Transformers The Last Knight Additional Photo's From Filming In Phoenix

Sabrblade wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:So, because he's a samurai played by a Japanese guy, he's obviously a stereotype. Right.

No, it's how he was played. He was given an exaggerated accent (Ken Watanabe does not sound in real life quite like how Drift sounded), he used Japanese terms that Americans know but only used them out of their proper meaning because of how pop culture has constantly used those terms incorrectly, he presented himself as a well-behaved bot of honor yet kept doing lot of disrespectful and dishonorable things throughout the movie, he spoke proverbs for no reason other than his having a Japanese motif as said proverbs never fit the context of the situations in which he spoke them and which only incited ill reactions from his teammates (particularly Crosshairs)... Drift is a far cry from a respective representation of a Japanese Samurai character. Beast Wars Dinobot, or even the character-less Swordbot Samurai Team members from Transformers Go!, were far more accurate expressions of how an actual Samurai would be like.

conbot3 wrote:To be fair Drift was a Decepticon before joiming the Autobots

Sabrblade wrote:A point not even hinted at by the movie, as no one would know about it if not for the toy bio saying so.

Deadput wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:A point not even hinted at by the movie, as no one would know about it if not for the toy bio saying so.

Rise of the dark spark states he was a former con as well it's one of those all but confirmed things.

Deadput wrote:Plus every other Drift ever has been a former con and I'm pretty sure it's intentional I mean remember brains he is also a former con according to the prequel comics yet it's not stated in the film itself.

(Yes Rid Drift is a former con too just not stated in the show it's in a book)

conbot3 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:So, because he's a samurai played by a Japanese guy, he's obviously a stereotype. Right.

No, it's how he was played. He was given an exaggerated accent (Ken Watanabe does not sound in real life quite like how Drift sounded), he used Japanese terms that Americans know but only used them out of their proper meaning because of how pop culture has constantly used those terms incorrectly, he presented himself as a well-behaved bot of honor yet kept doing lot of disrespectful and dishonorable things throughout the movie, he spoke proverbs for no reason other than his having a Japanese motif as said proverbs never fit the context of the situations in which he spoke them and which only incited ill reactions from his teammates (particularly Crosshairs)... Drift is a far cry from a respective representation of a Japanese Samurai character. Beast Wars Dinobot, or even the character-less Swordbot Samurai Team members from Transformers Go!, were far more accurate expressions of how an actual Samurai would be like.

To be fair Drift was a Decepticon before joiming the Autobots so perhaps he hasn't had time to worry about the true meaning of honour!

conbot3 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:So, because he's a samurai played by a Japanese guy, he's obviously a stereotype. Right.

No, it's how he was played. He was given an exaggerated accent (Ken Watanabe does not sound in real life quite like how Drift sounded), he used Japanese terms that Americans know but only used them out of their proper meaning because of how pop culture has constantly used those terms incorrectly, he presented himself as a well-behaved bot of honor yet kept doing lot of disrespectful and dishonorable things throughout the movie, he spoke proverbs for no reason other than his having a Japanese motif as said proverbs never fit the context of the situations in which he spoke them and which only incited ill reactions from his teammates (particularly Crosshairs)... Drift is a far cry from a respective representation of a Japanese Samurai character. Beast Wars Dinobot, or even the character-less <a target="_blank" href="http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?toolid=11600&pub=5574891718&campid=5574891718&customid=transformers&icep_ff3=9&icep_uq=transformers%20swordbot&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg class=epn-link target=_blank id=epn8>Swordbot Samurai Team members from Transformers Go!, were far more accurate expressions of how an actual Samurai would be like.

So was wheelie and jetfire


To be fair Drift was a Decepticon before joiming the Autobots so perhaps he hasn't had time to worry about the true meaning of honour!

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

Deadput wrote:Unicron is the worst thing they could do especially since he is a one dimension character from the start

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

Hellscream9999 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

That's because it is the essence of bad storytelling - at least a major part of it

JazZeke wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

That's because it is the essence of bad storytelling - at least a major part of it

You know that, and I know that. But Sly has his head burried so deep in his a- I mean, the sand, that he doesn't know that.

Hellscream9999 wrote:I remember someone saying that they never even mentioned Drift's name, I won't waste my time re-watching that movie, but if that's true, then that would explain why they don't bother explaining his backstory

Hellscream9999 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

That's because it is the essence of bad storytelling - at least a major part of it

You know that, and I know that. But Sly has his head burried so deep in his a- I mean, the sand, that he doesn't know that.

Mr. Plinkett for life yo

And to be fair, I don't mind having to dig for easter eggs, it's nice fan service; a main characters name shouldn't be treated that way

I remember someone saying that they never even mentioned Drift's name, I won't waste my time re-watching that movie, but if that's true, then that would explain why they don't bother explaining his backstory

Sabrblade wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:I remember someone saying that they never even mentioned Drift's name, I won't waste my time re-watching that movie, but if that's true, then that would explain why they don't bother explaining his backstory

Yup! Forget this guy's not having a backstory in the movie, dude doesn't even get a name despite being a roughly major player in the flick.

JazZeke wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:Mr. Plinkett for life yo

And to be fair, I don't mind having to dig for easter eggs, it's nice fan service; a main characters name shouldn't be treated that way

I remember someone saying that they never even mentioned Drift's name, I won't waste my time re-watching that movie, but if that's true, then that would explain why they don't bother explaining his backstory

A good Easter Egg is having Wakanda on a map in the background of Iron Man 2 like a half-dozen movies before Black Panther even shows up.

Assuming a character has the same backstory as the other incarnations in a franchise is not an Easter Egg.

JazZeke wrote:A good Easter Egg is having Wakanda on a map in the background of Iron Man 2 like a half-dozen movies before Black Panther even shows up.

Hellscream9999 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:I remember someone saying that they never even mentioned Drift's name, I won't waste my time re-watching that movie, but if that's true, then that would explain why they don't bother explaining his backstory

Yup! Forget this guy's not having a backstory in the movie, dude doesn't even get a name despite being a roughly major player in the flick.

oof, screen-writing failure 101, #1, 2, and 3

Sabrblade wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:I remember someone saying that they never even mentioned Drift's name, I won't waste my time re-watching that movie, but if that's true, then that would explain why they don't bother explaining his backstory

Yup! Forget this guy's not having a backstory in the movie, dude doesn't even get a name despite being a roughly major player in the flick.

oof, screen-writing failure 101, #1, 2, and 3

Su Yueming didn't even get her name said onscreen either. So for all we know, Li Bingbing's character would be known to moviegoers as just "that hot Chinese lady".

Emerje wrote:Ending credits are there for a reason...

Emerje

Emerje wrote:Ending credits are there for a reason...

Emerje

Deadput wrote:Sabr Drift's name was on display in the movie

Deadput wrote:Sabr Drift's name was on display in the movie

Emerje wrote:Kinda exaggerating how small that text is aren't we? It's perfectly readable even on that small image.

Emerje

Sabrblade wrote:

Emerje wrote:Kinda exaggerating how small that text is aren't we? It's perfectly readable even on that small image.

Emerje

It's also a stilled image, permanently keeping the text visible onscreen long enough for it to be read. Rewatching the scene it appears in, unless one knows that its coming, when, and for how long, it is very easy to miss if one isn't prepared to read the text.

And, really, aside from those who watch subtitled media and Star Wars-esque text scrolls, who actually watches movie entertainment wanting to read text on the screen?

Sabrblade wrote:

And, honestly, man, why are you trying to defend the legitimate shortcomings of the movie? Refuting the ridiculous Geewhiner complaints is one thing, but the valid criticisms too? Come on, you're better than that.

JazZeke wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Emerje wrote:Kinda exaggerating how small that text is aren't we? It's perfectly readable even on that small image.

Emerje

It's also a stilled image, permanently keeping the text visible onscreen long enough for it to be read. Rewatching the scene it appears in, unless one knows that its coming, when, and for how long, it is very easy to miss if one isn't prepared to read the text.

And, really, aside from those who watch subtitled media and Star Wars-esque text scrolls, who actually watches movie entertainment wanting to read text on the screen?

Brings the intro of this episode to mind...

Emerje wrote:I watch a sickening amount of subtitled anime so maybe my eyes just train on screen text quicker than most?

Emerje

Deadput wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

And, honestly, man, why are you trying to defend the legitimate shortcomings of the movie? Refuting the ridiculous Geewhiner complaints is one thing, but the valid criticisms too? Come on, you're better than that.

I'm not?

Maybe I am I don't got any pills to check my temper any more since my family just lost our benefits recently but anyways in this case I'm just pointing out that his name while not said was acknowledge by the movie.

Hellscream9999 wrote:Which might confirm that the head revealed is indeed Megatron, and that he might be the titular 'Last Knight'. So what do you make of this? Let us know in the comments below.

Deadput wrote:Regarding Megatron being a knight I wonder if they are setting him up to become an Autobot or something in this or a future film.

I kinda want Megatron to save the Earth while having a giant ego about it "Hahaha who is your savior now meat-bags!"

Sabrblade wrote:Now, onto this new "Megatron Knight" news:

Hellscream9999 wrote:Which might confirm that the head revealed is indeed Megatron, and that he might be the titular 'Last Knight'. So what do you make of this? Let us know in the comments below.

Megatron being one of the knights would be an... unexpected turn of events. Though, I'd have thought the titular "Last Knight" would be Optimus, given what happened in the previous movie.

SeventhSage wrote:Where is the translation tool from?

Emerje wrote:It's not like the titles have ever been anything more than clever word plays anyway. In Dark of the Moon the moon was just a way to set up the movie, not far into it the moon didn't matter much. In Age of Extinction it was just a clever dinosaur reference, but nothing actually went extinct.

However, let's not forget that there's two ways to read "last". The first is as "final" which could refer to Optimus, but what if it actually meant "previous" and was referring to the knight before Optimus, maybe Megatron?

Emerje

Bounti76 wrote:Sidenote. Why the hell does every key word that's typed in a news story or post now A. Show up as a link and B. Link to an eBay auction for that word? It's very jarring.

JazZeke wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Emerje wrote:Kinda exaggerating how small that text is aren't we? It's perfectly readable even on that small image.

Emerje

It's also a stilled image, permanently keeping the text visible onscreen long enough for it to be read. Rewatching the scene it appears in, unless one knows that its coming, when, and for how long, it is very easy to miss if one isn't prepared to read the text.

And, really, aside from those who watch subtitled media and Star Wars-esque text scrolls, who actually watches movie entertainment wanting to read text on the screen?

Brings the intro of this episode to mind...

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

SlyTF1 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

Then why do so many people like the Force Awakens? Drift's past wasn't even essential to the story, so how is leaving it out detrimental to anything?

Hellscream9999 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

Then why do so many people like the Force Awakens? Drift's past wasn't even essential to the story, so how is leaving it out detrimental to anything?

Probably because they have a rough story drafted out for the trilogy

And yes, it builds character, explains his ethos and actions, and can bridge the need to have exhaustive exposition, it could've been summed up in a sentence or two, but it wasn't, and that's terrible screenwriting

SlyTF1 wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

Then why do so many people like the Force Awakens? Drift's past wasn't even essential to the story, so how is leaving it out detrimental to anything?

Probably because they have a rough story drafted out for the trilogy

And yes, it builds character, explains his ethos and actions, and can bridge the need to have exhaustive exposition, it could've been summed up in a sentence or two, but it wasn't, and that's terrible screenwriting

There was literally no need for it. The movie would have in no way been enhanced with that piece of information. He never even did anything indicative of a Decepticon. Who was the focus of the movie? Cade, Tessa, Optimus, and Joshua. Those characters had plenty of characterization. Why does a supporting character absolutely HAVE to have his past brought up when there's literally nothing he did in the movie that would call for that explanation to be needed?