Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

i_amtrunks wrote:

Burn wrote:Considering he only finished the first movie 12 hours before it's Australian/World premiere, I don't see why people are so upset.

The first one seemed to have turned out fine, sheesh, 'scuse the guy for wanting to really polish his movies.

And it is not just Bay who finishes his edits only hours before the first screening. With technology allowing Directors to send out the final edits closer and closer, plus the tight deadlines given to them by the studios, it's becoming a common practice with these summer blockbusters. (Don't have a heart attack about me defending Bay Burn).

Bay would have the main story set, all he would be tweaking would be his shot selection, camera placements and the order of fight sequences, its not like he is ordering re-shoots and re-animations only weeks out from release.

But in reality they shouldn't be playing this last minute game. I understand you have an art but in art class I learned that sometimes you gotta realize that that's all you can do and step back and not go back into that piece again or you will still be making so many changes that will lead to you making what you had was great is now getting worse.

What I am worried about is Michael Bay making it worse with not just falling into the over editing trap (been there, done that, got the t-shirt) but with reviewers by not allowing them to view the film and review it before the release date.

Sky Glory of Iacon wrote:What I am worried about is Michael Bay making it worse with not just falling into the over editing trap (been there, done that, got the t-shirt) but with reviewers by not allowing them to view the film and review it before the release date.

The deadline that Bay will have to meet will be the worldwide premiere, not the actual release date.

For the first film (Burn can clarify the actual situation) the premiere occurred a couple of weeks prior to the worldwide general release, so Bay will have to be nearly done with his edits now. Still getting to edit until a fortnight or so before worldwide release is a hell of alot better than having to finish editing 2-3 months before release.

I was referring to reading the article when people were getting all over Bay for saying Gaza instead of Giza. If anyone had read the article, they would have seen that it was a typo on here (which iamtrunks has since fixed).

I'm the last person to defend Bay, but people were getting off-topic and criticizing Bay for a typo, as if he said it.

As far as waiting till the last minute to edit the film, I can't imagine being able to push it too last-minute because they still have to run the master print for the world premiere, and I'm assuming that process can't be done super fast.

I'm thinking that part of it may have to do with the film not getting leaked too early, like Wolverine did, and seemed to hurt the film before it was even released. Maybe not, it's sheer idiot-nerd speculation.

mandingo_rex wrote:I was referring to reading the article when people were getting all over Bay for saying Gaza instead of Giza. If anyone had read the article, they would have seen that it was a typo on here (which iamtrunks has since fixed).

I'm the last person to defend Bay, but people were getting off-topic and criticizing Bay for a typo, as if he said it.

As far as waiting till the last minute to edit the film, I can't imagine being able to push it too last-minute because they still have to run the master print for the world premiere, and I'm assuming that process can't be done super fast.

I'm thinking that part of it may have to do with the film not getting leaked too early, like Wolverine did, and seemed to hurt the film before it was even released. Maybe not, it's sheer idiot-nerd speculation.

I don't know so far this movie is making me not want to see it. First as a geek feminist and second as someone who does have a country heirtage. I know we aren't the most intellegent people in this world but I am so tired of seeing country people in movies being stereotyped as bucked toothed inbred idiots drinking cheap beer and easily amused by a bug zapper.

Fananga wrote:The dude is so far up his own ass he can check the back of his fillings...

Yeah and ... so what?

Given how much of a successful career he's had (and I don't give a flying rat's butt if you don't like his movies, your personal opinion means jack against the dollars his movies have raked in) I think it's fine for him to stand up and have an ego.

Hell, if I created things that generated half the interest and money that he has, i'd have a bloody huge ego too! As would a lot of these so called "Bay-haters".

Sorry, but I just see a lot of the Bay bashing as nothing more than petty jealousy.

Burn wrote:

Fananga wrote:The dude is so far up his own ass he can check the back of his fillings...

Yeah and ... so what?

Given how much of a successful career he's had (and I don't give a flying rat's butt if you don't like his movies, your personal opinion means jack against the dollars his movies have raked in) I think it's fine for him to stand up and have an ego.

Hell, if I created things that generated half the interest and money that he has, i'd have a bloody huge ego too! As would a lot of these so called "Bay-haters".

Sorry, but I just see a lot of the Bay bashing as nothing more than petty jealousy.

Coming from an artists point of view it's generally a bad idea to have such an ego. Nobody likes someone who is big headed who thinks he's the king of the film world and can do no wrong. Jealousy in todays world is rarely about success as "Haters" will just point out the truth.

That truth being that Bay is pretty full of himself from time to time, and that attitude pisses people off the most.

original sin wrote:

SamYarbrough77 wrote:this makes me bad. he is so full on himself. hes always reassuring how awesome he is and how he gets permission like no one else. his films are 1 trick ponys. hes 1 flop away (maybe 2) from making films for scifi network lol

Flops??

Bad Boys grossed $141,407,024 and Bad Boys II grossed $273,339,556.
The Rock grossed $335,062,621.
Armageddon grossed $554,600,000.
Pearl Harbor grossed $449,220,945.
Transformers grossed $708,272,592

Yeah, he's totally in the habit of directing flops

And let us not forget that if the DVD sales are added in then that puts Transformers over the $1 bil. mark. I'm with you, flops are no longer a part of Bays vocabulary. He may have done a few sleepers early on but I think it's safe to say that it's well out of his system.
I'm just curious to see how close he shaves it as far as the release of this one. I'm going to say he wraps it with 9 hours to spare.

[quote="i_amtrunksThe deadline that Bay will have to meet will be the worldwide premiere, not the actual release date.

For the first film (Burn can clarify the actual situation) the premiere occurred a couple of weeks prior to the worldwide general release, so Bay will have to be nearly done with his edits now. Still getting to edit until a fortnight or so before worldwide release is a hell of alot better than having to finish editing 2-3 months before release.[/quote]

Well, the industry's changed quite a bit. It's expensive, but many theaters are slowly switching to digital film. In the olden days, editing had to be done, then it was sent to printing, and then each print had to go through the postal service in large plastic trunks, which are expensive to ship and insured out the proverbial yingyang. This meant you had to have a certain cushion of time to make sure you'd actually get the movie in your theater.

Digital technology is changing the industry. No more print-delivery, which saves a ton on shipping and insurance. The theater just downloads the film. This means that theoretically, a director could edit the film *while* it's in first run. He could literally release one ending one day, and another the next. It's actually very cool in concept.

It cuts the edit-to-showing window down to nearly nothing. If he's doing digital transfer of this movie, he literally could be monkeying with it until about an hour before the first showing.

But as anyone who's worked on a long project knows, too much editing can be a bad thing. It gets very recursive after a while. You forget there's an *audience* that hasn't seen the 8000 previous redactions.

(Did someone say 'geek feminist'? *secret handshake*)

HK, nah, I got nothin'

Sky Glory of Iacon wrote:I don't know so far this movie is making me not want to see it. First as a geek feminist and second as someone who does have a country heirtage. I know we aren't the most intellegent people in this world but I am so tired of seeing country people in movies being stereotyped as bucked toothed inbred idiots drinking cheap beer and easily amused by a bug zapper.

You're entitled to your opinion, but where the heck did that last sentence come from? Did we watch the same first movie and see the same trailers to this new one? I don't see how they depict Americans in any worse way than most of TV/movies do. But, hey, that's just my opinion.


As far as editing things at the last minute. I think that happens a lot more than it gets reported with movies and video games too. I know the Halo games were still being editing up to the final hour. From what I understand, it's just about wanting it to be as "perfect" as possible. Of course, it never gets "perfect" in the eyes of the editor -- there will always be things they wish they had more time for -- but they try their darndest (fun word) to make it as perfect as they can before their due date.

That's just how I see it.

Why don't we call it like it is k? Paramount and Speilberg put up a lot of rep and I am sure a lot of Money (a lot) to egypt (wow I have not spelled that word since the 5th grade) to shoot a cgi movie. Enough money for the whole goverment to keep there tourist industry running for years prob. Burn, Its my prerogative (like bobbie brown says) to hate on him if I want. its kind of like he makes the same movie with the explosions, action camera shots every time(with hot women). He just uses a different theme. Im sure the conversation went like this "steven. I am like a spoiled little girl. I want a quarter of a billion budget for shrek like visuals and I want you to get me in with the U.S. Military and Egypt's Goverment. Or else Ill make Bad Boy 3 or Armageddon Redux: The Big Rocks are back Or the prequel to the island, The continent"

Baha08 wrote:

Burn wrote:

Fananga wrote:The dude is so far up his own ass he can check the back of his fillings...

Yeah and ... so what?

Given how much of a successful career he's had (and I don't give a flying rat's butt if you don't like his movies, your personal opinion means jack against the dollars his movies have raked in) I think it's fine for him to stand up and have an ego.

Hell, if I created things that generated half the interest and money that he has, i'd have a bloody huge ego too! As would a lot of these so called "Bay-haters".

Sorry, but I just see a lot of the Bay bashing as nothing more than petty jealousy.

Coming from an artists point of view it's generally a bad idea to have such an ego. Nobody likes someone who is big headed who thinks he's the king of the film world and can do no wrong. Jealousy in todays world is rarely about success as "Haters" will just point out the truth.

That truth being that Bay is pretty full of himself from time to time, and that attitude pisses people off the most.

Personal opinion or some fact backed up by evidence?

SamYarbrough77 wrote:Burn, Its my prerogative (like bobbie brown says) to hate on him if I want. its kind of like he makes the same movie with the explosions, action camera shots every time(with hot women). He just uses a different theme. Im sure the conversation went like this "steven. I am like a spoiled little girl. I want a quarter of a billion budget for shrek like visuals and I want you to get me in with the U.S. Military and Egypt's Goverment. Or else Ill make Bad Boy 3 or Armageddon Redux: The Big Rocks are back Or the prequel to the island, The continent"

Hate on him all you want, i'm not stopping you.

But your "conversation" there? No offense but it's pretty childish and really only serves to prove my point that some people hate him because they're simply jealous of his success.

So he makes the same movies with explosions, camera shots and hot women. So what? He locked onto a formula that works. Why change?

Are we suppose to expect other artists to change? Heaven forbid AC/DC ... Metallica ... Aerosmith ... Rolling Stones ... and all the other artists that have been around for years with the same style that worked decide to suddenly change.

It's business, plain and simple, you don't fix what isn't broken.

But what amuses me the most about the "Bay-haters" is they'll be some of the first to line up and see his movies.

But face it, most, if not all of people on here are not going to see a Michael Bay film. They are going to see the Movie adaptation of the Universe they love. It doesnt matter who Directed it yet he blows on about how epic he is when frankly noone cares.

As said above, he's going on that hes the first director to be allowed to shoot at Giza for however many years. Was it his own epic influence that got that? Or as said above was it the Spielberg effect or the few Billion bunged into the Egypt Government treasury? Either way he's happy to try and take the credit. The point of which applies to the editing times. As many have said already its really easy these days to be editing and finishing a film right up to the release, and in fact its a relatively common practice, yet he tries to make it sound like he's the only one going above and beyond to make sure its perfect....

The way the man speaks you'd think he was the only person working on his films. Forget the crew, even the cast are a bare minimum etc. It would be nice for once to see just an ounce of Humility but the only time i heard him credit someone else was when he was saying how cool 'his' effects company made something look 'that ILM couldnt do', leaving out the part that those scenes were assigned to his effects company meaning ILM never tried to....etc.

Burn wrote:

Fananga wrote:The dude is so far up his own ass he can check the back of his fillings...

Yeah and ... so what?

Given how much of a successful career he's had (and I don't give a flying rat's butt if you don't like his movies, your personal opinion means jack against the dollars his movies have raked in) I think it's fine for him to stand up and have an ego.

Hell, if I created things that generated half the interest and money that he has, i'd have a bloody huge ego too! As would a lot of these so called "Bay-haters".

Sorry, but I just see a lot of the Bay bashing as nothing more than petty jealousy.

Mine is more out of concern and Bay shouldn't let fame go to his head. Hollywood loves you for only so long then she pulls the rug out from under you then kick your butt out the door into the street back to the box factory.

Burn wrote:

Baha08 wrote:

Burn wrote:

Fananga wrote:The dude is so far up his own ass he can check the back of his fillings...

Yeah and ... so what?

Given how much of a successful career he's had (and I don't give a flying rat's butt if you don't like his movies, your personal opinion means jack against the dollars his movies have raked in) I think it's fine for him to stand up and have an ego.

Hell, if I created things that generated half the interest and money that he has, i'd have a bloody huge ego too! As would a lot of these so called "Bay-haters".

Sorry, but I just see a lot of the Bay bashing as nothing more than petty jealousy.

Coming from an artists point of view it's generally a bad idea to have such an ego. Nobody likes someone who is big headed who thinks he's the king of the film world and can do no wrong. Jealousy in todays world is rarely about success as "Haters" will just point out the truth.

That truth being that Bay is pretty full of himself from time to time, and that attitude pisses people off the most.

Personal opinion or some fact backed up by evidence?

SamYarbrough77 wrote:Burn, Its my prerogative (like bobbie brown says) to hate on him if I want. its kind of like he makes the same movie with the explosions, action camera shots every time(with hot women). He just uses a different theme. Im sure the conversation went like this "steven. I am like a spoiled little girl. I want a quarter of a billion budget for shrek like visuals and I want you to get me in with the U.S. Military and Egypt's Goverment. Or else Ill make Bad Boy 3 or Armageddon Redux: The Big Rocks are back Or the prequel to the island, The continent"

Hate on him all you want, i'm not stopping you.

But your "conversation" there? No offense but it's pretty childish and really only serves to prove my point that some people hate him because they're simply jealous of his success.

So he makes the same movies with explosions, camera shots and hot women. So what? He locked onto a formula that works. Why change?

Are we suppose to expect other artists to change? Heaven forbid AC/DC ... Metallica ... Aerosmith ... Rolling Stones ... and all the other artists that have been around for years with the same style that worked decide to suddenly change.

It's business, plain and simple, you don't fix what isn't broken.

But what amuses me the most about the "Bay-haters" is they'll be some of the first to line up and see his movies.

On the women thing there is something called not making women sex objects. We are not here for you to oggle but to be repected. Ya know Feminism?

Sky Glory of Iacon wrote:Mine is more out of concern and Bay shouldn't let fame go to his head. Hollywood loves you for only so long then she pulls the rug out from under you then kick your butt out the door into the street back to the box factory.

Concern for what? Michael Bay? I'm sure he appreciates people being concerned for him (and it would be a pleasant change from the death threats he received with the previous movie) but come on, he's a big boy, he can look after himself!

Sky Glory of Iacon wrote:On the women thing there is something called not making women sex objects. We are not here for you to oggle but to be repected. Ya know Feminism?

Yeah because Bay also casts ugly guys. Two way street, he may cast good looking female eye candy, but he casts good looking male eye candy too.

I don't believe the death threats. Transformer fans are Smart intelligent people. It just kind of sounds fabricated! Maybe he blew that up to appease his ego, look i won't troll here. This one looks good I must say. I really hope the clowning in this film is down to a minimum. I mean the guy isn't Alfred Hitchcock, Speilberg,Jackson, the original king kong director or Chris Nolan(he is something special.) He is a effects guy. Its just his attitude is just plain horrible

Sky Glory of Iacon wrote:On the women thing there is something called not making women sex objects. We are not here for you to oggle but to be repected. Ya know Feminism?

Actually... Bay told Megan Fox that she looked too skinny before they started shooting the new movie. The opposite you would expect from someone trying to make women sex objects.

Still... I agree that Megan Fox is in the movie for a reason... and it's not because of her wonderful acting.

However, if you're on a campaign of going against films that make women sex objects, there are tons and tons of films that are worse, in my humble opinion.

Also, Megan Fox has every right to say "no" to wearing certain costumes or to say "no" to appearing in any film that has her in suggestive attire or positions. Perhaps you should be more upset at her instead of the movie. Just a thought. Feel free to disagree.


Switching subjects: why do people criticize Bay for blowing stuff up? Would you rather the Transformers weapons be stupid and useless. Since they've pretty big, wouldn't you think that when they "rumble" together in a fight, that stuff would get damaged??? I'm glad that Bay has stuff "blowing up" -- cause if these robots were real, the blowing up of stuff would be pretty realistic.

I'll agree Bay comes off as "full of himself." And maybe he is to some extent. I'm just more concerned about the final product and wondering if anyone else in Hollywood (who would realistically take the TF Franchise in movie form) would do much better. I'm guessing there aren't many others out there that would make it any better than what it is / was / will be.

Yea but blow something up of consequence.... humans and highways are just fodder but i guess GojiraGodzilla movies are the same. I hope he blows up Shia

Yea but blow something up of consequence.... humans and highways are just fodder but i guess GojiraGodzilla movies are the same. I hope he blows up Shia

hellkitty wrote:Also doesn't mean he's NOT a megalomaniac. "(His) life is so complicated." Prithee tell me why shouldst I care?

He has to talk people into giving him hundreds of millions of dollars so he can make robots turn into cars and fight each other for two hours. Then he spends a year and a half making that happen. Then he has to put up with people not unlike many posters in this thread criticizing his every move.

oldskooltf wrote:

Sky Glory of Iacon wrote:On the women thing there is something called not making women sex objects. We are not here for you to oggle but to be repected. Ya know Feminism?

Actually... Bay told Megan Fox that she looked too skinny before they started shooting the new movie. The opposite you would expect from someone trying to make women sex objects.

Still... I agree that Megan Fox is in the movie for a reason... and it's not because of her wonderful acting.

I'm not Megan Fox's number one fan (surprise!), nor am I really a hater (I do tend to look at her face more than you boys, and all I see is a very pissed off looking bimbo), but....

Bay stating an opinion about someone's weight is only partially okay. Yes, he's an 'artist' and wants to create a certain look. If he wants it cast solely by chubbies or toothpicks, that's his deal. It's his 'vision'. BUT, commenting on a woman's weight? Well, that's textbook sexism 101, my friends. I think you learn that in day one of mandatory sensitivity training. The 'look' he is going for with Megan Fox is standard and completely unoriginal skankotron. He didn't want her to be a certain way (buffer, stronger, faster, Linda Hamilton-ish, stringier) for her to *perform* but for her to stand around and *pose*. Which is all she ever does, and from what I'm seeing in the trailers, all she seems to be doing in film 2.

Did he likewise suggest to Tyrese or Josh that they could gain or lose a few pounds? So they could be eyecandy? Where's Josh DuHamel in a tight pair of boxers? Prove to me that he did and I'll retract the accusation of sexism.

However, if you're on a campaign of going against films that make women sex objects, there are tons and tons of films that are worse, in my humble opinion.

True in theory, but then, that's stupid in practice. If I only selected non-disgustingly sexist stuff to watch, that would relegate me to...gads, the LIFETIME network? Oprah? And that network is also sexist, but in a different way. It doesn't physically objectify women, but it sure does squish them into a narrow little mental box of constant victimization.

I think SkyGlory's point was more along the lines of--geez, it's a movie about ROBOTS whom everyone here loves, can we NOT have to chuck objectification in there and alienate part of the audience? (Sorry if I'm misspeaking!)

[quote]
Also, Megan Fox has every right to say "no" to wearing certain costumes or to say "no" to appearing in any film that has her in suggestive attire or positions. Perhaps you should be more upset at her instead of the movie. Just a thought. Feel free to disagree.[/quote}

Ya know, my freshman comp students give me this line all the time. About women in rap videos and their ridiculous costumes and rebarbative 'dance' moves. It's true up to a certain point. But if you want to be an actress, or video dancer, sadly, there's only one way to go about it. Notice how there aren't too many ugly women in films lately? Ask for one and after a moment the average American will state 'Cathy Bates'. True, but wow, we can only think of *one*?

Rex Ingram was a black actor back in the 1940s and '50s. He was determined NOT to play any roles he deemed racist or demeaning. As a result, his career faced a number of serious roadblocks. He probably lost a LOT of money by holding onto his principles. I respect him for his integrity, but let's face it, Megan Fox doesn't have that kind of integrity. Or brains.

Then again, if I had bajillions of men willing to empty their wallets just to *look* at me, hey, I'd cash in on that, too. Can't blame her for selling what she's got at the highest price possible.

I don't hate Bay: I love his movies. Explosions? Bring 'em on! The bigger the better! Cool camera angles? I love 'em! Giant robots punching the robo-snot out of each other? THAT'S what I'm paying to see!

I just wish he felt confident enough in his ability to do THAT that he wouldn't have to stoop to the sort of 'let's get upskirts of Megan Fox' cheap nonsense.

HK, can't we all just drool on robots together?

Lifetime? The channel that constantly belittles men? Yeah, that channel isn't sexist

I find it funny that women flipped out when SpikeTV came out because its targeted at men, yet Females have WE, Oxygen, the thousand different Lifetime network channels, and Oprah's channel all devoted to them. So, its sexist for men to have a channel but its ok for women to have multiple?

Same thing for black people, they flipped when one person(the name is escaping me, and its driving me insane) wanted to start a network aimed at white Americans. Evidently they don't know that the letters in BET stands for, BLACK Entertainment Television. Talk about double standards.

I'm not racist or sexist, but I find hypocrisy to be a tad bit aggravating. No matter which way its going.

I know that's way off topic, but then again the topic has shifted so many damn times.

hellkitty wrote:

oldskooltf wrote:

Sky Glory of Iacon wrote:On the women thing there is something called not making women sex objects. We are not here for you to oggle but to be repected. Ya know Feminism?

Actually... Bay told Megan Fox that she looked too skinny before they started shooting the new movie. The opposite you would expect from someone trying to make women sex objects.

Still... I agree that Megan Fox is in the movie for a reason... and it's not because of her wonderful acting.

I'm not Megan Fox's number one fan (surprise!), nor am I really a hater (I do tend to look at her face more than you boys, and all I see is a very pissed off looking bimbo), but....

Bay stating an opinion about someone's weight is only partially okay. Yes, he's an 'artist' and wants to create a certain look. If he wants it cast solely by chubbies or toothpicks, that's his deal. It's his 'vision'. BUT, commenting on a woman's weight? Well, that's textbook sexism 101, my friends. I think you learn that in day one of mandatory sensitivity training. The 'look' he is going for with Megan Fox is standard and completely unoriginal skankotron. He didn't want her to be a certain way (buffer, stronger, faster, Linda Hamilton-ish, stringier) for her to *perform* but for her to stand around and *pose*. Which is all she ever does, and from what I'm seeing in the trailers, all she seems to be doing in film 2.

I read he didn't want her to look too skinny because he wanted her to look more "normal" or realistic or something like that. So... I believe it was meant to be a good thing. Almost like a compliment to her but also what women SHOULD want -- for actresses to not look "anerexic". Having said all that, then Bay has her pose in the those eye-candy ways and totally nullifies any "good" he did with his previous statement. So, I agree with you that it's kind of sad that Bay feels the need to do that in this movie.

hellkitty wrote:

However, if you're on a campaign of going against films that make women sex objects, there are tons and tons of films that are worse, in my humble opinion.

True in theory, but then, that's stupid in practice. If I only selected non-disgustingly sexist stuff to watch, that would relegate me to...gads, the LIFETIME network? Oprah? And that network is also sexist, but in a different way. It doesn't physically objectify women, but it sure does squish them into a narrow little mental box of constant victimization.

You misunderstood what I meant with my statement. I didn't mean women should avoid watching anything. I meant if you're going to single out MOVIES for the purpose of CRITICIZING them for portraying women in a sexist way, then pick on the movies (there's a gazillion of them) that are far far worse than the Transformers movie.

hellkitty wrote:

Also, Megan Fox has every right to say "no" to wearing certain costumes or to say "no" to appearing in any film that has her in suggestive attire or positions. Perhaps you should be more upset at her instead of the movie. Just a thought. Feel free to disagree.[/quote}

Ya know, my freshman comp students give me this line all the time. About women in rap videos and their ridiculous costumes and rebarbative 'dance' moves. It's true up to a certain point. But if you want to be an actress, or video dancer, sadly, there's only one way to go about it. Notice how there aren't too many ugly women in films lately?

I wasn't addressing women having to be "attractive" to be on film. I was trying to point out that they have the right to only try out for the movies they want and they have the right to say "no" to certain things that are asked of them -- like nude scenes or posing in a degrading way or what-have-you.

I agree they're aren't many ugly actresses (yet you will find not-so-attractive males in acting at times... a double-standard, I know). But my point is there are plenty of attractive actresses who you'll never see wearing "revealing" things like Megan Fox does in TF1 and TF:RotF nor posing in suggestive ways. Megan Fox agreed to that. Other actresses do not.

Having said all that. I'm agreeing with you that the TF movies are good enough that they shouldn't "need" Megan Fox doing what she does for tickets to be sold. I agree that women are way too often portrayed in an "eye-candy" manner which makes the average-woman's life harder.

SamYarbrough77 wrote:Yea but blow something up of consequence.... humans and highways are just fodder but i guess GojiraGodzilla movies are the same. I hope he blows up Shia

(1) IF you honestly see no difference between Godzilla movies and Transformers, then you pay no attention to the most obvious of details.

(2) IF transformers were real and autobots and decepticons fought on earth... they (especially the decepticons) would fight wherever they happened to meet. Since when would a decepticon who autobots were trying to capture say to himself "oh no... I'm only on a highway. I better not damage anything because it's not significant. I better find other ways to escape that are peaceful." Deceps blow up whatever they feel like blowing up to save their own hide. And in TF1, the deceps DID lay low until they were after stuff that was significant -- like the military base secret e-files and the ALLSPARK. It wasn't pointless -- unlike many of the gripes I've read from Bay-hating TF fans.

Are the TF live-action movies perfect? no... what action movie is? Is Bay perfect? What director is? Is he good for action sequences? No... he's great! Do we want good action and stuff blowing up in TF live-action-movie? I would think so!

Again im not having a go at the guy over his work. I love almost all of his films (never seen pearl harbour) and he is the master of blowing things up.

Unfortunately its when they also extends to blowing up his own ego that bugs me. He's like a spoilt brat (the 'cos i said so' variety) that can get away with murder when they have backup (ie Spielberg)