Options

Its been made a official....Transformers 4 - June 29th 2014

24

Comments

  • Options
    Theo_BearTheo_Bear Posts: 997
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    NinjyBear wrote: »
    Glad it's put an end to the Jason Statham rumours, but I'm really shocked that Mark Wahlberg has signed up for this.

    I'm not. Let's face it, with the inevitable Ted franchise, and now Transformers, Wahlberg isn't going to be out of work or money any time soon. It's probably a smart career move for him. He's never going to be anything other than what he is ie a moderately OK action/comedy actor.
  • Options
    circlebro2019circlebro2019 Posts: 17,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    bays directing?

    another crappy transformers flick then
  • Options
    Fowl FaxFowl Fax Posts: 3,968
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    "Bay will bring audiences a new take on the “Transformers” franchise as he begins production on the fourth installment in the hit series of movies based on the best-selling Hasbro toyline.

    A new take, the last 3 were pretty much all the same and I don't think this next one will be any different.

    Shit in the bush (Shia LaBeouf) 'Check'
    A female model of sorts making several leaning poses whilst pouting 'Check'
    Massive robots running up and down a highway smashing up cars and everything else that comes into their path, 'Check'
    Young American G.I.s with a 'U DA MAN' attitude. 'Check'
    Megatron 'Check
  • Options
    Virgil TracyVirgil Tracy Posts: 26,806
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Haven't we suffered enough ?
  • Options
    lalalala Posts: 21,175
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I say cut out the f**king humans, and make a 90 minute zip bang pow movie about a bunch of robots hitting each other with a bit of transformers mythology mixed in.
  • Options
    shelleyj89shelleyj89 Posts: 16,292
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm finding it hard t see how a 40+ year old man will replace a 20-something? The thought of an older character running round trying to save the world with the auto-bots seems weird to me.
    NinjyBear wrote: »

    The second is unfairly bashed (by fans of the series). I didn't enjoy it the first time I watched, but it gets better on repeat viewing.

    I've seen the third one since I made my comment before, and the second is still my favourite of the three.
  • Options
    PunksNotDeadPunksNotDead Posts: 21,298
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Just seen that this film will be 165 minutes long! So around 3 hours with trailers. Will anyone be watching it?
  • Options
    necromancer20necromancer20 Posts: 2,548
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Just seen that this film will be 165 minutes long! So around 3 hours with trailers. Will anyone be watching it?

    No, I'm done giving Michael Bay money. The trailers for Transformers 3 actually conned me into thinking that it was going to be a vastly better movie than the previous two films. I thought 'wow, this could actually be different. This could turn out to be a great sci-fi/war film'. And yet it was only marginally better than Revenge of the Fallen. So congrats to Bay for making superior movie to one of the most critically panned sequels of all time. I just find it odd that Age of Extinction is tracking for a huge $100 million+ opening at the US box office, despite all the complaints of the previous movies. Even the trailers for this don't look interesting, something that previous films actually did have. And like you pointed out, it's almost 3 hours long. It'll most likely be his most bloated film yet with some of the same sh*t you've seen in the previous films.

    I'll most likely borrow the blu-ray of the film off a friend when it comes, just so I can say that I saw Transformers 4. But I won't be paying to see it at the cinema.
  • Options
    JCRJCR Posts: 24,070
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    164 minutes 54 seconds.

    Half an hour longer than 2001!
  • Options
    MrSuperMrSuper Posts: 18,543
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    So Transformers 4 is roughly 2hrs 45mins long, wow. That's 2hrs 45mins of non-stop action and robots bashing other robots about. I think i'll be exhausted by around the 2hr mark. That's one hell of a running time.
  • Options
    MotthusMotthus Posts: 7,280
    Forum Member
    This fourth Transformers film isn't out in the UK Untill 5th July so maybe this thread's title needs to be changed!
  • Options
    axlgodaxlgod Posts: 658
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Can't wait for Mark Kermodes' review of this film.
    His rant will be better than the 'Sex In The City 2' one (& that's saying something).
  • Options
    NinjyBearNinjyBear Posts: 8,317
    Forum Member
    JCR wrote: »
    164 minutes 54 seconds.

    Half an hour longer than 2001!



    F**king hell! Seriously? They promised this one would be shorter >:(
  • Options
    JCRJCR Posts: 24,070
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    NinjyBear wrote: »
    F**king hell! Seriously? They promised this one would be shorter >:(

    http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/transformers-age-extinction-film
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,482
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    axlgod wrote: »
    Can't wait for Mark Kermodes' review of this film.
    His rant will be better than the 'Sex In The City 2' one (& that's saying something).

    I like Kermode but hate how he refers to Transformers as porn. There really are worse things out there in the entertainment world deserving of that title.

    I don't believe any transformer has come out and said they felt abused after doing a scene in the movie, such as the actresses did in a recent porno drama.
  • Options
    Trevor_C7Trevor_C7 Posts: 184
    Forum Member
    Crazy running time. Will probably be the longest/highest grossing movie in history. Don't think I've sat through a film that long since Heat.
  • Options
    MrSuperMrSuper Posts: 18,543
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Early reviews are in. Here are a few so far.
    Overall, I think this is a big step in the right direction. It’s visually just as wild as the last few Bay films have been, with the director pushing ILM to their breaking point. It is amazing to me that Bay keeps finding a way to somehow make this these things even bigger than they already naturally are, but he is a man whose career can be seen as a series of escalating aesthetic decisions. He knows that these films exist largely to give fans a chance to watch giant robots beat holy hell out of each ether, and on that front, boy, does he deliver.
    It’s not just that the Autobots look more distinctive and easier to tell apart than ever in “Transformers: Age of Extinction” — as Optimus Prime never tires of reminding us, these robots have actual souls. So who cares if the human characters are even more dispensable and the plot even more scattershot than usual? Resurrected to take on man-made knock-offs of themselves, these metallic superheroes cause so much destruction, it’s as if they’re trying to find a literal new definition for the term “blockbuster” — and indeed, as in the 2007-11 trilogy, which raked in $2.6 billion globally, helmer Michael Bay continues to evolve ways to make robotic shape-shifting look increasingly seamless and realistic in 3D.
    The fourth instalment of Michael Bay’s big screen robot romp offers few surprises but an abundance of the series’ familiar tropes in another marathon-length, narratively vapid action spectacular. Bay’s trademark visual fireworks are as impressive as ever, while an all-new cast promises a new direction for what may become a second trilogy. Otherwise, it’s business as usual for the Autobots and Decepticons, which based on past performance means a huge box office performance everywhere.
    True, there’s a lot of state-of-the-art 3D chicanery, and the film is a marked improvement over the wholesale inhuman chaos of the last two installments, 2009′s Revenge of the Fallen and 2011′s Dark of the Moon. But the bloat of this latest entry — at 165 minutes, the longest of the lot — suggests that Michael Bay and his team are struggling to rejuvenate the whole premise.
  • Options
    Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,328
    Forum Member
    axlgod wrote: »
    Can't wait for Mark Kermodes' review of this film.
    His rant will be better than the 'Sex In The City 2' one (& that's saying something).
    Anything that sends that tiresome egoist into a tizz is alright with me.
  • Options
    CBFreakCBFreak Posts: 28,602
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I wasn't going to see this but for some reason I'm drawn to going to the cinema for it. I don't go anywhere else and whilst it is Bay I will go and see it. I save money off on Tuesdays
  • Options
    necromancer20necromancer20 Posts: 2,548
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Consensus on Rotten Tomatoes has been established, more of the same from Michael Bay. Currently at 17%, a score even lower than Revenge of the Fallen: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_age_of_extinction/
  • Options
    FusionFuryFusionFury Posts: 14,121
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Need Megan Fox!
  • Options
    necromancer20necromancer20 Posts: 2,548
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    FusionFury wrote: »
    Need Megan Fox!

    Shouldn't have compared the director to Hitler :p
  • Options
    Trevor_C7Trevor_C7 Posts: 184
    Forum Member
    Daily Telegraph review is up. 3 out of 5 stars.
  • Options
    MrSuperMrSuper Posts: 18,543
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Highest grossing film of the year so far at the American box office. Has made 300million already worldwide.
  • Options
    Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,328
    Forum Member
    ^ Not highest grosser but biggest 2014 opener at $100m. Biggest global opener as well (inc. $90m in China).
Sign In or Register to comment.