Transformers - Less than meets the eye.
The new Transformers series is more of what was lousy about the old Tranformers with less credible art than ever before. The representation of Optimus Prime in the userpic associated with this journal entry makes me sad. I understand Japanese animation is seen as edgy these days with the excellent Teen Titans series and the Star Wars series and movie but frankly the picture above does not in any way shape or form make me believe for a moment that this robot could transform into a truck capable of towing a 54 foot trailer.
Now if you said he was one of those 3 wheeled, one passenger high gas mileage commuter cars I've seen popping up here and there I might buy that.
Maybe my problem is I was never a huge fan of Saturday morning cartoons; or for that matter any of the Transformers many series. They never got anywhere. The Autobots shot at the Decepticons. The Decepticons shot at the Autobots. Even when I was younger I never felt like there was anything at stake. No one ever really even got hurt let alone died. Having seen the original Transformers movie when I was a teenager I always thought the extremely homogenized series kind of silly. In the original movie they killed practically everybody and battles had real consequences. I'm not saying it was the greatest movie ever made. it had lots of problems. But Orson Welles did one of the voices for crying out loud. It was decent.
The same thing can be said of the new Transformers movie despite the shockingly bad acting and Michael Bay hammering on the explosives detonator way too often (but what else can you expect from him at this point... positive reinforcement works kids so you are part of the problem there... and for that matter so am I). Although only a few Transformers were destroyed in the film hundreds if not thousands of humans died. A real dramatic element to the tale.
I mean really that's one of the things that always bugged me whenever the TV series included humans in the cast (as the current incarnation does; a precocious little girl and some genius scientist as well as... har har several law enforcement officers). We as humans are kinda squishy in comparison to giant robots. One bullet in the wrong spot. One unfortunate explosion. I always wondered why the Decepticons, who worked with humans far more rarely, didn't just kill the Autobots favorite humans? The psychological warfare value alone would totally make it worth it.
I don't know. These and other silly questions are why I usually stick with Anime. After I got back from the Gulf War I spent an entire weekend watching several years worth of Robotech episodes in a marathon holiday weekend that totally turned me off to most American animation (although the CGI stuff of recent years has been more appealing). Watch a few episodes of that and see how it's done. That's drama.
But what really got me going on this, this conversation on the disparity of TV versus the movie Transformers was the idea that on TV "it's for kids" and in the movies it's for adults. While I realize that there was a limited amount of actual gore and the movies were rated for teens (The one I saw when I was 15 was PG for animated violence and the most recent film was PG-13 which actually surprises me because it was incredibly violent and made of the very thing that gives kids nightmares) they are definitely not the "G" rated sillyness of TV.
So say your kid has a big love on for Transformers on TV and he wants the lunch box and the action figures and then he finds out his friends are all going to see Transformers The Movie and there is another movie that is old but still good. How do you as a parent explain the bathed in blood and slaughtering humans (or for that matter killing Optimus like they did in the first film... I know a guy who admits he cried when they killed Optimus when he was a teen but then he is a huge Transformers fanboy) Transformers in comparison to the rather weak sauce they are on TV? Or do you even let them see the film?
Just some musings I guess but these are the marbles that rattle around.
In other movie related news that I find pretty interesting "The Watchmen" had an amazing trailer before "The Dark Knight" which I would have mentioned if the movie wasn't so great I forgot. I've linked to the high def versions here. Get the highest quality your computer can handle. Trust me it's all eye candy.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/watchmen/hd/
I read "The Watchmen" awhile back and while the art is standard fare for the 1980's (I really like a lot of the more realistic and detailed artwork in todays comics in comparison to what I grew up with, in my memory its great but a side by side comparison tends to shatter those happy memories) but with"The Watchmen" the art really is a secondary consideration. It really is a very intricate, complex and multi-layered story: a mystery in fact which was a real treat to read.
The guy who is directing is the one who did Frank Miller's "300" a couple years ago so it is going to be very stylish I'm sure. I'm a little concerned about how such a complex tale (the graphic novel was somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 pages if memory serves) will be told in 2-3 hours. I expect it will be a long movie. But it should be pretty good and Billy Corrigan notwithstanding the trailer looks really good and true to the source material. Shockingly true actually.
Also; I saw the trailer to the "Tron" sequal (with the ill-advised title "TR2N") on Youtube before it was pulled by Disney (I swear they do this stuff to generate buzz and make people go nuts looking for it kids... don't fret I'm sure everyone will be able to see it once all the ferver calms down). Some superstar grabbed it with a cell phone camera at Comicon and I have to say as shitty as that video was it still looked amazing. And they brought Jeff Bridges back. And the guy who played Master Control. I hope they got Boxleitner too. I really became a fan after Babylon 5 and the man deserves as many paychecks as Sci-Fi can give him as far as I'm concerned. But I digress.
The majority of the trailer is a light cycle race and oh my lord is it sweet. This is the kind of mining of my childhood I approve of. No more shitty Dukes of Hazard movies. Don't go crazy looking for it though as most of the links are now fat "Tron Man" related Rick Rolls and I don't want to encourage another wave of Rick Astley related fatalities.
Next I want Innerspace 2. Dennis Quaid hasn't been properly utilized since 2000's "Frequency" and I think everyone would like to see Martin Short out of his Glick fat suit. The man used to be entertaining. He deserves another chance.
Also Meg Ryan may be a bit older now (and her lips are all suckerfish like so many unfortunate lypo victims these days) but she takes her clothes off now: which as far as I'm concerned is reason enough for a sequal right there.
Lastly I've seen the ads for "Starship Troopers 3". I'm sure you have too. Now we all know the first movie was schlock but somewhat entertaining schlock. But that is no excuse for "Starship Troopers 2." Easily the worst movie I have ever seen that wasn't so bad it was funny. It rode the razors edge between being truly awful and a parody of the first movie but never crossed the line. It is concentrated shit in its purest form. And it is because of this I must implore you not to give in to your fond popcorn memories of ST1. Just concentrate on recalling the horror of ST2. Don't be part of the problem. Yes I know they got Casper Van Dien back. Even if you can forgive the "acting" he's done since ST1 try and remember he was part of "Starship Troopers: The Animated Series" and should be held responsible for that. Yes I know he made a "Beastmaster" movie: no I don't think that's a redeeming item on his resume. And yes I know they got Jolene Blalock and yes she was hot in "Enterprise." That still doesn't change the fact that Robert A. Heinlein is mostly likely spinning like a top in his grave because of all of this dreck (even ST1 was a shadow of the book). It also doesn't change the fact that we still need a great powered armor in combat movie and no "Iron Man" doesn't count (even though it was great) and we probably won't get it as long as these butchers are making a penny off of the Starship Troopers franchise.
In short, don't be part of the problem. Remember; only you can prevent shitty movies being made.
Now if you said he was one of those 3 wheeled, one passenger high gas mileage commuter cars I've seen popping up here and there I might buy that.
Maybe my problem is I was never a huge fan of Saturday morning cartoons; or for that matter any of the Transformers many series. They never got anywhere. The Autobots shot at the Decepticons. The Decepticons shot at the Autobots. Even when I was younger I never felt like there was anything at stake. No one ever really even got hurt let alone died. Having seen the original Transformers movie when I was a teenager I always thought the extremely homogenized series kind of silly. In the original movie they killed practically everybody and battles had real consequences. I'm not saying it was the greatest movie ever made. it had lots of problems. But Orson Welles did one of the voices for crying out loud. It was decent.
The same thing can be said of the new Transformers movie despite the shockingly bad acting and Michael Bay hammering on the explosives detonator way too often (but what else can you expect from him at this point... positive reinforcement works kids so you are part of the problem there... and for that matter so am I). Although only a few Transformers were destroyed in the film hundreds if not thousands of humans died. A real dramatic element to the tale.
I mean really that's one of the things that always bugged me whenever the TV series included humans in the cast (as the current incarnation does; a precocious little girl and some genius scientist as well as... har har several law enforcement officers). We as humans are kinda squishy in comparison to giant robots. One bullet in the wrong spot. One unfortunate explosion. I always wondered why the Decepticons, who worked with humans far more rarely, didn't just kill the Autobots favorite humans? The psychological warfare value alone would totally make it worth it.
I don't know. These and other silly questions are why I usually stick with Anime. After I got back from the Gulf War I spent an entire weekend watching several years worth of Robotech episodes in a marathon holiday weekend that totally turned me off to most American animation (although the CGI stuff of recent years has been more appealing). Watch a few episodes of that and see how it's done. That's drama.
But what really got me going on this, this conversation on the disparity of TV versus the movie Transformers was the idea that on TV "it's for kids" and in the movies it's for adults. While I realize that there was a limited amount of actual gore and the movies were rated for teens (The one I saw when I was 15 was PG for animated violence and the most recent film was PG-13 which actually surprises me because it was incredibly violent and made of the very thing that gives kids nightmares) they are definitely not the "G" rated sillyness of TV.
So say your kid has a big love on for Transformers on TV and he wants the lunch box and the action figures and then he finds out his friends are all going to see Transformers The Movie and there is another movie that is old but still good. How do you as a parent explain the bathed in blood and slaughtering humans (or for that matter killing Optimus like they did in the first film... I know a guy who admits he cried when they killed Optimus when he was a teen but then he is a huge Transformers fanboy) Transformers in comparison to the rather weak sauce they are on TV? Or do you even let them see the film?
Just some musings I guess but these are the marbles that rattle around.
In other movie related news that I find pretty interesting "The Watchmen" had an amazing trailer before "The Dark Knight" which I would have mentioned if the movie wasn't so great I forgot. I've linked to the high def versions here. Get the highest quality your computer can handle. Trust me it's all eye candy.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/watchmen/hd/
I read "The Watchmen" awhile back and while the art is standard fare for the 1980's (I really like a lot of the more realistic and detailed artwork in todays comics in comparison to what I grew up with, in my memory its great but a side by side comparison tends to shatter those happy memories) but with"The Watchmen" the art really is a secondary consideration. It really is a very intricate, complex and multi-layered story: a mystery in fact which was a real treat to read.
The guy who is directing is the one who did Frank Miller's "300" a couple years ago so it is going to be very stylish I'm sure. I'm a little concerned about how such a complex tale (the graphic novel was somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 pages if memory serves) will be told in 2-3 hours. I expect it will be a long movie. But it should be pretty good and Billy Corrigan notwithstanding the trailer looks really good and true to the source material. Shockingly true actually.
Also; I saw the trailer to the "Tron" sequal (with the ill-advised title "TR2N") on Youtube before it was pulled by Disney (I swear they do this stuff to generate buzz and make people go nuts looking for it kids... don't fret I'm sure everyone will be able to see it once all the ferver calms down). Some superstar grabbed it with a cell phone camera at Comicon and I have to say as shitty as that video was it still looked amazing. And they brought Jeff Bridges back. And the guy who played Master Control. I hope they got Boxleitner too. I really became a fan after Babylon 5 and the man deserves as many paychecks as Sci-Fi can give him as far as I'm concerned. But I digress.
The majority of the trailer is a light cycle race and oh my lord is it sweet. This is the kind of mining of my childhood I approve of. No more shitty Dukes of Hazard movies. Don't go crazy looking for it though as most of the links are now fat "Tron Man" related Rick Rolls and I don't want to encourage another wave of Rick Astley related fatalities.
Next I want Innerspace 2. Dennis Quaid hasn't been properly utilized since 2000's "Frequency" and I think everyone would like to see Martin Short out of his Glick fat suit. The man used to be entertaining. He deserves another chance.
Also Meg Ryan may be a bit older now (and her lips are all suckerfish like so many unfortunate lypo victims these days) but she takes her clothes off now: which as far as I'm concerned is reason enough for a sequal right there.
Lastly I've seen the ads for "Starship Troopers 3". I'm sure you have too. Now we all know the first movie was schlock but somewhat entertaining schlock. But that is no excuse for "Starship Troopers 2." Easily the worst movie I have ever seen that wasn't so bad it was funny. It rode the razors edge between being truly awful and a parody of the first movie but never crossed the line. It is concentrated shit in its purest form. And it is because of this I must implore you not to give in to your fond popcorn memories of ST1. Just concentrate on recalling the horror of ST2. Don't be part of the problem. Yes I know they got Casper Van Dien back. Even if you can forgive the "acting" he's done since ST1 try and remember he was part of "Starship Troopers: The Animated Series" and should be held responsible for that. Yes I know he made a "Beastmaster" movie: no I don't think that's a redeeming item on his resume. And yes I know they got Jolene Blalock and yes she was hot in "Enterprise." That still doesn't change the fact that Robert A. Heinlein is mostly likely spinning like a top in his grave because of all of this dreck (even ST1 was a shadow of the book). It also doesn't change the fact that we still need a great powered armor in combat movie and no "Iron Man" doesn't count (even though it was great) and we probably won't get it as long as these butchers are making a penny off of the Starship Troopers franchise.
In short, don't be part of the problem. Remember; only you can prevent shitty movies being made.