Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Robotics Toys

Transformers Full Theatrical Trailer Available 352

Posted by CowboyNeal from the more-than-meets-the-eye dept.
roelbj writes "The full trailer for Michael Bay's upcoming Transformers movie is now finally available on Yahoo. Unlike the teaser trailers that have only hinted at what the final effects would deliver, we can at long last get a much better feeling for how the live-action CGI Transformers will look."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Transformers Full Theatrical Trailer Available More

Transformers Full Theatrical Trailer Available

Comments Filter:

  • Direct Link to Files (1080p .movs) (Score:5, Informative)

    by karmatic ( 776420 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @01:31AM (#19175425)
    For those who don't have something that can read qtl files, here are some direct links:

    "Exclusive Trailer" [yahoo.com].

    Theatrical Trailer [yahoo.com].

    Teaser Trailer [yahoo.com].

  • I'm Sold. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AbsoluteXyro ( 1048620 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @01:34AM (#19175439)

    At first I wasn't sure about this. The designs of the Transformers, when I first saw them, seemed way too busy and overcomplicated. Now that I've seen it in motion, especially the awesome transformation sequences, I'm sold on this film.

    From the previews, it seems to me the weakest part of this flick may not be the robots in disguise, but their human counterparts.

    • Re:I'm Sold. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by WebCrapper ( 667046 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @01:46AM (#19175507)
      Yea, I was the same. When the helicopter transformed though, I was hooked.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ErikInterlude ( 784049 )
      I used to be a huge Transformers fan (the original series before the movie, and the movie. I wasn't too into everything that came after). It's sort of left me split on how to feel about this movie. On the one hand, it's clearly got action, great visuals, and I like that they're keeping that sound the Transformers make when they change form (it's a small point, I know).

      On the other hand, this is a Michael Bay film. I heard he got his start as a director of music videos, so that might serve him well i
      • I'm the same way regarding michael bay, but then I realize that it's being produced by spielberg, so that sort of counteracts my distaste for michael bay.

        Same thing with pirates of the caribbean...I hate most jerry bruckheimer movies, but johnny depp sort of cancels him out too.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by SvnLyrBrto ( 62138 )
          > but then I realize that it's being produced by spielberg,

          If Spielberg were directing instead of producing, and michael bay were in no way whatsoever involved; I might agree. I have too much of a suspicion that, even with Spielberg looking over his shoulder, michael bay will find some way to royally fuck it up. This is a wait-for-HBO one for me.

          > Same thing with pirates of the caribbean...I hate most jerry bruckheimer
          > movies, but johnny depp sort of cancels him out too.

          Meh. I must be one of
        • "Same thing with pirates of the caribbean...I hate most jerry bruckheimer movies, but johnny depp sort of cancels him out too."

          No it doesn't because the director sucks as well, Johnny Depp isn't that good to cancel both of those two negatives.

    • Re:I'm Sold. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by xero314 ( 722674 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @03:37AM (#19176029)

      The designs of the Transformers, when I first saw them, seemed way too busy and overcomplicated.
      Having seen all the trailers and a number of stills I have to say that I still don't like the Robots. The Japanese artists that designed the characters that The Transformers were based on, as well as all the incarnations of The Transformer Toy line, put alot of care into making sure that their transformations were realistic. Most of the original Transformer Line could have transformed without need for unrealistic physics. Working versions of The Transformers, as well as most Japanese Mecha, are physically possible (with the possible exception of the aerodynamics of the flying ones). You can't say this about the versions in the upcoming Movie. It won't stop me from seeing it, but it will bring down my enjoyment a bit. And when they finally do put out a toy line for the movie, and they will, the units will look cheap and the transformations will be both unrealistic and only a weak simulation of the movie.

      • Re:I'm Sold. (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18, 2007 @05:41AM (#19176537)
        put alot of care into making sure that their transformations were realistic.

        Yeah, like when Soundwave would transform from a 10 foot tall robot down to a 5 inch tall tape player. That was totally realistic...

        • Re:I'm Sold. (Score:5, Funny)

          by lise ( 766405 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @11:00AM (#19179921)
          The rest of him turned into 1000 feet of extension cord.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by xero314 ( 722674 )
          The scaling issues, such as with Soundwave, were due to the fact that the original toy line was not supposed to represent giant sized robots but were actually life size. Yes Bumblebee was supposed to be a toy car, and Megatron was a standard sized guy, and their robot forms were measured in inches not feet. This is also why in later versions of the Transformers those characters where either changed into different forms (Megatron became a cannon and not a gun) and a good thing that the move chose to not us

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by WhatAmIDoingHere ( 742870 ) *
        From what I read, they did the exact same thing for the movie. They wanted realistic space taken up by vehicle and robot forms.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by icepick72 ( 834363 )
          IMHO the robot that transformed out of the guy's old yellow car at the beginning of the movie looked like a lot more metal than the car originally had in it. Maybe it's just an optical illusion because of "camera angle".

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @08:01AM (#19177473)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:I'm Sold. (Score:4, Informative)

          by xero314 ( 722674 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @12:58PM (#19181913)

          Um no they didnt, the movie animators had a LOT of trouble trying to make the G1 designs work.
          Then I am guessing they didn't have any of the original toys sitting around. Having owned an Optimus, many other Transformers, a number of the original Diaclones, as well as many transformable Gundam, I can tell you that most of them are fully transformable with out the need for removing parts and the operate in robot form as well as vehicle form just fine (i.e. they roll in car form and are full possible in robot form). The original cartoon, including the original movie, where based very closely on these transformable model toys, wether the animators took care in that or not I can't really say, but the designers certainly did.

          the could have at least kept the surface area proportional. What the heck happens to all the body sheets on Bumblebee when he transforms? I mean before transformation he is fully surrounded by yellow sheet metal, but after transformation it's like he is in tattered rags.

      • I agree... (Score:5, Funny)

        by le0p ( 932717 ) * on Friday May 18, 2007 @08:57AM (#19178113)
        When watching a movie about transforming robots from space, realistic physics is definitely what I'm thinking about..

      • Re:I'm Sold. (Score:5, Funny)

        by bogjobber ( 880402 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @10:35AM (#19179547)
        Let me get this straight. You are talking about a series where good anthropomorphic intelligent alien robots that change into cars and planes come to Earth and fight evil anthropomorphic intelligent alien robots that change into cars and planes and you're worried that it's unrealistic? Somehow I don't think that's really the point :)
    • Plotlines in disguise.

    • Re:I'm Sold. (Score:5, Funny)

      by anothy ( 83176 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @07:22AM (#19177139) Homepage

      From the previews, it seems to me the weakest part of this flick may not be the robots in disguise, but their human counterparts.
      oh, good. then it matches the TV show well!

  • The sound !!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Sith Lord ( 111494 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @01:39AM (#19175463)
    It's got the sound !!!

    • Re:The sound !!! (Score:5, Informative)

      by loteck ( 533317 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @02:55AM (#19175821) Homepage
      For anyone wondering what this is referring to:

      A) turn in your geek card and slashdot ID at the door
      B) check the trailer at 1:38-39. the sound prime makes as he is in his final stage of transforming is right out of the oldschool.

      Incredible how a simple sound can induce such vivid recollection of days long gone by. They've got me, hook, line, etc.

      How much is nostalgia worth? We'll find out July 9th, after its first full weekend.

  • is that we know that the movie will be more than met the eye.

  • mixed feelings (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CPE1704TKS ( 995414 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @01:51AM (#19175549)
    Yes, I know they have to make the transformers look realistic and can't look like the cartoon. But frankly they just look like a jumble of metal, and there's nothing to help me figure out who is who. I mean even Optimus Prime barely look any different from the other robots, the only distinguishing factor is he is slightly red and blue. I guess I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping for the best.

    I hope they have the Dinobots...

    • Re:mixed feelings (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bigstrat2003 ( 1058574 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @01:57AM (#19175575)
      Also, have you seen some stills of Optimus Prime? He doesn't look like his cartoon incarnation at all, imo. I understand that done "properly", Optimus wouldn't go over so well in the movie... but come on, can they at least get the faceplate right? Not to mention that Optimus doesn't have flames, I'm sorry. Call me a purist, but he's only the most iconic character from that franchise, you'd think they'd REALLY WANT to get him right.

      • Re:mixed feelings (Score:5, Insightful)

        by suv4x4 ( 956391 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @03:16AM (#19175913)
        Not to mention that Optimus doesn't have flames, I'm sorry. Call me a purist, but he's only the most iconic character from that franchise, you'd think they'd REALLY WANT to get him right.

        I'll quote the director losely (from memory):

        "At first we went with designs that looked much more like the original cartoon designs. Simpler, blocky, faceplates and all that. We all agreed they looked terrible in a live actions set. There are things that look perfectly fine in a cartoon or a comicbook but need to be modified to be believable in a live movie."

        Trust me, they want to make money on this film. If they could take the original designs and it'd be fine, they'd just do it. Why would they waste so much money on creating totally new designs, much more complex mechanics and try to animate all this?

        Because they're "evil" right? Wanna destroy your childhood memories. Them bastards.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by damsa ( 840364 )

          Trust me, they want to make money on this film. If they could take the original designs and it'd be fine, they'd just do it. Why would they waste so much money on creating totally new designs, much more complex mechanics and try to animate all this?
          So they can sell more toys?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
            So they can sell more toys?

            No. Give it another shot, and try to make sense this time.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by damsa ( 840364 )
              Michael Bay doesn't care about the fanboys because fanboys will see the movie no matter what. Therefore Michael Bay will make his version of robots and he thinks that Bumblebee looks better as a Camaro and this has nothing to do with GM sponsoring the movie. It is all due to Michael Bay's artistic vision.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
                Therefore Michael Bay will make his version of robots and he thinks that Bumblebee looks better as a Camaro and this has nothing to do with GM sponsoring the movie. It is all due to Michael Bay's artistic vision.

                I asked you to make sense, is it so complex. Bay wanted VW as the Bumblebee but VW refused to license it to them. So he went with another car.

                Of course you have a solution for this too, I suppose. "He should've used VW anyway and took the lawsuit like a real man, he should!".

                • Re:mixed feelings (Score:4, Interesting)

                  by xero314 ( 722674 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @04:27AM (#19176233)

                  Of course you have a solution for this too, I suppose. "He should've used VW anyway and took the lawsuit like a real man, he should!".
                  First of all Bumblebee was not a VW Bug. There were no VW or Beetle insignia on any incarnation, and the design was different enough to avoid likeness, trademark and copyright. Bumblebees wheel base, for one thing, is significantly different than a VW Bugs. Bumblebee was a transformer that looked similar to a VW Bug. Hasbro was never sued by VW over the likeness, though they were died when they attempted to license to create an exact replica of the remodeled bug.

                  The creative director behind the movie could have easily created a vehicle design that at least made the viewer think "bumblebee," but instead made, the intelligent, soft spoken, and emotional bumblebee into a classic american muscle car. I'm afraid at some point in the movie he's going to end up with a mullet, blasting Journey through cracked speakers.

                • Re:mixed feelings (Score:4, Interesting)

                  by damsa ( 840364 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @05:04AM (#19176391)

                  "They're gonna (complain) about everything, you know what I'm saying? Then you'll see them accept it," Bay says. "The things that really matter are there." Internet chat that Volkswagen didn't want the Beetle involved in an action movie are false, Bay says: "I just liked the other car better. I didn't want anything to do with the Bug because it reminded me of Herbie the Love Bug
                  http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-04-1 9-summer-movies_N.htm/ [usatoday.com]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by xero314 ( 722674 )

          There are things that look perfectly fine in a cartoon or a comicbook but need to be modified to be believable in a live movie.

          Ah yes those things that never look right in moves. Things like actually vehicle designs that are in production, and realistic or at least believable physics. I'm not saying that the new designs are not flashier and won't appeal more to the younger generation, but if you can't make the Autobots look good on the big screen then I'm not sure you should be directing/producing a Tran

  • This movie is doubly insulting to me (Score:3, Funny)

    by Buran ( 150348 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @02:05AM (#19175595)
    Any movie that thinks it's OK to ruin the VW Beetle joke and try to foist a fucking CAMARO on us that is some piece of domestic shit and totally destroys the joke, rather than pulling the joke entirely and saying "fine, if we can't use a Beetle, we aren't going to use the name at all" is not good in my book.

    Any movie that thinks Beagle 2 was a Mars rover, uses footage of a Saturn 5 rocket in the launch shots when it's really easy to get stock footage of the actual launcher used for the Beagle 2 mission (Russian R-7 derivative, NOT the Delta 2 the trailer showed), and then goes on to show shots of a really badly-done Mars Exploration Rover copy, all in a 30-second trailer ...

    What the fuck are they SMOKING?

    If I see it at all I'll do it by waiting for the cheap DVD. Good going. Insult my VW-loving side AND my space-geek side.

    There are plenty of other movies I'd like to see this summer and this one isn't going to get my money.
    • Fine, don't go; I'll have a nice empty seat to hold my Roger-Ebert-sized tub of popcorn.

    • Re:This movie is doubly insulting to me (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18, 2007 @02:37AM (#19175735)
      So the main reason you will not go and see this film about GIANT SPACE ROBOTS* is that the footage used for the real space stuff in the trailer is inaccurate?

      *I think that deserved extra emphasis

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Niten ( 201835 )

      Don't take it the wrong way, but you remind me of all those people who complained when they found out that Ronald D. Moore was going to make Starbuck a girl. So Bumblebee is a Camaro and not a VW... the movie as a whole isn't going to be any worse (or better) for it.

      • I never got into the tv show, it wasn't of my generation. I'm an old man of 45, and these trailers have me convinced I need to be getting in line because this one deserves the big screen.

        And I *never* actually go to the movies anymore.
    • Whine all you want about it not conforming to your idea of the "right" way it should've been done. Those of us who loved the original are already sold on it from the trailers. You can't expect a movie made 15 years later to be able to stick to every detail from the original material (I hold up Battlestar Galactica as my example). Not only will it draw the loyal crowd, but also the general public (you know what happens when the general public doesn't buy into a move? "Serenity". A great movie, but it doesn't

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Aqua OS X ( 458522 )
      "This movie is doubly insulting to me"

      More insulting then a half hour commercial, I mean cartoon, designed to sell toys?

    • PLEASE START A MOVIE REVIEW SITE!!!! (Score:4, Funny)

      by deft ( 253558 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @05:24AM (#19176477) Homepage
      Holy crap that was hilarious. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE start a movie review site. I would read every one of your reviews. They would be forwarded to millions of people on the interweb.

      You love VW's and space tremendously. Just for that the world needs you.

  • This trailer is INCOMPLETE (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gerocrack ( 979018 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @02:11AM (#19175605)
    How can we judge the movie without seeing even a few seconds of one of the song and dance routines? This is a musical, right?
  • These trailers suck!

    I haven't actually seen them yet, but it's not for lack of trying. Yahoo's server is so crappy that I can't even see the video smoothly. I guess I'll have to get them on BitTorrent....
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Good call. After opening the qtl file or whatever it was, using wget on the resulting http: path yields download success.

        It'd be nice if these websites would just give us links to the files instead of trying to push this "streaming" BS on us.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ozbon ( 99708 )
      Why not go to the movie's site [transformersmovie.com]? It's got the trailers there, no worries.
    • I don't know about you, but I thought the trailers in 1080p rocked hard. I also viewed them on a new 24" monitor though, so YMMV.

  • Code Guardian (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pipingguy ( 566974 ) *
    On a related theme, how many here have seen Code Guardian [youtube.com]?

    It's quite impressive.

    Please be nice and not Slashdot Goo..., er, youtube.

  • Sorry... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tm2b ( 42473 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @02:44AM (#19175771) Journal
    Give me Robot Jox [imdb.com] any day.
    • No sound in space.
    • Correct orbital mechanics (eg, thrust behind made the robot go up instead of ahead)
    • When the "good guys" says, "Wait! We don't need to fight! We can both walk away from this fight before we kill each other!" the "bad guy" thinks about it for a minute and then agrees. They walk away from it. The end.
    Best. B-Movie. Ever.

  • Neat. (Score:2)

    by sudog ( 101964 )
    They worked in the original transforming noise from the cartoons. :-)

    Good enough for me! I'll be standing in line for this one.

  • Boooring! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nuffsaid ( 855987 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @04:43AM (#19176305)
    What's next, a movie about capacitors? Followed by "Resistors' revenge", maybe?

  • Sector 7 code! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Allison Geode ( 598914 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @04:49AM (#19176333)
    i don't know if any of you have been following the sector 7 arg [sectorseven.org] but there's a new login for that in the trailer. it flickers during part of the trailer, if you pause it when bumblebee's radio is shown in close-up and fritzes out, you'll see it, the code is "codeblack".

  • What, no obligatories? (Score:4, Funny)

    by rasputin465 ( 1032646 ) on Friday May 18, 2007 @04:55AM (#19176357)
    No one has said it yet!?? Ok, I guess I'll have to:

    I, for one, welcome our new Autobot overlords!

  • I see so much interest in this film. Lots of summer blockbuster "buzz" and eager fanboys awaiting the release of the film. I just have to say it. I have to rain on the parade. I have to be the buzz kill:

    Michael Bay directed and co-produced Pearl Harbor.

    The man sat down and, with what I'm assuming was a straight face, said "let's take one of America's greatest military defeats and make it a love story starring Ben Affleck." Read that over a few times. Then remember that the same guy thinks a love story should have a goodbye scene in a train station, especially when your protagonist is leaving New York for F%$#ing London, is directing a film adaptation of a beloved story from your childhood.

    I'd like to be wrong....but I'm not holding out a lot of hope.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud

Close