Sledge Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 (edited) You know what? I'm not going to mock you, Epyon. Prime wouldn't. Edited July 1, 2007 by Sledge Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bengali Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 Using the Forums alot doesnt mean i care about my post count, i dont actually post in topics about stuff i do not actually care about. now STFU unless you wish to discuss transformers in a sensible and adult manner... NOB sorry, N00B! anyway... how many people have actually seen this and accept it as part of the transformers heritage? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Epyon Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 You play with toy guns. *fruitcage* you, you sad ######. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> eh, we all do? and "playing" with toy guns is a far cry from going all anal-retentive about a 20 year old CARTOON on an internet forum Quote Link to post Share on other sites
horzathesecound Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 I didn't think it was out till next month? The movie i mean? And is it me, or does your post count not improve in this section of the forums? To be honest, as iconic as the G1 designs are, i can't see them being turned into a 3D computor animation. Judging this against the cartoons with result in a massive fail. Perhpas judging on its on merit is the only way to go. Much like the Turtles film. But, flames on Prime? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bengali Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 (edited) EPYON SHUT THE HELL UP AND GET OUT OF THE TRANSFORMERS THREAD IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO DISCUSS TRANSFORMERS!!!! i agree, the turtles film, where was Bebop? where was Rocksteady? Krang? the technodrome? the Rat King? any of the bad guys other than shredder? and what was up with shredder???? yes the movie isnt out yet but my dad has managed to gain himself a copy of the screener, though i am not at liberty to say how. and its not a bad movie in all honesty, but its a watch once, quite enjoy, never watch again, and a few months later only remember the bad points kinda film, like most bay movies, pearl harbour, bad boys etc Edited July 1, 2007 by Bengali Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Epyon Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 (edited) On a more serious note I did have a question for those who have seen the flic Do the Transformers talk? I haven't seen a trailer with em talking, but I guess they'd kinda have to. They don't sound like that Optimus voice changer helmet,....do they? EPYON SHUT THE HELL UP AND GET OUT OF THE TRANSFORMERS THREAD IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO DISCUSS TRANSFORMERS!!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Happy? need a tissue? Edited July 1, 2007 by Epyon Quote Link to post Share on other sites
horzathesecound Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 I didn't think it was out till next month? The movie i mean? And is it me, or does your post count not improve in this section of the forums? To be honest, as iconic as the G1 designs are, i can't see them being turned into a 3D computor animation. Judging this against the cartoons with result in a massive fail. Perhpas judging on its on merit is the only way to go. Much like the Turtles film. But, flames on Prime? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sledge Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 (edited) To be honest, as iconic as the G1 designs are, i can't see them being turned into a 3D computor animation. Judging this against the cartoons with result in a massive fail. Perhpas judging on its on merit is the only way to go. Much like the Turtles film. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry, gotta disagree. Check and this out. Done by a couple of guys, no studio budget, very G1 styled. Look a LOT better than the mobile scrap heaps Bay commissioned. Edit ~ Oh, the VW clip dates back to 2000-2001. More info here. Edited July 1, 2007 by Sledge Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bengali Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 Sorry, gotta disagree. Check and this out. Done by a couple of guys, no studio budget, very G1 styled. Look a LOT better than the mobile scrap heaps Bay commissioned. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> when i first heard about transformers movie i was kinda thinking it would probably work better in the full CGI "spirits within" style, that would have worked well, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sledge Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 (edited) Doing it with less humans would have been a good idea. Do the Transformers talk?No. In this film, they communicate through the medium of interpretive dance. The announcements of actors providing the voices for Megatron, Prime, etc were red herrings to prevent criticism of this before the film was released. Edited July 1, 2007 by Sledge Quote Link to post Share on other sites
horzathesecound Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 Wow, i've never seen those before- they look pretty awesome. It's just a case of a director wanting to put his own stamp on his film. which would be fine, if he wasn't using what is such an iconic cartoon as Transformers to make a few bucks it would look pretty cool. As it is, i imagine it will be more of a let down to most people who watch it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sledge Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 I think that people who don't really care about the source material will be fine with it. Thing is, those people would also have been fine with something like the ones I posted. So why not do that, and have a film that appeals to the fanbois and the casual movie-goer? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jagdraben Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 (edited) and the TARDIS in the massivly popular Dr Who which i belive had a scientific explanation for it being huge inside and tiny outside, that was something along the lines of the inside doesnt exist in our reality anymore, so it can be as big or small as i choose... could this gun not be like that???? it would only take what, a millimeter cube ot the plastic to be hollow and like a tardis and sod a tank, you could hide a tank squadron in there. Jag, please actually take time to read the counterarguments if you are going to continue in this debate <{POST_SNAPBACK}> First, Dr Who is only wildly popular in the UK. Outside of the UK it's virtually unknown. It's certainly not on par with Star Trek or Star Wars or either version of Battlestar Galactica. None of which included the creation or destruction of matter. Second, Dr Who isn't a serious science-fiction show. It's supposed to be silly, hence the bad/tacky/hilarious costumes. Sorry, gotta disagree. Check and this out. Done by a couple of guys, no studio budget, very G1 styled. Look a LOT better than the mobile scrap heaps Bay commissioned. Edit ~ Oh, the VW clip dates back to 2000-2001. More info here. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sledge criticize something he's never seen before? Well, I guess it's possible. Kinda like how milk may or may not come from cows. Edited July 1, 2007 by Jagdraben Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sledge Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 Ho ho! Jag in "totally ignoring what people have said to avoid admitting he's lost an argument" shock! Hold the front page! Again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jagdraben Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 (edited) Ho, Sledge pretending that someone has ignored what he's said, to cover his own *albatross* and pretend that he wasn't born backwards, wrong, and with a leg made of Swiss cheese! As usual. ® Edited July 1, 2007 by Jagdraben Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bengali Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 First, Dr Who is only wildly popular in the UK. Outside of the UK it's virtually unknown. It's certainly not on par with Star Trek or Star Wars or either version of Battlestar Galactica. None of which included the creation or destruction of matter. Second, Dr Who isn't a serious science-fiction show. It's supposed to be silly, hence the bad/tacky/hilarious costumes. Sledge criticize something he's never seen before? Well, I guess it's possible. Kinda like how milk may or may not come from cows. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sigh, the point wasnt about popularity Jag, it was about FICTIONAL SCIENCE, things existing outside of our reality, so they are there, but not in a way we can experience them in any way shape or form, and therefor the matter was neither created nor destroyed, meerly shifted to another part of reality PAH, why can some people not understand simple theoretical physics???? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sledge Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 Jag: Nowhere have I suggested that matter is created or destroyed in The Transformers. You seem to have got it into your head that that's what I said. It isn't. Re-read my posts, and try again. Oh, and Star Trek is the show that features the destruction and creation of matter. They refer to it as "the transporter." But... that must mean that an American sci fi show features something that's wrong? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jagdraben Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 (edited) Right. So you're going to take mass and put it into an alternate universe. Here's a question: When you go to get it back, how will you know it's yours and not the property of some other you in another alternate universe? What if that other you has an infectious disease that he's immune to but nothing in your universe is immune to? And the transporter was invented because it would have been to expensive to have shuttles go down to a planet's surface for every away mission. In any case, there's more fact than theory behind the transporter than behind putting something in cold storage in an alternate universe. Edited July 1, 2007 by Jagdraben Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sledge Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 All those questions are answered by the magic of science fiction. Which would be the point we've been trying to hammer into your skull for the last page or so. If you really care, which I doubt, the generally accepted fanon explanation for trailers, guns, body mass, etc disappearing is subspace. Each TF can access an individually coded "pocket" in subspace to store things in. Therefore, they can stow items that aren't needed, or that they have no room for in their alt mode. They can also stow body mass, in the case of those TFs who change size as part of their transformation. So, for example, when Megatron goes from robot to gun mode, a lot of his robot mass (exactly how much depending on whether he's shifting to a human-sized or TF-sized weapon) is stored in subspace, while the stock and barrel extension for his gun mode are retrieved. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jagdraben Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 Subspace, you say? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Epyon Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 The Star Trek transporter was based on the idea of converting matter to energy and visa-versa. Oops, now my nerd is showing Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bengali Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 dont want to accuse you of anything jag, but how did you know that? you have two options here... 1. confess that since this argument began you have been looking al the long words up on Wiki as you dont know what they mean, this would explain why you take so long to reply and always seem to be a page behind 2. confess to being a Gimp. its up to you Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sledge Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 You're a trekkie! You sad git! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jagdraben Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 dont want to accuse you of anything jag, but how did you know that? you have two options here... 1. confess that since this argument began you have been looking al the long words up on Wiki as you dont know what they mean, this would explain why you take so long to reply and always seem to be a page behind 2. confess to being a Gimp. its up to you <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 3. Typed subspace in Wiki to see whether or not it existed outside of Star Trek. I was kind of surprised to get this page. It's a mathematical concept and a term for S&M, but apparently, it isn't even a theory in physics. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bengali Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 3. Typed subspace in Wiki to see whether or not it existed outside of Star Trek. I was kind of surprised to get this page. It's a mathematical concept and a term for S&M, but apparently, it isn't even a theory in physics. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> it is, its just not called subspace, thats a term coined for the common man, i cant remember what its called in physics, but its the layer that seperates the two existances in vertical plain theory Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.