Transformers 2 new Autobot cars

Bug-Eyed Earl · Post by **Bug-Eyed Earl** » 2008-09-02 10:34pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEnDCUlOyiM

The new ones are a Chevy Beat, a Chevy Trax, Volt, and a corvette.

tim31 · Post by **tim31** » 2008-09-02 10:35pm

Is Jazz the Vette, I wonder?

I saw no pink motorcycle though.

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » 2008-09-02 10:43pm

I thought Jazz was killed off in the first movie? Also, is there a GM motorbike?

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2008-09-02 11:04pm

Guess they still have that sweet deal with GM. I could almost suspend my disbelief the 1st time around...

Sidewinder · Post by **Sidewinder** » 2008-09-03 02:14am

Anguirus wrote:Guess they still have that sweet deal with GM. I could almost suspend my disbelief the 1st time around...

My problem with the first film wasn't with the alt modes, it was with the robot modes. In certain Decepticons, it worked because as badguys, they're supposed to look monstrous and scary. In the Autobots, it didn't work for the same damn reason. The poor story was another albatross around Michael Bay's neck.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2008-09-03 03:00am

tim31 wrote:Is Jazz the Vette, I wonder?

I saw no pink motorcycle though.

Tracks! I it'd better be Tracks.

tim31 · Post by **tim31** » 2008-09-03 04:17am

Ah, but of course!!

I still could see Jazz brought back to life by the macguffin fragment.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2008-09-03 06:47am

Sidewinder wrote: My problem with the first film wasn't with the alt modes, it was with the robot modes. In certain Decepticons, it worked because as badguys, they're supposed to look monstrous and scary. In the Autobots, it didn't work for the same damn reason. The poor story was another albatross around Michael Bay's neck.

Mostly the robot designs didn't work well because unless they stood still they were extremely visually confusing. This was combined with fights consisting of lots of fast cuts (the new slow motion), to make fights really indistinct and unsatisfying.

I still could see Jazz brought back to life by the macguffin fragment.

Or a welding torch.

Bug-Eyed Earl · Post by **Bug-Eyed Earl** » 2008-09-03 09:09am

The filmmakers have said repeatedly that Jazz is dead and not coming back.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2008-09-03 09:40am

In certain Decepticons, it worked because as badguys, they're supposed to look monstrous and scary. In the Autobots, it didn't work for the same damn reason.

Bwa?

Most of the Autobots look downright cuddly. Ironhide looks like a teddy bear with huge guns.

If I might ask, did you ever see it on DVD? One thing I've noticed is that the "busy" designs and "confusing" fights actually look a lot more reasonable when they aren't being blasted at you in a movie theater.

As for the story being poor, I thought it compared favorably to, well, every Transformers franchise. Except maybe Beast Wars. Season 2.

Braedley · Post by **Braedley** » 2008-09-03 10:21am

Screw what the film makers say, Jazz is coming back. And as a much bigger car too. Which is why he was killed off. The Solstice just wasn't a big enough car for some of the hardcore fans.

Darth Ruinus · Post by **Darth Ruinus** » 2008-09-03 10:35am

Anguirus wrote:If I might ask, did you ever see it on DVD? One thing I've noticed is that the "busy" designs and "confusing" fights actually look a lot more reasonable when they aren't being blasted at you in a movie theater.

I saw the movie in theatres and the fights weren't confusing at all. Each Autobot and Decepticon was basically sporting a different color than anyone else, so it is pretty easy to follow the fights.

Also, bringing back Jazz would be odd, since it would take away from his death in the first one. Granted, his death wasn't very important anyway, it's only like what? A second? And not even focused on until "We won! Oh, by the way, Jazz is dead."

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2008-09-03 12:53pm

TF fights confusing? Only if you're blind and unable to contemplate more than one figure on a 10 metre wide screen at a time. Robot designs complicated? Why, I do believe these are alien robots that turn into fucking cars and planes and stereos. Should we revert to the lame boxoid morphing crap of the cartoon, or similarly cheap and nasty transformations of the CGI series? No. Just no.

The story being poor is questionable at best. Exactly what should the plot of alien robots taking over Earth be like? If you're expecting TDK level deep thought on the meaning of society's virtues and vices, you're in the wrong cinema screen.

Jazz is dead. Deal with it.

And while having a deal with GM is pretty annoying for variety with vehicles for the Autobots (American cars in general are just fuck ugly), it at least means cash can be saved for more Decepticon fun, which was the reason there was less asskicking than could be expected in the first movie. This shall be rectified.

Zablorg · Post by **Zablorg** » 2008-09-03 01:35pm

Bug-Eyed Earl wrote:The filmmakers have said repeatedly that Jazz is dead and not coming back.

Bay has also said that they are going to be leaking false information for the purposes of keeping us on our toes.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2008-09-03 02:36pm

Zablorg wrote:
Bug-Eyed Earl wrote:The filmmakers have said repeatedly that Jazz is dead and not coming back.
Bay has also said that they are going to be leaking false information for the purposes of keeping us on our toes.

What if what Bay said was the false leaked information?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2008-09-03 07:57pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Zablorg wrote:
Bug-Eyed Earl wrote:The filmmakers have said repeatedly that Jazz is dead and not coming back.
Bay has also said that they are going to be leaking false information for the purposes of keeping us on our toes.
What if what Bay said was the false leaked information?

But what if it isn't?

Really, isn't that sort of an example why you really can't take any early information which isn't backed up at face value?

Zablorg · Post by **Zablorg** » 2008-09-04 04:27am

Really, I think a bigger cast of robots may remove or amplify what was primarily wrong with the first film. People were dissapointed about the robots' lack of character within the movie. Having more may allow for a more fleshed out cast, but it may provide little individual screentime.

On the other hand, there won't need to be an entire hour of into this time, so who knows.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2008-09-04 10:05am

Set video #1 and behind the scenes ILM doc. Enter code AllSpark62609

Note the pink motorcycle.

Davis 51 · Post by **Davis 51** » 2008-09-04 10:22am

http://themovingpicture.net/transformer ... py-footage

Here's some footage of filming I found. Get's a better look at some of the cast.

Plus, an explosion.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2008-09-04 11:09am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:The story being poor is questionable at best. Exactly what should the plot of alien robots taking over Earth be like? If you're expecting TDK level deep thought on the meaning of society's virtues and vices, you're in the wrong cinema screen.

Just because it's not the Dark Knight isn't an excuse for it being a poor story. You'd think a story about alien robots trying to take over the Earth, but some of them being good alien robots trying to stop the bad alien robots would, you know, be focused on the robots, instead of it mostly being about the people the robots meet with the occasional line or bit of komedy from some of them

Bay however, made the focus on the humans more than the robots, making it so that most of the Transformers were set dressing for the people. The plot was clunky at best, you could have removed most of the characters without THAT much of an effect on the story, and most of the Transformers only showed up at the end and didn't do anything significant. Not to mention just how seriously retarded the Evil Government Agents were in that movie. Just because it isn't trying to be art doesn't excuse the serious flaws in the film.

VF5SS · Post by **VF5SS** » 2008-09-04 11:36am

Gil Hamilton wrote: The plot was clunky at best, you could have removed most of the characters without THAT much of an effect on the story, and most of the Transformers only showed up at the end and didn't do anything significant.

Is this all Transformers has to offer in two minutes? Oddly enough one of the guys on youtube that made one of these videos (not this on specifically) mentioned that if you only had the robot scenes the movie would be about 40 minutes and you could sorta follow the plot. Let's face it, they repeated the backstory enough times. We've already had lots of good edits of the Star Wars movies, maybe some fans could get on a re-cut Transformers.

Not to mention just how seriously retarded the Evil Government Agents were in that movie. Just because it isn't trying to be art doesn't excuse the serious flaws in the film.

That part almost made me give up. Most of the first part of the film was about getting the glasses and suddenly Sector 7 guy shows up and basically takes the plot where it needs to go making all the LOL KOMEDY practically worthless .Maybe they could've had Sam help the Autobots with his ancestor's notes so they could interact for a bit and solve the riddle.With the way the movie played out it was Hudson Hawk level of stupid Macguffiness.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2008-09-04 12:54pm

The Komedy parts of Transformers were bad in and of themselves. I'm sorry, but dusting off the Elephant in the Living Room gag? Hell, that's not even the first time that was done with giant robots. The Iron Giant already has the last word on that one.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2008-09-04 01:57pm

Gil Hamilton wrote: Just because it's not the Dark Knight isn't an excuse for it being a poor story. You'd think a story about alien robots trying to take over the Earth, but some of them being good alien robots trying to stop the bad alien robots would, you know, be focused on the robots, instead of it mostly being about the people the robots meet with the occasional line or bit of komedy from some of them

Bay however, made the focus on the humans more than the robots, making it so that most of the Transformers were set dressing for the people. The plot was clunky at best, you could have removed most of the characters without THAT much of an effect on the story, and most of the Transformers only showed up at the end and didn't do anything significant. Not to mention just how seriously retarded the Evil Government Agents were in that movie. Just because it isn't trying to be art doesn't excuse the serious flaws in the film.

One word: budget. Transformers was revolutionary in terms of effects, and that sank big teeth into the cash allowed. They could only just have the number of Autobots they had with the GM deal. If you watch the documentaries and commentary, they mention that they'd liked to have done more with the giant robot battles, but couldn't even with $150M to play with. TF2 will address this since the first movie was a licence to print money.

I will agree about Sector 7, and I think even some of the cast and producers etc. have acknowledged it was a worthless MacGuffin more than anything (it was better addressed in the prequel comics done in the UK).

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2008-09-04 02:22pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:One word: budget. Transformers was revolutionary in terms of effects, and that sank big teeth into the cash allowed. They could only just have the number of Autobots they had with the GM deal. If you watch the documentaries and commentary, they mention that they'd liked to have done more with the giant robot battles, but couldn't even with $150M to play with. TF2 will address this since the first movie was a licence to print money.

I will agree about Sector 7, and I think even some of the cast and producers etc. have acknowledged it was a worthless MacGuffin more than anything (it was better addressed in the prequel comics done in the UK).

I wonder how much money the could have devoted to the robots if they didn't have to pay the salaries of many of the actors, who could have been safely trimmed out of the movie?

Even so, it's kind of a weak excuse in light of the nature of the movie. It's a Transformers movie, after all. If they couldn't afford making live action Transformers, to the point that the fat ass comic relief computer hacker dude had more lines than all the Transformers in the movie total, then maybe they should have held off on the project (i.e. any movie where Anthony Anderson talks more than Optimus Prime is a movie where something is terribly wrong).

It doesn't help the fact that Michael Bay is on record as saying that he didn't like the Transformers source material at all and was by and large trying to cash in on the nostalgia remake money cow.

On a joking non-serious note, we can also conclude that Bay's Transformers failed because Megatron's downfall was not Starscream in any way. It's just not Transformers if Starscream doesn't betray Megatron at a critical moment, causing the Decepticons to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2008-09-04 02:25pm

Woah, wait, what? You didn't see Starscream pummel Megs at the end? It's clear even from his limited showing along with Megs, that he hated the guy's guts and Starscream was on the sidelines for most of the final fight, ready to take out whoever did most of the dirty work first. The subtle working in of Starscream adding to Megs' downfall was far more interesting than if we got a camp re-enactment of the cartoon endeavours (and Megatron being thick as a bucket of shit whenever it came to trusting Starscream anyway).

Honestly, I don't see how the movie failed at all. It was highly entertaining, and it had to have humans in by virtue of, well, being on Earth. Big robots on their own do not carry the story of first contact too well. And if you think cutting out some actors would pay for two straight hours of robot rumpus, you're on crack.