Shia punched in the face in bar brawl
Travoltron
Seriously Hasbro, reboot, clean house, and RECAST for TF4.
TigerMegatron
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/shia-labeouf-handcuffed-release...
>
> Seriously Hasbro, reboot, clean house, and RECAST for TF4.
i'd lve a reboot. i'd be pissed off & extremly upset if their isn't a
reboot.
Travoltron
> i'd lve a reboot. i'd be pissed off& extremly upset if their isn't a
> reboot.
Here's the details, if anyone cares.
I like to imagine it was Deathy that goaded him with un-PC language and
punched him.
Supremus
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/shia-labeouf-handcuffed-release...
>
Yes, because problematic actors cannot sustain movie franchises,
right? Just ask Iron Man, Pirates of the Caribbean...
Onslaught Six
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/shia-labeouf-handcuffed-release...
This is why I drink in the privacy and comfort of my own home.
Also, nobody asks me to leave anymore after I take off my pants
awkwardly.
Onslaught Six
> Yes, because problematic actors cannot sustain movie franchises,
> right? Just ask Iron Man, Pirates of the Caribbean...
Who's problematic in Pirates? (Ha! Alliteration!) Also, isn't Downey
Jr. off the wagon now? On the wagon? Not being drunk, anyway? I feel
like that gives him the special experience somebody needs to be Iron
Man, anyway.
Travoltron
I think he's referring to when Johnny Depp trashed a hotel room-- in 1994.
I agree O6, those were terrible examples.
Supremus
Terrible why? Because they disprove your point?
Anyway, what does recasting has to do with reboot? Terminator never
rebooted despite 3 different John Connors, why would Transformers need
a reboot? Because it's not GeeWunn enough? Because of Michael Bay?
That's so 2007...
Travoltron
> Terrible why? Because they disprove your point?
Because they don't, actually. You picked two actors that are not
problematic to sustain your argument about problematic actors.
Meanwhile this is the franchise that fired Megan Fox for being
"problematic".
> Anyway, what does recasting has to do with reboot? Terminator never
> rebooted despite 3 different John Connors,
I can only speak personally, but all the different John Connors (there
are actually more than 3 between all the movies & TV series) did detract
from the experience for me. I never bought that they were the same guy.
> why would Transformers need
> a reboot? Because it's not GeeWunn enough? Because of Michael Bay?
Hollywood is rebooting Spider-Man, and those movies (even part 3) were
much better films (IMHO). All of them also made a ton of money. I
believe the critically maligned 3 even made the most money.
Even if this movie franchise got a better creative team, I'm not sure it
could be salvaged thanks to the elimination of Energon and the energy
crisis that was really the crux of the Decepticon motivation.
> That's so 2007...
Not really, in 2007 most fans loved Bay. "So 2009" would be more accurate.
Velvet Glove
Or to cite a more TF example... Chris Latta. I think it was Flint
Dille (but might have been somebody else on production) who said that
they had to bail him out of jail once to get him to a voice
recording. Reportedly a lovely guy who had his problems.
And aren't we glad they never sacked him?
Velvet Glove (who wouldn't expect Shia to stick around for TF4 anyway--
I suspect the franchise would end up more damaging to him than vice
versa)
Travoltron
> Or to cite a more TF example... Chris Latta. I think it was Flint
> Dille (but might have been somebody else on production) who said that
> they had to bail him out of jail once to get him to a voice
> recording. Reportedly a lovely guy who had his problems.
Yes, that's a good example.
> And aren't we glad they never sacked him?
I've always been meaning to bring this up, but I always thought it was
funny that all of Chris Latta's main characters were killed off in the
Transformers and G.I. Joe movies. After hearing those stories about his
"demons", it made me wonder if *somebody* calling the shots wanted him
written out of the show.
> Velvet Glove (who wouldn't expect Shia to stick around for TF4 anyway--
> I suspect the franchise would end up more damaging to him than vice
> versa)
Agreed. Wikipedia says this is the final film. If true, this whole
discussion is moot I guess.
Onslaught Six
> I can only speak personally, but all the different John Connors (there
> are actually more than 3 between all the movies & TV series) did detract
> from the experience for me.
Well, obviously the guy we get a glimpse of in T1 and the beginning of
T2 couldn't be the same actor as Ed Furlong, for obvious reasons, but
that's acceptible. I think Furlong was on drugs or something when T3
was being made but we all like to pretend that movie didn't exist.
> I never bought that they were the same guy.
They weren't!
http://spoonyexperiment.com/2009/05/24/some-computers-will-believe-anything/#comments
(Okay, of course that's not canon, but it's awesome.)
> Not really, in 2007 most fans loved Bay. "So 2009" would be more accurate.
Where the hell were you in 2007?
Supremus
> On 2/7/2011 7:41 AM, Supremus wrote:
>
> > Terrible why? Because they disprove your point?
>
> Because they don't, actually. You picked two actors that are not
> problematic to sustain your argument about problematic actors.
> Meanwhile this is the franchise that fired Megan Fox for being
> "problematic".
Erm, I beg to differ. But since you're choosing to see things the way
you want to see them, whatever.
>
> > Anyway, what does recasting has to do with reboot? Terminator never
> > rebooted despite 3 different John Connors,
>
> I can only speak personally, but all the different John Connors (there
> are actually more than 3 between all the movies & TV series) did detract
> from the experience for me. I never bought that they were the same guy.
>
And yet, the franchise never rebooted.
> > why would Transformers need
> > a reboot? Because it's not GeeWunn enough? Because of Michael Bay?
>
> Hollywood is rebooting Spider-Man, and those movies (even part 3) were
> much better films (IMHO). All of them also made a ton of money. I
> believe the critically maligned 3 even made the most money.
>
And nobody has any idea if the reboot will be sucessfull, financially
or critically.
> Even if this movie franchise got a better creative team, I'm not sure it
> could be salvaged thanks to the elimination of Energon and the energy
> crisis that was really the crux of the Decepticon motivation.
Salvaged from what??? From being different of G1?
TigerMegatron
Supremus,we've had peace here since all the trouble makers left a long
time ago. please stop trolling & please stop upsetting the polite
members we currently have here on ATT.
If your bored & feel like trolling,please go to the allspark,tfw2005
message boards & so forth. as those members their fall into the
following categories: trolls,flame baiters,morons,have zero common
sense,repeative asking same questions over & over. members who are
kids/under 18 & pretend to be adult men. attention grabbers, think
their superior to everyone else. have chips on their shoulders. like
to form groups & attack individual members their jealous of.
Onslaught Six
> Erm, I beg to differ. But since you're choosing to see things the way
> you want to see them, whatever.
Go on, then. Please, tell me how Downey Jr. was problematic on the set
of either Iron Man film. Or Johnny Depp on the Pirates films. If Depp
was a "problematic actor," then he would probably be in a lot less
movies than he is. Stop backpedaling--you chose bad examples.
> And yet, the franchise never rebooted.
Technically, isn't Terminator Salivation a reboot? I mean, isn't that
even the entire *point* of the film, that it's a different continuity
than John Conner was told of as a child?
> Salvaged from what??? From being different of G1?
The Decepticons' motivation is, in nearly ALL Transformers
incarnations, a quest to collect energy sources to destroy the
Autobots. Ruling the universe is kind of secondary to that. Also, it
was pretty explicitly the motivation for the 'Cons in the first two
films--they wanted the AllSpark, because it was apparently an Energon
source (The 'Energon Cube' was a working name for the film's AllSpark,
and also they kept saying it was the "only source of Energon" in ROTF)
and now the Matrix is gone and so is the Sun Destroyer that The Fallen
wanted to use, so we've got pretty much nothing for the Decepticons'
energon quest. Of course, it'll probably be politely ignored.
Supremus
Look kid, I posted here years before you came with your ADD and your
lack of punctuation. Go back to your mom's basement.
Supremus
> On Feb 8, 11:11 am, Supremus <rica...@univali.br> wrote:
>
> > Erm, I beg to differ. But since you're choosing to see things the way
> > you want to see them, whatever.
>
> Go on, then. Please, tell me how Downey Jr. was problematic on the set
> of either Iron Man film. Or Johnny Depp on the Pirates films. If Depp
> was a "problematic actor," then he would probably be in a lot less
> movies than he is. Stop backpedaling--you chose bad examples.
And when was Shia problematic on set? That's not the point of my
examples. These actors have (or had) troubled personal lives, that
could (but didn't) impact their work.
> And yet, the franchise never rebooted.
>
> Technically, isn't Terminator Salivation a reboot? I mean, isn't that
> even the entire *point* of the film, that it's a different continuity
> than John Conner was told of as a child?
Since time travel makes my head hurt, yes, I grant you it's a reboot.
>
> > Salvaged from what??? From being different of G1?
>
> The Decepticons' motivation is, in nearly ALL Transformers
> incarnations, a quest to collect energy sources to destroy the
> Autobots. Ruling the universe is kind of secondary to that. Also, it
> was pretty explicitly the motivation for the 'Cons in the first two
> films--they wanted the AllSpark, because it was apparently an Energon
> source (The 'Energon Cube' was a working name for the film's AllSpark,
> and also they kept saying it was the "only source of Energon" in ROTF)
> and now the Matrix is gone and so is the Sun Destroyer that The Fallen
> wanted to use, so we've got pretty much nothing for the Decepticons'
> energon quest. Of course, it'll probably be politely ignored.
Erm, no, in TF1 they wanted the Allspark to create an army. Only in
ROTF was energon mentioned. And since nobody saw DOTM yet, we cannot
really say that the subject will be ignored, or otherwise.
Anyway, hardly any reason for the franchise to be "salvaged".
Travoltron
> On 8 fev, 18:24, TigerMegatron<TigerMegat...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Supremus,we've had peace here since all the trouble makers left a long
>> time ago. please stop trolling & please stop upsetting the polite
>> members we currently have here on ATT.
>
> lack of punctuation. Go back to your mom's basement.
>
I agree with Deathy. I'll take his "quirks" over your arrogant snark,
which is oh "so 1997".
Travoltron
> Well, obviously the guy we get a glimpse of in T1 and the beginning of
> T2 couldn't be the same actor as Ed Furlong, for obvious reasons, but
> that's acceptible. I think Furlong was on drugs or something when T3
> was being made but we all like to pretend that movie didn't exist.
I saw it, but found the whole thing forgettable, with the exception of
the admittedly awesome ending.
Yeah, Furlong is exactly what I am talking about and could be Shia's
future. T2 set Furlong up to be a big star and he threw it all away
because he couldn't get his act together.
There are a whole bunch of other articles about Shia's hijinks (he
apparently regularly starts bar fights), but I get the impression that
no one here is interested. Suffice it to say his shenanigans severely
hampered ROTF; that stupid cast on his hand in parts of that film will
be eternal proof of that.
>> Not really, in 2007 most fans loved Bay. "So 2009" would be more accurate.
>
> Where the hell were you in 2007?
Largely on tfw2005, IIRC.
There was some fuss when the first designs showed up, and when Don
Murphy was flaming fans, but for whatever reason people seemed to
embrace the movie warts and all. One of the only Transfans that I can
recall that criticized the movie was Matt Moylan, and he got a lot of
flak for it.
Those of us that didn't like it were often dismissed outright and
slapped with the GeeWun label, a tradition that Supremus here is
upholding.
(I guess I should just killfile him... first time I've had to that here
in years.)
Then ROTF came out in 2009 and everyone seemed hostile to it, even
though it was pretty much the same as the first. I look at the very
different rottentomatoes scores (57% vs 20%) and am still puzzled.
TigerMegatron
>
> - Show quoted text -
I came here to ATT in early 1997. I doubt you were here before me.
Congrats you've just been added to my MOZILLA troll kill file. you can
now play with scott in the black void known as the mozzilla Troll kill
file. I REFUSE to entertain the trolls & I refuse to let the trolls
ruin my ATT pleasant experience. the old deathy would have kept
feeding the trolls. the new improved Deathy 2.0 Throws trolls into his
mozzilla troll kill file.
Not_Available321
> right? Just ask Iron Man, Pirates of the Caribbean...
THEORY: I guess your logic would hold up if (chronic shit-stain) Shia
Lebouf (sp?) was actually an ACTOR. He's not. He can't act. Robert
Downey, Jr. and Johnny Depp are ACTORS. They are. They can act.
Apples and oranges.
LOGICAL CONCLUSION: YOU FAIL.
Trolly McBeam
<end transmission>
Not_Available321
> Terrible why? Because they disprove your point?
MEL GIBSON. Your point, dis-proven. Next...
Trolly McBeam
<end transmission>
Not_Available321
When they had to write in Shia's hand injury into the "script" because
he was driving drunk with another passenger and crashed into another
car..? Or was it from another "bar brawl?"
> These actors have (or had) troubled personal lives, that could (but didn't)
> impact their work.
Johnny Depp, Robert Downey, Jr., and Shia LeBouf don't belong in the
same sentence either. Apples and oranges.
Trolly McBeam
<end transmission>
TigerMegatron
wrote:
I agree,that's the #1 reason I hate Shia le bouf,he can't act. he does
a piss poor job trying to go thru the various emotions that are needed
in the scenes.
...Also Known As Thunder
> One of the only Transfans that I can
> recall that criticized the movie was Matt Moylan, and he got a lot of
> flak for it.
> Those of us that didn't like it were often dismissed outright and
> slapped with the GeeWun label, a tradition that Supremus here is upholding.
Add me to the list. I didn't like the first one either. Poor writing,
poor pacing... I guess the special effects were nice but that was about
all it really had going for it.
t.k.
...Also Known As Thunder
> I agree,that's the #1 reason I hate Shia le bouf,he can't act. he does
> a piss poor job trying to go thru the various emotions that are needed
> in the scenes.
I don't disagree about his acting skills but does he really need to act
in these movies? He's just there to be amazed and/or terrified, etc. by
the big shiny cgi creations.
Now if it were something like True Grit or 127 Hours, then maybe...
t.k.
Supremus
This is arrogant snark:
SteveD
wrote:
>Then ROTF came out in 2009 and everyone seemed hostile to it, even
>though it was pretty much the same as the first. I look at the very
>different rottentomatoes scores (57% vs 20%) and am still puzzled.
The first one was novel, at least to people who hadn't had heads full of
giant alien transforming robots for 25 years.
Personally, I thought that the second one was not all that much more crap
than many other throwaway season blockbusters, but the first one was truly
dire. I fully realise that this may be because my expectations going into
the first one were moderate, whereas going into the second one they were
lower than a bathysphere's bootlaces.
-SteveD
Kishin
> On 8 fev, 21:12, Travoltron<travolt...@defender.uni> wrote:
>> On 2/8/2011 1:40 PM, Supremus wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 fev, 18:24, TigerMegatron<TigerMegat...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Supremus,we've had peace here since all the trouble makers left a long
>>>> members we currently have here on ATT.
>>
>>> Look kid, I posted here years before you came with your ADD and your
>>> lack of punctuation. Go back to your mom's basement.
>>
>> I agree with Deathy. I'll take his "quirks" over your arrogant snark,
>> which is oh "so 1997".
>
> This is arrogant snark:
>
>> Seriously Hasbro, reboot, clean house, and RECAST for TF4.
I think some people here are being a tad bit oversensitive. Have you
seen what goes on in OTHER newsgroups? I've seen nothing here that I
consider trolling or even bad manners. Lighten up, people!
--
Kishin
Onslaught Six
> I saw it, but found the whole thing forgettable, with the exception of
> the admittedly awesome ending.
> Yeah, Furlong is exactly what I am talking about and could be Shia's
> future. T2 set Furlong up to be a big star and he threw it all away
> because he couldn't get his act together.
Furlong was, admittedly, a lot younger than Shia was, and Shia was
brought up doing Disney channel stuff since he was far younger than
Furlong. So I don't know if you can rightly compare the two. Shia's
vices are also, as far as anyone knows, just alcohol--I haven't seen
him go into rehab or seen *anyone* talk of him doing coke or
prescription shit like Oxycontin or shit like that. So that's
admirable, at least.
> There are a whole bunch of other articles about Shia's hijinks (he
> apparently regularly starts bar fights), but I get the impression that
> no one here is interested. Suffice it to say his shenanigans severely
> hampered ROTF; that stupid cast on his hand in parts of that film will
> be eternal proof of that.
ROTF was hampered by a lot of things; Shia's not-explained-well cast
was a drop in the bucket compared to everything else wrong with that
movie.
> Largely on tfw2005, IIRC.
> There was some fuss when the first designs showed up, and when Don
> Murphy was flaming fans, but for whatever reason people seemed to
> embrace the movie warts and all. One of the only Transfans that I can
> recall that criticized the movie was Matt Moylan, and he got a lot of
> flak for it.
> Those of us that didn't like it were often dismissed outright and
> slapped with the GeeWun label, a tradition that Supremus here is
> upholding.
> (I guess I should just killfile him... first time I've had to that here
> in years.)
I seem to remember seeing a bunch of Movie-defenders, but a large
amount of us still didn't like the movie for what it represented.
For the record, I still think the first film is a damn fine action
flick. The computer nerds could have done a lot more (and they did, in
the script!) and I would have changed a couple things, but it's solid.
ROTF, on the other hand...
> Then ROTF came out in 2009 and everyone seemed hostile to it, even
> though it was pretty much the same as the first. I look at the very
> different rottentomatoes scores (57% vs 20%) and am still puzzled.
ROTF was a lot worse for a lot of reasons. The plot is banal and makes
little to no sense (even if you've read all the supplemental materials
and adaptations based on earlier scripts--which made a LOT more sense)
and there's too much of Michael Bay's improv style in it. The reason
for this? Writer's strike. They had a script, bits of it needed hashed
out...and Bay did the hashing. This is never good.
There's also the matter of the plot getting switched around a lot and
stuff. For one thing, the crux of the film assumes (still!) that the
big cube in the first film is still the Energon Cube, and is
explicitly stated to be "the only remaining source of Energon." Also,
the Fallen's introduction is just crap, he just shows up acting like
he's been the boss the entire time. (To be fair, Empire Strikes Back
does this too. All of a sudden, Vader's working for this Palpatine
guy?) There was Soundwave's role getting cut back (It's clear he was
supposed to be on the Nemesis and they would *all* make fun of
Starscream) and then there's the whole "Only a Prime can kill the
Fallen!" thing, when all Prime does is....hit him. A lot.
(In the original scripts and a few adaptations, Prime throws him into
a black hole or something. That's a little better, because I assume
that nobody else can do that.)
Onslaught Six
> I think some people here are being a tad bit oversensitive. Have you
> seen what goes on in OTHER newsgroups? I've seen nothing here that I
> consider trolling or even bad manners. Lighten up, people!
Who gives a flying shit what happens at other newsgroups? Here at ATT,
we argue politely or we shut the fuck up. It's been that way for the
last few years and I *like* it that way.
Optim_1
>
> For the record, I still think the first film is a damn fine action
> flick. The computer nerds could have done a lot more (and they did, in
> the script!) and I would have changed a couple things, but it's solid.
> ROTF, on the other hand...
>
Agreed. I liked to first film. It was a good popcorn movie. The second
one was awful.
> There's also the matter of the plot getting switched around a lot and
> stuff. For one thing, the crux of the film assumes (still!) that the
> big cube in the first film is still the Energon Cube, and is
> explicitly stated to be "the only remaining source of Energon." Also,
> the Fallen's introduction is just crap, he just shows up acting like
> he's been the boss the entire time. (To be fair, Empire Strikes Back
> does this too. All of a sudden, Vader's working for this Palpatine
> guy?) There was Soundwave's role getting cut back (It's clear he was
> supposed to be on the Nemesis and they would *all* make fun of
> Starscream) and then there's the whole "Only a Prime can kill the
> Fallen!" thing, when all Prime does is....hit him. A lot.
>
It was mentioned in a phrase in A New Hope that Vader was working for
the Emperor. In one of the scenes, Grande Moff Tarkin said this: "the
Emperor has dissolved the assembly so governors now have complere
control over their regional affairs...". Vader was also working for
Grand Moff Tarkin.
> (In the original scripts and a few adaptations, Prime throws him into
> a black hole or something. That's a little better, because I assume
> that nobody else can do that.)
that would have made the movie a LOT better.
Kishin
Show me an example of someone arguing in an impolite manner? I haven't
seen any. All I've seen are polite disagreements. Except for Deathy's
rages and putting people in his killfile.
--
Kishin
Travoltron
Seconded. And it's pretty impressive that an unmoderated newsgroup can
(usually) pull this off.
Kishin
I hate to be contrarian, and certainly don't want to start a fight, but
do you consider phrases like "who gives a flying shit" and "shut the
fuck up" to be polite? Just wondering.
--
Kishin
Travoltron
Me or O6? Personally. I think you are correct about that. I agree with
O6's general message, but not the way he said it.
In the past I know the view here was TFs were for kids and that we
should try to keep the language relatively clean. Of course now we have
official Transformers movies with F-Bombs, "goldbug showers",
male-to-male dog humping, pot brownies, and references to "cherry
popping", so I don't know what the rule is.
Uriel Ventris
> In the past I know the view here was TFs were for kids and that we
> should try to keep the language relatively clean. Of course now we have
> official Transformers movies with F-Bombs, "goldbug showers",
> male-to-male dog humping, pot brownies, and references to "cherry
> popping", so I don't know what the rule is.
"Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"?
I must confess that a large part of my dislike for the Bayverse movies
has been Shia. And his character. Maybe he hasn't been written well
enough for me to relate to him, or he isn't sympathetic enough, or...
something, I dunno. He looks like a slimey git to me, and that's why I
don't like him as the main "human identification" character. Contrast
him to the eldest kid in the new series, who I'm kinda okay with.
On a related note, what bugs me is that the "human identification"
characters keep getting more and more immature. Spike in G1, yes, but
at least he was useful because his father was useful, and then we got
to see Spike as this big-shot type deal in Season 3. And we got
Daniel, whom (I am forced to agree in retrospect) was basically a well-
behaved kid, if bland. "Beast Wars" had the cave-kids, and thank
goodness they weren't in every episode. RiD had that kid who could
detect Fortress Maximus...? I dunno. AEC had the most annoying kids
ever, but I'm probably only saying that because they were dubbed
shows. "Animated" had Sari, who was... I liked her, I really did, but
she was a lot of trouble. But again, she was useful because her father
was useful (and, as it turned out, she was also an artificial
construct). And now we have those three kiddies for the "Prime"
series, one of whom is a super-genius toddler, and we have Sam
Witwicky.
The next series will probably involve the Transformers invading a
daycare or a nursery...
Kishin
I think we're all adult here, so the occasional curse word doesn't
bother me. I was just pointing out the irony in his statement. And while
I agree with his message, I still don't see how anyone was impolite,
till Deathy threw a hissy fit and started calling people trolls. I enjoy
Deathy's posts, and feel he's a valuable member of ATT, but he sometimes
attacks people with whom he disagrees, and has been guilty of homophobia
and racism in the past. And I would hardly call any of the disagreements
in this particular thread out-of-line.
--
Kishin
Onslaught Six
wrote:
> RiD had that kid who could
> detect Fortress Maximus...? I dunno.
He didn't really do that. In fact, he didn't have any kind of special
powers to him. (I mean, the children of the world emailed Fort Max to
give him strength or what the fuck ever, and that's the worst part of
the show, but that doesn't count.) The only real reason he was hanging
around so much was that the Decepticons had kidnapped his genius
scientist dad, so the Autobots kind of felt responsible for him.
Onslaught Six
> I think we're all adult here, so the occasional curse word doesn't
> bother me. I was just pointing out the irony in his statement.
Always assume irony is intentional with me. It makes me look witty!
Also I was having a shitty day at work yesterday.
Zobovor
wrote:
> The next series will probably involve the Transformers invading a
> daycare or a nursery...
"Decepticon Diapermasters, attack!"
Zob
Uriel Ventris
"Pacibots! Merge and form Mr. Fuzzums!"
... yeah, I got nothin'.
Kishin
> On Feb 10, 6:58 am, Kishin<n...@yobiz.ness> wrote:
>
>> I think we're all adult here, so the occasional curse word doesn't
>> bother me. I was just pointing out the irony in his statement.
>
> Always assume irony is intentional with me. It makes me look witty!
Ha!
> Also I was having a shitty day at work yesterday.
Bummer. I hope today is better.
--
Kishin
robo_rob
brought a lot of money to the franchise and I doubt we'd have things
like WFC and such if not for all the extra attention and new
consumers. As bad as ROTF was, I do admit I love the action scenes and
still enjoy giving it a watch. The movies are just popcorn summer
movie fare and the 07 film was a pretty decent mindless popcorn flick.
I'm still giving DOTM the benefit of the doubt. While I know Bay is
saying it's the last movie, that really just means it's his last
movie. I recall years ago Hasbro outright stating they want the movies
to be an ongoing series. Even in one of the more recent interviews Bay
said he's done and they can either reboot it or find another director.
I'm thinking if anything remotely rebootish happens, it would be a
soft reboot and not interfere with the prior Bay movies. If anything,
not directly refer to the events in them.
As for Shia, it's a damn shame. I used to love that kid. I loved Even
Stevens when it was on and remember being pretty happy that he was
cast in the movie. Then he grew up to be a royal douche nozzle. Oh
well, guess his time in the sun will run out soon, just like Megan
Fox.
Travoltron
> I don't mind the movies so much. For even their problems, they've
> brought a lot of money to the franchise
Yes, that is something I really can't argue against. While I really
wish Hasbro would go in another direction with the franchise, I totally
understand why they aren't.
robo_rob
Yeah man, you just can't argue with why the movies are so much the TF
focus. I mean, you can, but... it's not like Transformers has never
been strictly a business thing..
SteveD
<uv.ultr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>... yeah, I got nothin'.
Since when has that stopped anyone creating a Transformers line?