Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon [** SPOILERS FROM POST 823 ONWARD **]

Cantona's Collars

Handsome Bob

According to Transformers World, Whiteley will be playing the role of Carly, who JoBlo.com has noted is a character from the Transformers animated series that eventually becomes Sam Witwicky’s wife. Does this mean we’ll be seeing Whiteley and Shia LaBeouf tying the knot at the end of Transformers 3? It’s definitely a possibility, seeing as how Michael Bay has stated that this third film will complete the trilogy. Unless he breaks his word (or has another director come on board to finalize their relationship), this is his only shot to make Sam a married man.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/07/21/rosie-huntington-whiteleys-role-confirmed-for-transformers-3-sam-witwickys-future-wife/

LOL, how are they going to do this feasibly? I know plot isn't what Bay is overly concerned with but he did spend the previous two films establishing the relationship between Mikaela and Sam, which culminated in them declaring their love for each other. Will Bay kill Fox off off-screen? If so, it'd be a bit much to throw Sam into another serious relationship just after the death of his first love no?

trustno1

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Director Michael Bay's official website has confirmed that Victoria's Secret model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley has landed the lead female role in Transformers 3 . Huntington-Whiteley has worked with Bay before on his Victoria's Secret "A Thousand Fantasies" ad. She joins Shia Labeouf, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson, Kevin Dunn, Julie White, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Ken Jeong, Patrick Dempsey and Alan Tudyk in the third film scheduled for release on July 1, 2011.

The only way that they can justify in Transformers 3 the replacing of Megan Fox is that Shia LaBeouf's character is gay... you heard it here first folks!..

monkeyfudge

Looking at the photos from the set the Rosie one is utterly stunning looking.

(Was never a big Megan Fox fan.)

johnny_ultimate

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Looking at the photos from the set the Rosie one is utterly stunning looking.

(Was never a big Megan Fox fan.)

At the risk of raising questions about my sexuality (straight, I swear!) I personally think the presence of Alan Tudyk is more exciting artistically promising.

BlitzKrieg

honestly with micheal bay directing every girl under 40 looks like a stripper so who cares who it is?

norrie rugger

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

At the risk of raising questions about my sexuality (straight, I swear!) I personally think the presence of Alan Tudyk is more exciting artistically promising.

OK now I am interested!!
(also straight lol)

Mickeroo

Alan Tudyk is a legend.

Galvasean

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

honestly with micheal bay directing every girl under 40 looks like a stripper so who cares who it is?

I'd much rather a hot stripper than an ugly one

BlitzKrieg

Galvasean wrote: »

I'd much rather a hot stripper than an ugly one

if you want a stripper then go to a strip club

Galvasean

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

if you want a stripper then go to a strip club

Think I'll just take the cheap option and watch a blockbuster.

Richard Dower

Don't get y'alls obsession with TF...the movies sucked.

krudler

Richard Dower wrote: »

Don't get y'alls obsession with TF...the movies sucked.

Says the guy who started a thread lamenting the end of The Hills :rolleyes:

Richard Dower

^ yeah...and both are crap!

Richard Dower

Richard Dower wrote: »

^ yeah...and both are crap!

Actually Transformers is an unfairly mangled franchise, granted the second film has it's faults, it's far too long and the humour is dreadful but the action more than compensates for this, the scene where Optimus falls in the forest is superb.

The first film is easily one of the best summer blockbusters of the past decade, it was smart, funny and the story at heart was about a boy and his first car. That it also include photo realistic depictions of gigantic robots fighting one another was a plus.

Richard Dower

^ and i say again....i thought the CGI was poor and rushed, i think ILM have been churning out crap for years, when i see CGI from Rythm & Hues or stuff from Canada and New Zealand i know where the eye candy is!

krudler

Richard Dower wrote: »

^ and i say again....i thought the CGI was poor and rushed, i think ILM have been churning out crap for years, when i see CGI from Rythm & Hues or stuff from Canada and New Zealand i know where the eye candy is!

sorry but..fail. poor cgi is the one thing that cant be said about either TF movie, its stunning in places.

Rythm and Hues? you must be joking right? this is the same Rythm and Hues that did the godawful cgi for the Narnia and Golden Compass movies? Alvin and the chipmunks? the Mummy 3?! they've done some good stuff as well but they're far from the best effects house around.

Richard Dower

Richard Dower wrote: »

^ and i say again....i thought the CGI was poor and rushed, i think ILM have been churning out crap for years, when i see CGI from Rythm & Hues or stuff from Canada and New Zealand i know where the eye candy is!

Richard, you couldnt be more wrong if you tried. Take a look at the trailer and honestly tell me that the photo realistic robots are not amongst some of the best CGI work ever committed to film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnwmUZuF5OY

Duggy747

I'm a CGI nut which can be a disadvantage for me, in films that use a lot it can detract me from the scene and end up making me go "Huh, the CGI is ok / crap there".

But when I saw the 1st Transformers in the cinema my jaw kept dropping at almost every scene. Especially Optimus Primes introduction and the many scenes that blended with real footage of the cars tranforming, made me go "How the hell did they do that!?!" It was CGI we'd never seen performed in such an intricate way before. Plus the stunts were pretty damn cool (The highway scene where the bus is ripped in half was an actual bus rigged with explosives while a poor stunt guy had to drive the thing inside it :eek:)

The charm was gone by TF2 along with a crappy plot, humour and execution.

Richard Dower

^ i'll never get over what i said before, cars and planes transforming in under a second....no way i'll buy it, it's just cheap, rushed CGI...that's the problem i have, it costs less money to transform quickly then do it slow...thus cheap.

And i don't include the initial Optimus transform sequence, that was utter class, what about that cop car chasing Shia in the underground parking lot?...it transformed in like a second or two, it looked DREADFUL!

Richard Dower

Richard Dower wrote: »

^ i'll never get over what i said before, cars and planes transforming in under a second....no way i'll buy it, it's just cheap, rushed CGI...that's the problem i have, it costs less money to transform quickly then do it slow...thus cheap.

And i don't include the initial Optimus transform sequence, that was utter class, what about that cop car chasing Shia in the underground parking lot?...it transformed in like a second or two, it looked DREADFUL!

We've had this discussion before, you seem to want long sequences involving the transformations which would bring the action to a stand still. It can't be done, it would be cool the first time but after that would be boring, repetitive and ridiculous to watch over and over again.

Richard Dower

^ i don't buy that logic...i just think it makes the experience look cheap, which it is....just to save money.

norrie rugger

richard, it would be bloody boring, slow, repetitive and annoying.
This is a Michael Bay ACTION flick, get over it

Frank Bullitt

Someone thinks the CGI in both these films "poor"?

Should have gone to Spec Savers.

Corholio

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually Transformers is an unfairly mangled franchise, granted the second film has it's faults, it's far too long and the humour is dreadful but the action more than compensates for this, the scene where Optimus falls in the forest is superb.

The first film is easily one of the best summer blockbusters of the past decade, it was smart, funny and the story at heart was about a boy and his first car. That it also include photo realistic depictions of gigantic robots fighting one another was a plus.

No it dosen't, the dreadful far outweigh the good about the second film. The action is quite good, but when almost everything that frames it is terrible, it equates to a really poor film. The first one was good, but it hardly would be called a great film either, some rubbish dialogue and excessive use of cant-tell-what-the-hell-is-going-on flying metal see that it isn't

krudler

Richard Dower wrote: »

^ i don't buy that logic...i just think it makes the experience look cheap, which it is....just to save money.

So you'd rather every time a tranformer changed that it stopped an lingered on a shot for over a minute like the initial Optimus change? that would be completely pointless, they can change in a second in the cartoon, same in the movie, the initial shot of them all transforming was a "look what we can do!" shot by ILM, and its brilliant, but the quick transformations like the scene on the highway are just as good. There was nothing cheap about any of the Transformer movies,budget of $151 million for the 1st and $200 million for the 2nd. Nobodys denything the 2nd is poor, but cheap? no way.

BlitzKrieg

while I wouldnt call the CGI poor the choreographing and direction of the action sequences around the cgi are downright f*cking awful in both films.

impressive CGI but pretty dull use of it.

johnny_ultimate

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

while I wouldnt call the CGI poor the choreographing and direction of the action sequences around the cgi are downright f*cking awful in both films.

impressive CGI but pretty dull use of it.

Indeed. The CGI is great, and the score is pretty epic on occasion. I'm sure if you're a bigger fanboy than I am, there's plenty of references to enjoy too.

But then you have:

• The writing
• The sexism / racism - I wouldn't usually accuse films of this, but these films really present fairly ludicrous stereotypes (see: The Twins, every female character, every male character)
• The questionable political ideologies (dropkicking Obama's assistant off a plane?)
• The 'guns conquer all!' message
• The rubbish dialogue and mythology that sounds acceptable in cartoon form but outrageous on film
• The product placement
• The obsession with slo-mo explosions
• The lack of variety in Transformer designs (at least Bumblebee is still yellow)
• The 'humour'. Oh the 'humour'
• Shia LaBeouf
• The 'wacky' parents! On drugs accidentally! Roflcopter!
• The sad spectacle of much more talented actors, such as John Turturro, who are so much better than this. I won't begrudge them the paycheck though
• That scene where the Transformers try to 'hide' from Sam's parents. Absolute garbage
• Megan Fox is overrated, and made look more attractive by carefully orchestrated camera angles.
• The fact that you can rarely tell what's going on in the action scenes as it's all just metal shooting each other
• The non score music choices, such as Linkin Park and the endlessly repeated '21 Guns' by Green Day
• And the grandest **** up of them all, Michael Bay

So yeah, good CGI and score didn't make up for the above flaws in my eyes.
Oh, I'll give a point for Optimus still having a great voice too.

BlitzKrieg

I wasnt even going into those levels

I agree with all of that, but even by micheal bay standards if you picked out any fight scene in transformers 1 and break it down between its length, whats on screen and the actual choreagraphing of those cgi monstrosities you'd see the film is actually lacking in the *big robots smashing each other* appeal as most of it happens off screen or crammed into corners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pklbulbkHbA

when you break it down its two flourishes (optimus transform, bonecrusher transform) one awesome sfx that we all knew from the trailer (bus) and then the rest of the fight is a mess of dutch angles, obscured elements and the shortest and rather anti climatic fight that is just a mess on the screen from our perspective, regardless of how good the cgi is.


thats considered to be the best, I mean the bumblebee barricade one earlier in the film is laughable in that the entire fight takes place off screen. Megatron vs optimus is a crime to fanboys because the climax scene is focused on shia rolling around in mud even having the iconic one shall stand and one shall fall line delivered off screen

And this is standard for the first film, the second is a bit better but worse in every other way.

Venom

While the TF movies have so many things wrong with them, the CGI sure as hell isn't part of the problem.

Richard, I have never encountered anyone with such bad taste in TV shows and movies as you have :eek: