital mechanics (eg, thrust behind made the robot go up instead of ahead)
    • When the "good guys" says, "Wait! We don't need to fight! We can both walk away from this fight before we kill each other!" the "bad guy" thinks about it for a minute and then agrees. They walk away from it. The end.
    Best. B-Movie. Ever.
    --
    "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    1. Re:Sorry... by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      Hell, yes! And it even had a shooting fist launcher gun thing - how's that for realism!

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    2. Re:Sorry... by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As I was reading your post, it sounded like a movie I would want to leech... Until you ruined the ending. ;(

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    3. Re:Sorry... by gpn · · Score: 1

      Sound can travel through space, because space is not the total vacuum it's often made out to be. Atoms of gas give the universe a ubiquitous atmosphere of sorts, albeit a very thin one. The sound would not be picked up by human ears as they are not sensitive enough, although you may be able to make it if you had a massive über sensitive microphone.

    4. Re:Sorry... by raddan · · Score: 1

      My mom rented that movie for me when I was 12, sick with the flu, knowing that I loved sci-fi. But all it did was give me really fucked up fever-induced dreams. She followed that up with Zardoz. More crazy-ass dreams. I have to give her credit-- at least she tried. But man... I've seen way more Sean Connery than I ever wanted to.

    5. Re:Sorry... by Agripa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Correct orbital mechanics (eg, thrust behind made the robot go up instead of ahead)

      The pilot for Firefly had this also: the Reaver ship thrusts forward to enter the atmosphere. I almost jumped up to cheer.

    6. Re:Sorry... by Deagol · · Score: 1
      Crash and burn, dude!

      One of the *worst* movies I've endured.

    7. Re:Sorry... by vecctor · · Score: 1

      Don't let that stop you! It's a fun movie with giant stop-motion robots. CGI is nice, but stop-motion has something special imo.

      --
      Why, yes I have been touched by His noodly appendage. And I plan to sue.
    8. Re:Sorry... by sYkSh0n3 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Keyser Soze.

    9. Re:Sorry... by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Give me Robot Jox any day.
      No sound in space.
      Correct orbital mechanics (eg, thrust behind made the robot go up instead of ahead)
      When the "good guys" says, "Wait! We don't need to fight! We can both walk away from this fight before we kill each other!" the "bad guy" thinks about it for a minute and then agrees. They walk away from it. The end.
      Best. B-Movie. Ever. What about the ass shot? You forgot to mention the ass shot! Some cute quasi-butch robot-jockette in the showers. Remember, these were the days before interwebbertube pr0n, we had to make due with what we could get. :)
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  20. Neat. by sudog · · Score: 1

    They worked in the original transforming noise from the cartoons. :-)

    Good enough for me! I'll be standing in line for this one.

  21. Robot speech? by TekJannsen · · Score: 1

    The new trailer is MUCH better than the previous teasers and has put my mind at ease about a lot of things. But what it doesn't indicate is if the robots are actually going to talk, or if they've turned into cool-looking machines that blow stuff up. The original series as centered around the dialogue between the Autobot/Decepticon characters, and it would be a shame if they decided to cut their voices out altogether.

    1. Re:Robot speech? by fondacio · · Score: 1

      They are going to speak. They hired Peter Cullen, the original voice of Optimus Prime, to perform his voice in the film, and for a while also had Frank Welker, the actor who voiced Megatron, to reprise his role (which he is still doing in the video game; you can hear it in some clips on the site). You can hear some voicework on the official movie site. Cullen sounds a bit older, but still very much like Prime. On the video game site, you can hear that Welker's voice has changed a bit, which may be the reason why he was dropped for Hugo Weaving, which means Agent Smith is going to voice Megatron (see the IMDb entry).

      There's a clear strategy behind the trailers so far: they reveal more and more to keep old fans aching for more information, and this new information comes out bit by bit. And I guess they want to leave some things obscured so people actually go and see the movie...

    2. Re:Robot speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have creepy little lips that move when they talk, since obviously speakers are vastly insufficient for a robot to render convincing human voices.

      err I mean, yes, they talk.

    3. Re:Robot speech? by NBarnes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The basic problem with this movie is going to be, and I'm telling you this now and you can admit I'm right later, is that the creative team feels the need to have humans running around that we can 'identify' with instead of trusting their writing, directing, and SFX to make the Transformers themselves the main characters. And no matter what else they get right (and that 'Exclusive' trailer was very damn cool), that will be the major failing of the movie.

      The movie is not 'The Kids That Pal Around With Transformers', the movie is 'Transformers'.

    4. Re:Robot speech? by Lt.Hawkins · · Score: 1

      from [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/]IMDB.com [/url]

      Peter Cullen ... Optimus Prime (voice)
      Hugo Weaving ... Megatron (voice)
      Keith David ... Barricade (voice)

      --
      -- My Sig is a P228.
    5. Re:Robot speech? by Lt.Hawkins · · Score: 1
      --
      -- My Sig is a P228.
    6. Re:Robot speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well marketability is the primary reason for choosing a storyline centering around the humans and not the robots.

      Only fanboys with nostalgia, sci-fi geeks, and little kids will be willing to watch a movie whos central character is a large truck fighting a F-22 raptor.
      Its just not interesting other than to watch special effects for anyone else.

      Thats not enough to fit the bill of Prime's animation CGI.

      Unlike Jurassic Park, Transformers have a much more niche appeal.

      This movie will be about the Transformers as much as Aliens VS Predators was about Aliens and Predators.

    7. Re:Robot speech? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      that will be the major failing of the movie.

            No, actually, the major failing of the movie will be (as usual) reliance on eye candy special effects and a complete and utter lack of a plot. I mean, how many times do you have to go watch a movie about the evil dudes trying to take over the world and the heroes stopping them?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:Robot speech? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      The movie is not 'The Kids That Pal Around With Transformers', the movie is 'Transformers'.

      The cartoon had plots that involved people too. Remember Sparkplug and Spike?

    9. Re:Robot speech? by Xtravar · · Score: 1

      Dude, the cartoon was created solely to fuckin' sell toys. Stop deluding yourself with "teh grandeur that is TEH TRANSFORMERZ" and you'll be much happier.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    10. Re:Robot speech? by NBarnes · · Score: 1

      I remember that they were the lamest part of the cartoon; my point exactly.

  22. 60 years ago by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Although I am against to forget such horror as happenned during the Hitler in germanay, and the cooperation of many firm and religious eprsona, you would think that the VW of 60 years ago and the VW of today are not the same. The management is not the same, the CEO is not the same, the WORKER are not the same, the product are not the same , so why be surprised on VW refusing to be associated with Transformer with the VW which cooperated with Hitler 60 years ago ?

    While it make sense to point finger at the firm & people of 60 years ago, it make absolutely no sense to point finger at the firm and manifacturer of today, unless they are publicly praising those of 60 years ago.

    I work for LH at an airport which was built on the blood of Nazi victim. I would be really dumbfounded if somebody pointed its finger to me saying "nazi collabo !" or made any parallel to the LH of the 40's. But you jsut did that. It does not make any sense and you were modded informative. .
    Let us see if I can be modded informative. Moderator here is a wiki for you and the related parent post : Linking VW today policy with VW policy of Hitler's Germany On a film about transformer

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  23. And u call yourselves geeks? by poptones · · Score: 1

    Plays just fine (and looks marvelous) on my open sores ubuntu boxen with with xine, mplayer, totem...

    What's this about worse player ever? Xine is one of the best ever!

  24. Re:I know by Walruzoar · · Score: 2, Funny

    May I be the first to welcome, etc...

    --
    Take off every 'Sig'!! You know what you doing. http://www.donline.co.uk/
  25. Link to 480 or at least 720? by Stormmind · · Score: 1

    My computer chokes on 1080. =/

    1. Re:Link to 480 or at least 720? by moriya · · Score: 5, Informative

      As requested.. the QTL files are XML files so just save 'em and open it with your favorite text editor. The content is easy to read so getting the URL takes little to no effort. I did not bother to include the teaser trailer. If you want to view it, you know what to do.

      "Exclusive" 720p
      "Exclusive" 480p
      Trailer 720p
      Trailer 480p

    2. Re:Link to 480 or at least 720? by karmatic · · Score: 1

      What are it's specs? I might have some software that can handle it.

  26. Reminds me of by Kev_Stewart · · Score: 1

    After seeing the McBain movie trailer..

    Shop guy: So would you like to rent the movie, sir?
    Homer: Why? I just saw the best part!

  27. Re:Dude, it's Transformers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hint:
    then=indication of time, causality
    than=comparison

  28. Where do I get in line? by poptones · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I never got into the tv show, it wasn't of my generation. I'm an old man of 45, and these trailers have me convinced I need to be getting in line because this one deserves the big screen.

    And I *never* actually go to the movies anymore.

  29. I agree! by CrimsonScythe · · Score: 1

    Totally can't wait to see the Bollywood remake of this one!

    --
    The view was horrible and the smell was even worse; Julie severely regretted becoming a proctologist.
  30. Am I deaf or what? by Ka+D'Argo · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So far a few people have replied saying Optimus's transform sound is pretty old school, very similar to the original if not a slightly modified one at that.

    Am I deaf? I've watched the trailer a half a dozen times now and none of the sounds for transforming, sound anything like the awesome original sound from Generation 1. Like not even remotely close to the sound. The one scene in the trailer where we see Optimus, yea his transform sound, sounds like the background sound from a car work shop; hydraulics going off, that "whir whir" sound of a bolt remover/tightener etc nothing like the original transform, nothing.

    I won't be seeing it for a good number of reasons, but I was just curious where people are hearing this great old school sound, cause for me it's completely missing from this trailer, I literally could not hear it anywhere.

    --
    Aw Frell this
    1. Re:Am I deaf or what? by treke · · Score: 1

      It's on the trailer at http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/transformers.html at about 1 minute and 37 seconds in when Optimus transforms.

    2. Re:Am I deaf or what? by treke · · Score: 1

      I just looked again and saw there are three different ones. You specifically want the exclusive trailer. I was watching the 1080p version.

    3. Re:Am I deaf or what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You note how in the previous trailers, they always started the new transforming sound (whirr-clank-whine...), but then "dramatically" cut to an ambient track just before that point, right?

      I'll say this -- they aren't stupid. They've been planning this for a while, and they've pulled it off; people are going to go insane over this one, seemingly insignificant item. This movie will make a fortune opening weekend.

    4. Re:Am I deaf or what? by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      Yep, you're deaf.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    5. Re:Am I deaf or what? by Ka+D'Argo · · Score: 1

      To justify someone modding me down, on the link to the yahoo page there are 3 trailers listed. Since the /. article said it was the Theatrical Trailer, that's the one I watched. That trailer, does not the sound. The "Exclusive" trailer is the new one, which does include the sound. If anything, the article was a tad misleading.

      --
      Aw Frell this
  31. Boooring! by Nuffsaid · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's next, a movie about capacitors? Followed by "Resistors' revenge", maybe?

    --
    Nuffsaid
    ________

    Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
    1. Re:Boooring! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Transformers look like capactiors at some frequency, and like resistors at the frequency at which parasitic capacitance equals the inductance. So, transformers cover all three aspects.

    2. Re:Boooring! by rasputin465 · · Score: 1

      Parent -> mod -1, overnerdification

      and yes, i mean that even relative to a /. audience.

    3. Re:Boooring! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Overnerdification? I thought they taught this stuff in kindergarten these days. It's fairly simple. Any time you have parallel metal, you have a capacitor. So, a coil of wire, the coils being parallel to each other, form capacitors. As the frequency you apply to the transformer winding increases, this capacitance becomes more pronounced. The coil will actually radiate like a helical antenna when the frequency is within the band of resonance of the coil. At resonance, the impedance is purely real (i.e. resistive). Above resonance, the capacitive component of the inward-looking impedance is more pronounced than the inductance if the coil.

      Like I said... childsplay...

  32. Sector 7 code! by Allison+Geode · · Score: 4, Informative

    i don't know if any of you have been following the sector 7 arg but there's a new login for that in the trailer. it flickers during part of the trailer, if you pause it when bumblebee's radio is shown in close-up and fritzes out, you'll see it, the code is "codeblack".

  33. What, no obligatories? by rasputin465 · · Score: 4, Funny

    No one has said it yet!?? Ok, I guess I'll have to:

    I, for one, welcome our new Autobot overlords!

    1. Re:What, no obligatories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You got it all wrong,

      I, for one, welcome or new Decepticon overlords!

    2. Re:What, no obligatories? by halivar · · Score: 1

      Both of you will be brought to utter ruin.

      I, for one, welcome Unicron. Now bow.

    3. Re:What, no obligatories? by CheeseTroll · · Score: 1

      In Korea, only old people transform.

      --
      A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
    4. Re:What, no obligatories? by muellerr1 · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be our Decepticon overlords? From what I hear, the Autobots don't really have many overlordish tendencies.

      I saw the trailer. Not once did my favorite robot pair show up, the mini-cassette recorder guy with a mini-cassette that turned into a puma. Probably because a mini-cassette player is pretty useless unless the plot revolves around getting evidence off of an ancient answering machine tape.

    5. Re:What, no obligatories? by rasputin465 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Shouldn't that be our Decepticon overlords? From what I hear, the Autobots don't really have many overlordish tendencies.

      Well that's a really good question. But I figured, the Decepticons only want to kill the humans, and it would be pretty difficult to be overlords if all your subjects are dead. I would much prefer to have the Autobots as my overlords. ALL HAIL AUTOBOTS.

    6. Re:What, no obligatories? by CelticWhisper · · Score: 1

      And I, for one, welcome UnicORn.

      OMG PONIES!

      --
      Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
      http://www.tsanewsblog.com
    7. Re:What, no obligatories? by sYkSh0n3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They tried to update him to, but when Apple wouldn't give them rights to the Ipod, they pondered on using the Zune's likeness, decided no one would know what it was and just dropped him all together.

  34. "VW Beatle" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Mecha-John-Lennon?

  35. PLEASE START A MOVIE REVIEW SITE!!!! by deft · · Score: 3, Funny

    Holy crap that was hilarious. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE start a movie review site. I would read every one of your reviews. They would be forwarded to millions of people on the interweb.

    You love VW's and space tremendously. Just for that the world needs you.

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
  36. Nah, is a Michael Bay film... by tgd · · Score: 2, Funny

    Plotlines in disguise.

  37. Re:Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) ...? by pbhj · · Score: 2, Funny

    So which one of those links was a goatse video?

  38. Spotted in the background by originalnih · · Score: 1

    I just finished watching a National Geographic documentary about building the new bridge across the hoover dam. Therefore I was amused to be able to tell what point construction was at when they filmed the hoover dam flyby for the movie. They must have had to be damn careful of the cables and high-line towers you can clearly see in the shot.

    I think the new bridge is going to ruin the visual impact of future movies, but who knows. Got to stay true to reality.

  39. Has everyone forgotten? by Darth_brooks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I see so much interest in this film. Lots of summer blockbuster "buzz" and eager fanboys awaiting the release of the film. I just have to say it. I have to rain on the parade. I have to be the buzz kill:

    Michael Bay directed and co-produced Pearl Harbor.

    The man sat down and, with what I'm assuming was a straight face, said "let's take one of America's greatest military defeats and make it a love story starring Ben Affleck." Read that over a few times. Then remember that the same guy thinks a love story should have a goodbye scene in a train station, especially when your protagonist is leaving New York for F%$#ing London, is directing a film adaptation of a beloved story from your childhood.

    I'd like to be wrong....but I'm not holding out a lot of hope.

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    1. Re:Has everyone forgotten? by KalgarThrax · · Score: 1

      I would like, as a history nerd, to point out that Pearl Harbor was not a defeat in the strategic sense. All of the U.S. carrier battle groups were out of the harbor on training, and thus were not sunk. They were subsequently instrumental in winning key battles such as the battles of Midway and Guadalcanal. People considered it a defeat because few military strategists at the time were aware of the full power of the aircraft carrier, and naval air operations.

      I agree with your sentiment about Pearl Harbor the movie being a horrible piece of Hollywood trash. The only thing I liked was the fact it portrayed the Japanese as men of honor and not "them slanty eyed Jap bastards."

    2. Re:Has everyone forgotten? by antdude · · Score: 1

      At least his movies have good action scenes. Just turn off your brain and enjoy the action scenes. :)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:Has everyone forgotten? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...let's take one of America's greatest military defeats..."

      Well, that gives us a lot of choice!

      Seriously, has anyone noticed how the US has actually got quite a lot of defeats, and very few victories if you look closely?

      WW2 in Europe, for instance, was mainly Russia winning, while the US, UK and Canada walked through the west with minimal opposition. But we still maintain the fiction that somehow we 'saved Europe".

      Wars since, like Korea and Vietnam, were messy ones that we lost while pretending they were draws. I suppose we will say the same about Iraq?

    4. Re:Has everyone forgotten? by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      Just turn off your brain and enjoy the action scenes. :)

      You were a producer on "The Incredible Hulk" weren't you? :)

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    5. Re:Has everyone forgotten? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Tactically, though, we had our asses handed to us. Thousands dead and many ships sunk[1] for a cost of five midget subs and their crews, one fleet sub which disappeared, and a couple dozen aircraft.

      Much like Coral Sea, which was a strategic victory for us (stopped the Nipponese advance, also made Shokaku and Zuikaku unavailable for Midway) but a tactical victory for them (large fleet carrier, a destroyer, and a tanker sunk for us versus a light carrier sunk, one fleet carrier damaged, and the other carrier's air wing decimated).

      [1] Granted, only Arizona, Utah, and Oklahoma were permanent losses, though the only usable bits of Cassin and Downes were their machinery.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:Has everyone forgotten? by antdude · · Score: 1

      I wished. :) Heh, that movie wasn't too bad. Just wasn't good. I am going to see Spider-Man 3 on IMAX. I heard it is not good so I will turn off my brain for this one. :D

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    7. Re:Has everyone forgotten? by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      People considered it a defeat because few military strategists at the time were aware of the full power of the aircraft carrier, and naval air operations.

      True. But it was a tactical loss in every sense of the word. Japan struck a huge blow, if not a long term strategic one, against the US fleet in the pacific. They traded a few dozen aircraft for the bulk of the Capital ships in the US fleet. That's a win in anybodys book. No, the didn't get the fuel depots, the sub pens, the dry docks, or the carriers, but they won December 7th 1941. We won September 2nd 1945, so we can now say that Pearl Harbor wasn't a "strategic" victory.

      Instead of putting together a large battle fleet to sortie against the Japanese assaults on Wake, the Philippines etc., the United States had to put their carriers in "Run and Hide" mode for the next several months while we tried to figure out exactly what we were supposed to do with a navy that had undergone a rapid "paradigm shift" at the hands of the enemy.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    8. Re:Has everyone forgotten? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      The only victories that matter are the strategic ones.

    9. Re:Has everyone forgotten? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, did you have anything to add?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    10. Re:Has everyone forgotten? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you? How about I add a slathering of hummus to your body? Gently, though...it's to ward off the CEO of Universal Pictures who will try to sneak into your house at night to impregnate your wife while you are out watching Transformers. The hummus will amuse him and he'll just laugh and go home. It's for the best.

    11. Re:Has everyone forgotten? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      ROFL. Thanks, I've had a boring day.

      Do me with garlic hummus, though; it'll be good for my skin.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    12. Re:Has everyone forgotten? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Nope. Just stating the obvious.

      The Japanese treated Pearl Harbor exactly as a tactical battle, no strategic thinking at all. If they had their heads on straight, the bombing would have been immediately followed by another wave to completely destroy the usefulness of the Hawaiian islands, taken Midway two days later and made designs to dig in.

      Now I'd be happy to eat crow to learn that the Japanese Admiralty had a flotilla of ships right behind their assault force to put paid to their assault. No, it was a stunningly short-sighted assault with no followup plan. Even *IF* they had smashed our carrier fleet at their moorings, they surely would have realized we have more shoreline on our western coast than almost their entire country? Significant naval and shipbuilding facilities, and MANY airfields? How do you just attack someone, and NOT follow through? Why they didn't take Midway on their way home astounds me.

      No, it was a poorly planned exercise with absolutely no strategic forethought, and they paid the price.

    13. Re:Has everyone forgotten? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they say that FDR knew about a Japanese spy in Pearl Harbor and let him operate. FDR sailed all the carriers out to sea a few days prior, leaving WWI battleships in a neat row to be bombed. So we lost exactly the ships we intended to lose.

      However, the Japanese erred in not making a 3rd pass that would have destroyed our fuel depots.

      Anyway, whether FDR "knew" about Pearl Harbor or not, it was a long and difficult campaign, and getting bombed was an inauspicious way to start.

    14. Re:Has everyone forgotten? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >No, it was a poorly planned exercise with absolutely no strategic forethought, and they paid the price.

      This is the same army that ran blindly into American machine-gun fire with bayonets drawn.

      The Japanese also had to withdraw the Yamato battle group after they got torpedoed by a handful of American destroyers.

      What can you say about WWII? Too much ambition.

      Interestingly, both the Japanese and German advances had a lot to do with securing liquid oil reserves. The Germans were using domestic synfuel, and the Japs were cut off from oil reserves in the Phillipines.

  40. Product Placement by AnswerIs42 · · Score: 1

    No one noticed they are all Chevy vehicles? Including next year's Camero (Bumblebee)?

  41. Transporners by alohatiger · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    At some point, this kind of CGI will be so cheap that they'll make live-action porn featuring hot, hot Giant Robot on Giant Robot (GR-GR) action!

    --
    Bigtime Consulting - "We're the best because we cost the most"
  42. who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who, aside from 8 year olds, cares about this trash anyway?

    1. Re:who cares? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what I was wondering, I remember the Transformers from when I was around 12 or something and it was rubbish then. I don't imagine making a film about it will make it any less rubbish.

  43. Not quite perfect old school sound by LinDVD · · Score: 1

    I'm still disappointed that Frank Welker is not the voice of Megatron. I'll still see the film, but Peter Cullen and Frank Welker are equally important to an old school audience. Granted, Megatron will not be a gun either, but still, I would have preferred Frank Welker over Hugo Weaving.

    --
    Just because you get modded "insightful" on Slashdot doesn't mean you actually are in real life.
  44. Would you prefer this? by LinDVD · · Score: 1

    Soundwave seems to have not lost anything over the years...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCYLEO9sIVQ

    --
    Just because you get modded "insightful" on Slashdot doesn't mean you actually are in real life.
  45. F*ing quicktime by bms20 · · Score: 1

    Why do people put these f*ing quicktime files online. It seems like the best way not to see a film's trailer is to encode it with quicktime. Quicktime is: 1) Not playable under windows without installing Apples crappy "take over your computer" software. 2) Not playable on Linux under MPlayer / vlc At least Xine can play it on linux. -bms20

    1. Re:F*ing quicktime by andrewd18 · · Score: 1
      To misquote a certain giraffe from Robot Chicken:

      F*ing quicktime! F*ing jungle! Gyah, I wanna bite someone in the face!
    2. Re:F*ing quicktime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mplayer plays it just fine, and quicktime because it happens to be the official encapsulation format for MPEG4 and H.264/AVC (which this is). The silly playlist encapsulation is a real oddity, but much better than the MS counterpart which is encrypted to prevent use of other software.

    3. Re:F*ing quicktime by mshurpik · · Score: 1

      Try RealAlternative and QTAlternative.

      Granted, I watched the "standard" versions of these trailers, but RealAlt and QTAlt are good programs to have.

  46. Afterburner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is my personal favourite. Even the motorcycle is a rip off of Tron and subsequently Japanime such as Akira went on to rip off it or Tron, it's a cool bike.

    Go go gadget favourite transformer insertion!

  47. Was I the first to think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    OMG PONIES!? When I saw that lil girl? :D

  48. You've got the touch! by tokki · · Score: 1

    You've got the powerrrrr! Yeah!

    1. Re:You've got the touch! by Single+GNU+Theory · · Score: 1

      When all hell's breaking loose you'll be right at the eye of the storm!

      --
      Little Debian: America's #1 Snack Distro!
  49. He's on a teaser video by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 1

    On sector seven (passcode CODEBLACK), there's a video of surveillance cameras in a garage. They show a short clip of him crushing another car. You don't see the VW logo though. Cute.

    --
    -Stu
    1. Re:He's on a teaser video by waterford0069 · · Score: 1

      OK, any chance you could tell us how to find it on that site? Instead of making me spend hours flipping through their game.

    2. Re:He's on a teaser video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Double-click the red hard drive icon on the top left. In the window that pops up there are some file icons you single-click on, one of which even shows a Dinobot.

  50. I agree... by le0p · · Score: 5, Funny

    When watching a movie about transforming robots from space, realistic physics is definitely what I'm thinking about..

    --
    "I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability."-Oscar Wilde
  51. "fucking stupid romance" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This movie will have kick ass special effects for sure, but at the same time it is going to have a fucking stupid romance that has no place in the movie and will surely result in the IQ of the audience dropping a few points. Hollywood loves to jerk off to its own cliches, and a quick glance at the movie trailer shows that it goes through a Hollywood check list to make sure all that is cliche and irritating about Hollywood got thrown in, no matter how utterly inappropriate it is for the movie. So yes, go see this movie for the eye candy, but keep a loaded .45 ready to save yourself from the horrible mind numbing romance and Hollywood cliche that will quickly follow.
    Um. You've been single for a long time, I'm guessing.
    1. Re:"fucking stupid romance" by Shihar · · Score: 1

      If you can't tell the difference between a tolerable romance plot or sub-plot, and the mind numbing crap that Bay makes, you clearly are the one who has not spent any time with women and been dragged to chick flicks. A romance in a movie doesn't have to suck unbearable amounts by definition... unless of course Michael Bay is the asshole who made it. It is like the guy has a Hollywood checklist that he goes over while making the movie.

      Explosion? Check.
      Actions? Check.
      Lame ass heroes with corny lines? Check.
      A horrific romance that is forced and contrived into the plot no matter how little it fits and no matter how much it takes away from an otherwise bearable movie? Check.

      A romance doesn't have to take away from a movie. Despite what Hollywood demographers think, you actually don't need to stuff a romance into every single movie to make sure that girls like it. Even when you do feel the need to stuff one into the movie, it doesn't have to suck and take away from the movie. Spiderman and Superman both managed to weave action and a small dose of romance without ruining the movie. Pearl Harbor on the other hand managed to destroy otherwise good and fulfilling action with the stupidest fucking romance ever to hit the screen.

      Personally, I wish Hollywood would put down the god damn checklist. If the movie is about explosions, giant fucking robots, and other things that clearly are not going to attract an audience looking for romance, they don't actually need to included. It isn't like a geek gets his girlfriend to watch giant robots fight each other by promising a stupid romance interwoven into the plot.

    2. Re:"fucking stupid romance" by blaine61 · · Score: 1

      isn't most hollywood romance mechanical anyway? i think it very appropriate to have such a romance during a movie called "Transformers" anyway,why would I want to go to the movies with my son without the hint of a life that used to be? bring on the mechanical aids!!!

    3. Re:"fucking stupid romance" by mink · · Score: 1

      They would have the romance be between two transformers (autobot and deceptacon) who are forced apart by the war. Or maybe have some kind of robosexual story line (Starscream and Megatron).

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  52. Yay, More Ruined Nostalgia! by morari · · Score: 1

    Because the Ninja Turtles wasn't enough for Hollywood this year...

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    1. Re:Yay, More Ruined Nostalgia! by Rycross · · Score: 1

      You know, I've seen a couple people say this, but for the life of me I can't figure out why. Yeah the new Turtles movie was corny and heavy-handed but, um, so was the cartoon. The movie seemed to fit the cartoon pretty well. Except for the whole April-as-a-ninja thing, which sucked.

    2. Re:Yay, More Ruined Nostalgia! by morari · · Score: 1

      The cartoon didn't fit the comic, in all fairness. The new cartoon(s) certainly don't even fit the old one in tone. If nothing else, the new film had a rather lackluster art style about it, while three other films had already done it very well as live action (and probably cheaper by today's standards). The original films (or, at least the first two) were of a much darker tone than the cartoon was anyway. *shrugs*

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    3. Re:Yay, More Ruined Nostalgia! by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      The dark tone was much more in tune with the comic books than the TV show, which was sort of the point. The TV show was just too campy.

    4. Re:Yay, More Ruined Nostalgia! by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      I love the noir element in the first movie...

      Which ended with Shredder falling into a dump truck, and Casey pulling the "Compact" lever... "Whoops".

      --
  53. Re:I know by Truekaiser · · Score: 0

    that roughly translates to.
    "spare me and you can have the boy"

  54. Transformers love global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except we find out that while the Autobots are trying to save earth from the Decepticons, they are promoting gass-guzzling v8 engines emitting tons of green-house gasses, which will cause the eventual extinction of humankind. In movie 4 (produced by Al Gore), this plotline is revealed. Couldn't you tell? They fight half of the time over energon cubes! And I don't see an EnergyStar sticker on any of those over-grown hunks of metal.

  55. Can't..resist..must..burn..karma.. by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 1

    Well it's a dirty comment, but someone had to post it.

    --
    --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
  56. Re:This "re-imaging... by Libertarian001 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I stated my reason (it's too freaking busy, everything looks the same) you dickheads. That's not trolling.

  57. Why does hollywood has this obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of turning everything into 3D rendered movies.
    It's great for some things, but, some things could be better and cleaner looking using 2D computer animation or traditional animation.

    Because, in my opinion, there are some things that still can't be replicated with 3D animation that you can do with 2D.

    Of course other things can't be done quite easy on 2D, but this type of movies should not be made this way. And skip live action!

  58. Am I the Only Person Who Couldn't Care Less? by Coan_teen · · Score: 1

    I don't think this movie looks interesting at all. I keep thinking that the next trailer or the next article or the next poster I see will spark my interest, but it hasn't happened yet. Agreed, the effects look cool. But I'm with the "Michael Bay sucks" school on this one. Frankly, Transformers is nothing more than a pain in my backside - we carry the comic books at our store, and they're garbage.

    It's been a long time since I watched the cartoon, and the movie trailers haven't sparked any nostalgia - only disgust.

    --
    A Sherman can give you a very nice...edge.
  59. I am Ohm of Borg... by MS-06FZ · · Score: 2, Funny

    Resistors are Futile.

    --
    ---GEC
    I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
  60. From car to robot that looks nothing like the car! by MS-06FZ · · Score: 1

    Not to mention that Optimus doesn't have flames, I'm sorry. Call me a purist, but he's only the most iconic character from that franchise, you'd think they'd REALLY WANT to get him right.

    I'll quote the director losely (from memory):

    "At first we went with designs that looked much more like the original cartoon designs. Simpler, blocky, faceplates and all that. We all agreed they looked terrible in a live actions set. There are things that look perfectly fine in a cartoon or a comicbook but need to be modified to be believable in a live movie." I think they went too far in the opposite direction. Now the robot forms have almost no connection to the vehicle forms. I don't need these to be the classic designs, but I would enjoy it if you could look at one of the Autobots, say, and recognize some parts from the car mode. I suspect they may have intentionally decided not to do that to guard against the possibility that they might lose permission to use a particular car design in the future. If the robot design has no particular ties to the vehicle design, they can just swap out vehicle mode for something else and keep the robot mode pretty much the same.

    I don't think the Citroen commercial looked bad in a live-action setting. And I do believe that relatively simple, clean designs have a lot of merit. All the detail that goes into the movie bots is impressive but I think it creates a bit too much clutter.

    Because they're "evil" right? Wanna destroy your childhood memories. Them bastards. Uh, no. They just have poor taste sometimes. :)

    I get just a bit tired of people assuming that, because I don't agree with them, I must embody the worst, most short-sighted, fickle, and petty versions of their opposition. Give people a little credit, would ya?
    --
    ---GEC
    I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
  61. Re:This "re-imaging... by Mab_Mass · · Score: 1

    It is entire too busy ...

    It's that horrid everything is busy and there is never a still camera shot style that Michael Bey the terrible director that he is today.

    Seriously - I have a friend that works for Sony doing video processing software - he tells me once of doing a search on the movie Armageddon and not finding a single take as a long as 4 seconds. That's why, if I have to sit through a Bey film, I need to spend the next three days staring at a white wall, just to compensate for the over-stimulation...

    I'm really excited about a the idea of this movie, but they couldn't have picked a worse director.

  62. A long time waiting! by CherniyVolk · · Score: 1


    My only complaints are Starscream looks stupid as a robot and Bumblebee is supposed to be a VW Bug.

  63. Downloaded by pw1972 · · Score: 1

    My friend downloaded the unedited version and this movie is awesome!

  64. So Micheal Bay is a programmer for Google Maps? by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    >> Then remember that the same guy thinks a love story should have a goodbye scene in a train station, especially when your protagonist is leaving New York for F%$#ing London

    So... what you're saying is Optimus Prime is going to swim across the Atlantic Ocean?

  65. Remember Folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is from the same MAFIAA that is wanting to turn "potential infringement" into a felony.
    http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/ 15/1224216

    I say we all should boycott anything from the MAFIAA until they go under.

  66. Isn't "live action CGI" an oxymoron? by Mephistoph3l35 · · Score: 1

    See subject.

  67. I've watched 28 mins of this... by perkyx1 · · Score: 1

    Paramount pictures were kind enough to preview this for retail - I'm not a Transformers expert so I can't comment on accuracy, but it looks great :-) Far better than the trailers in that you can *see* the robots, the fast cutting to black of the trailer isn't a feature of the film. Looks like it'll be a great action movie. The humans were quite amusing (retailers are a hard bitten cynical lot but there was plenty of laughter in the right places!) and the robots talk, and interact nicely. Looks spectacular, they didn't just show the FX stuff so got a good feel for it, and I reckon it could be a massive movie. For me, it's probably the most exciting forthcoming movie - but then again... I'm posting on Slashdot ;-) My wife seems less impressed by the idea and is looking forwards to Johnny Depp in POC & AWE (and that's *her* copyright for the new Pirates.. movie!)

  68. Re:From car to robot that looks nothing like the c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can expect the transformation sequence to look awesome. I'm sure they are just blurring the effect in the trailer.

    -j

  69. The sound? by mr_tenor · · Score: 1

    Do you mean "It's got the touch"? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZymYbG9YUZw)

  70. TheMichaelSmith by Saveloy · · Score: 1

    Many moons ago, I was amazed by the transforming Beetle that Michael Smith produced http://www.themichaelsmith.com/animations/VWHiRes. mpg. After watching it I hoped that someone would make a movie and hire this guy. Now I see that he's done it again with a Nissan 350Z http://home.comcast.net/~themichaelsmith/TransZ.mp g!!! Personally I prefer the look of his robot as opposed to those in the trailer for some reason... Sav

    --
    Its dark in here, some one let me out!
  71. Re:From car to robot that looks nothing like the c by MS-06FZ · · Score: 1

    You can expect the transformation sequence to look awesome. I'm sure they are just blurring the effect in the trailer.

    -j Oh, I'm sure it looks dandy. That's not the issue.

    The issue is that there's no perceptible relationship between the car mode and the robot mode of these designs. When that's the case, there's not much point, from a design perspective, in that thing being a transformer. From an aesthetic sense, a thematic sense, etc. it's a lot better to have visible ties between the two modes.

    Suppose, for instance, that the granularity of the transformation was so fine that it went right down to the atoms - then the bot could transform into just about anything. It wouldn't be a "transformer" anymore, it'd be a "shape-shifter". On the other extreme, you could have a transformation like in the crappiest of Transformer toys - either a car folds in half and sprouts arms and legs, or maybe it's like a robot with a jet plane on its back, and you don't see the robot part from certain views or whatever. The movie designs aren't "shape-shifters" but the granularity of the transformation is fine enough that they almost could be.
    --
    ---GEC
    I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand