RD Blade Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 You will stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB0 Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 In all seriousness though, that is what I mentioned in my post up above supporting Gui. You say (no offense to you btw ) that all of this reasoning is bull because we are basing it on a human evolutionary basis on an Earth specific condition. BUT, thats all we HAVE to base ANYTHING on regarding extraterrestrials. The "What if" argument may seem more logical considering the vast amount of information that we don't know, but truth be told, in pure statistical as well as cogent reasoning, the human based argumentation has a MUCH higher probability of actually being correct. But our statistical sampling is so small as to be completely meaningless, is the problem. It is, to be specific, ONE datum. A single datum is not adequate to base ANY theory on, nor to establish any form of statistical trend. It's not a statistical argument, or a scientific one. It's anthropocentrism masquerading as a proven theory. The day you show us proof of ANY non humanoid living on ANY planet outside of earth, and succeeding on an evolutionary stance, you sir, will have put down every argument placed by both me and Gui, no questions asked whatsoever. But until that day comes, argumentation based on humans and what we know is the most probable and logical, whether it SEEMS logical or not. We may not know 99.99% of information regarding the universe, but basing our theories on the 0.01% that we do know will still be much better logically than placing theories on the 99.99% we don't know. You're missing a few digits there. A few billion of them, at least. Application of logic trumps a complete absence of evidence for anthropocentrism. Certain subcases, however, seem reasonable. Two eyes, for example. Multiple eyes provides a comparison point for calculating depth. Or seeing your entire surroundings at once, if you're not a hunter. Two is the minimum required for both purposes. More demands more brain space spent on image processing, which is an exceptionally difficult task. Consequently, we can make a reasonable argument that alien life is likely, if it has eyes, to have two of them. And they will be in close proximity to the brain to minimize the length of the optic nerve, which must carry very large amounts of data very rapidly. A logical case can be laid out. The overall human form, however, is not a reasonable argument. We KNOW it's not the only form capable of manipulation of the environment. Octopi and cuttlefish being the most obviously "alien" contenders, as well as the closest runner-up. Those damned cephalopod tentacle monsters do more with their environment than monkeys and gorillas, which kind of puts a hole in the whole "primates are best" theory right off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archer Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 You will stop. A little harsh there man And all I was trying to do was stop people from bullying Gui. But seriously though, I'm sorry, and will stop. There are other places to apply my knowledge. Sorry as well to others that may have been sidetracked or offended by my scientific/statsitical theory... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 But our statistical sampling is so small as to be completely meaningless, is the problem. It is, to be specific, ONE datum. A single datum is not adequate to base ANY theory on, nor to establish any form of statistical trend. It's not a statistical argument, or a scientific one. It's anthropocentrism masquerading as a proven theory. You're missing a few digits there. A few billion of them, at least. Application of logic trumps a complete absence of evidence for anthropocentrism. Certain subcases, however, seem reasonable. Two eyes, for example. Multiple eyes provides a comparison point for calculating depth. Or seeing your entire surroundings at once, if you're not a hunter. Two is the minimum required for both purposes. More demands more brain space spent on image processing, which is an exceptionally difficult task. Consequently, we can make a reasonable argument that alien life is likely, if it has eyes, to have two of them. And they will be in close proximity to the brain to minimize the length of the optic nerve, which must carry very large amounts of data very rapidly. A logical case can be laid out. The overall human form, however, is not a reasonable argument. We KNOW it's not the only form capable of manipulation of the environment. Octopi and cuttlefish being the most obviously "alien" contenders, as well as the closest runner-up. Those damned cephalopod tentacle monsters do more with their environment than monkeys and gorillas, which kind of puts a hole in the whole "primates are best" theory right off. Alright, since you guys wanna carry on the issue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddhafabio Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 now we all know the three movies made toooo much money for there not to be another one. and with micheal bay big robots = big explosions Film director Michael Bay together with Paramount Pictures has confirmed this week that a fourth installment of the popular Transformers movie franchise is coming.Filming is expected to start later this year for a release on June 29, 2014 and so far it appears that none of the original human cast members are set to return. While the new movie is expected to be a sequel to last year’s Transformers 3 - Dark of the Moon, the fourth highest global grossing film of all time with $1.124 billion of worldwide box office success, it will be a more serious film, with less of the jokes and hopefully more action. We don’t have any more solid details but according to the guys at Autoblog a script is yet to be written so anything could change before the movie's release. You can bet Optimus Prime and Bumblebee will be back, but what’s not clear is whether General Motors will sign on again as its contract with the Transformers franchise was for only three movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myk Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Togo Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 With "no" humans would be better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VF5SS Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I want GB Blackrock! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortress_Maximus Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Looking forward to more news as it is shared. Thanks. Hopefully they will take the franchise into a new direction perhaps forcused just on Cybertron like with the game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GU-11 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Less toilet humor in TF4 would be great--better still, none. I'd expect there's still be far more humans than bots, but at least give us better quality actors; that Ken Jeong guy and Simmons [to a lesser degree] overacted to the point of looking like morons. For me, it's the idiotic humans and crass humor in all three movies that NEARLY spoiled it for me. Now don't get me wrong; I like South Park and The Simpsons as much as the next guy, just not in my TF movies. Well, at least there weren't any robo-pee or robo-farts in DOTM; here's hoping TF4 omits them, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renato Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 With "no" humans would be better. Why settle for "better"? With no Michael Bay it might actually be "GOOD". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegablue Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 A superior alien life form made of iron and bolts, takes on as an alternative shape that of a car. This franchised should have remained as the intended kid show it was originally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myk Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Barely made it out of the 2nd one. Never even bothered to watch the 3rd one. I plan to treat the 4th one in the same way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areaseven Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Not gonna judge it until I see the first teaser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB0 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 "Film director Michael Bay together with Paramount Pictures has confirmed ..." Ugh, is Bay involved again? I can't believe I thought he was a good match for the franchise at one point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegablue Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 The Transformer films like the Twilight saga do provide some good. It allows the Rifftrax team to go all out and turn them into the comedies they beg to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddsun1 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Fu*k Bay... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynaman Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 It's garbage, you know what they say "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insanity". The first was garbage, I heard the second was worse so I did not see it, then I heard the third was as good as the first so I passed on that too... Rifftraxing them though, that might be worth a look Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 It's garbage, you know what they say "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insanity". Well Paramount isn't expecting a different result. All three movies made obscene amounts of money. They're expecting the exact same result. Transformers fans are the crazy ones, if they expect anything to improve. Money talks, and it tells the studio that Mr. Bay's formula works just fine. No amount of fanboy hoping/ranting/begging will change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegablue Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Not only does Transformers make stupid amounts of dollars at the movies, it's also the after sales of DVD's, toys, games, and the kid's shows that makes them the big cash... Just proves as the majority of the population MOD EDIT - NO POLITICS ON MW!, they still watch Transformers and believe in it. Edited February 19, 2012 by Mechamaniac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ps99042 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 "Film director Michael Bay together with Paramount Pictures has confirmed ..." Ugh, is Bay involved again? I can't believe I thought he was a good match for the franchise at one point. Yeah, it's definitely time for a change. Maybe keep him as a consultant but keep him out of directing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archer Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I'm not actually surprised at all. As others have said, why would Paramount forego making more of the same movies that brought home the cash cows many times before? The Bay formula is tried and true, and seems to have capitulated young people/old people's hearts all over the globe. I don't care though, since I actually liked the movies, but I do hope that GM doesn't renew the contract so better companies like Volkswagon and affiliated brands can take up the contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GU-11 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I'm not actually surprised at all. As others have said, why would Paramount forego making more of the same movies that brought home the cash cows many times before? The Bay formula is tried and true, and seems to have capitulated young people/old people's hearts all over the globe. That's true. Objectively speaking, he's got something for everyone. Badass cutting edge CGI robots and hot chicks for the general audience, toilet humor for the teens, . In an interview, he said something about coming to an epiphany when he noticed the audience walking out of the theater befuddled after watching Blade Runner, but happy and enthusiastic after Star Wars...or something to that effect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB0 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) I'm not actually surprised at all. As others have said, why would Paramount forego making more of the same movies that brought home the cash cows many times before? Because there's an ever-increasing danger of Optimus Prime "accidentally" running over Micheal Bay. I don't care though, since I actually liked the movies, but I do hope that GM doesn't renew the contract so better companies like Volkswagon and affiliated brands can take up the contract. My understanding is VW is very much against having anything to do with Transformers. They don't want to be connected in any way to anything violent or war-like, and Transformers is a violent franchise ABOUT war. The fact that it's a robot space war is irrelevant, apparently. Edited February 20, 2012 by JB0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 My understanding is VF is very much against having anything to do with Transformers. They don't want to be connected in any way to anything violent or war-like, and Transformers is a violent franchise ABOUT war. The fact that it's a robot space war is irrelevant, apparently. I feel like making a snarky comment about them being three quarters of a century too late, but it’s late and I'm just too tired for sarcasm right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB0 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I feel like making a snarky comment about them being three quarters of a century too late, but it’s late and I'm just too tired for sarcasm right now. Well, they never actually LICENSED Bumblebee. He just HAPPENED.Ah, for the days of yore, when everything wasn't trademarked and everyone was just a tad less lawsuit-happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Well, they never actually LICENSED Bumblebee. He just HAPPENED. Ah, for the days of yore, when everything wasn't trademarked and everyone was just a tad less lawsuit-happy. I was going for a WWII comentary, but whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renegadeleader1 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Because there's an ever-increasing danger of Optimus Prime "accidentally" running over Micheal Bay. My understanding is VW is very much against having anything to do with Transformers. They don't want to be connected in any way to anything violent or war-like, and Transformers is a violent franchise ABOUT war. The fact that it's a robot space war is irrelevant, apparently. Then how did that yellow beetle end up in the first movie as the insulting to original fans joke that camaro bumblebee smacks around? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GU-11 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Then how did that yellow beetle end up in the first movie as the insulting to original fans joke that camaro bumblebee smacks around? Fair usage, I guess--as long as the Beetle doesn't transform or isn't used in any significant way by the characters in the movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Exactly---they can't say "no VW's visible at all in any footage"---but they can definitely say "no making toys of our design". Think how many movies show an airplane taking off----yet aren't licensed by Boeing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB0 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I was going for a WWII comentary, but whatever. Oh, I misread that TOTALLY. I thought it said A quarter of a century, lining up more or less with the original toy/media franchise. BIT of a difference between 25 years and 75 years.Yeah, I gather WW2 ie exactly WHY they don't want to be associated with war and violence. Especially since they were actually MAKING military hardware in WW2, and it goes without saying which side they were making it FOR. I considered making a similarly snarky comment too, so I dunno WHY I misread it so badly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big F Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) because he still looks like a guy with a baseball cap wearing a box. I LIKE that movie Prime doesn't look like an elaborate cosplay costume. The bayformers do nothing for Cosplayers the world over. At least with G1 Optimus all a guy needs to do is go down to Walmart buy some Red, Sliver and Blue rattlecans and get a staff member to get him some boxes from the dumpster. Go home paint and the boxes and don a blue baseball cap.... Done That said I do like the Bayverse deigins. As one of the G1 generation (I'm from 77) I can say that I'm a big fan of the first 2007 movie. When the first sketches start leaking out back in 2006, I had a *really* hard time with the movie designs. Optimus with flames? With a mouth? Not a flatbed? Blasphemy! But I gotta tell you, , it had me like a little boy holding his first transformer all over again. Starscream transforming mid-air with a backflip and Blackout doing the landing transformation thing... It was just plain cool. And to the flame-mouth Optimus, once I heard Cullen's voice, it was it. That guy IS Optimus Prime and always will be, and I think they got the cartoon essence of it perfectly. Ditto !! Although I am a little older than you. Scale and proportions are things that don't exist in the TF universe including the Bay films. Case in point, In the films Starscream is the same height as Prime in Bot mode. If his original mass was similar to an F-22, then he should've towered over Prime. But he didn't. I'v also heard that the truck Sentinel prime is based on is also a 30 foot long truck. He too would tower over Prime if the scales were accurate. I guess the movies, can get away with this because they did kinda explain it away with the Allspark. In the 1st film it orginally appears much larger than any of the Autobots. BB transformed it to rubix cube size with a touch. If the TF's are based on the same tech, then it stands to reason that they too are capable of defying the rules of physics and science as we know. Which would negate what I previously said. That is why Soundwave should have been an ipod and not a really expensive Mercedes. I'd Like to see an entirely Cybertron film of before they all left, no human actors needed except for voices, no need for expensive shoots in deserts or cities etc, no need for blue or green screen sets and photocopied robot heads on sticks for actors to act towards. just CGI expensive yes but they are fairly well Guaranteed at least $1BN from it plus toy and merchandise tie ins. My monies in the hat saying they just go down the Oh those weren't the real Decepticons, they were just clones that didn't know they were clones, here come the real ones. Eaither that or they will dispose of the body parts into space and Unicron just picks them up A la 1986 movie, only this time he eats earth, and Michael Bay. Just for the record VW group need to get off their very high horse, War was what essentially created them, if it hadn't been for the Allies rebuilding the factory after the RAF bombed it into the stone-age, there would be no VW and nobody would know anything other than they were the dream of a past German Chancellor who wanted cars for the people. Also VW supply trucks to several NATO forces both VW and Mann, so the No War thing is rather moot IMO. For the record I am an AngloGerman VW fan boy so I can say this. Edited February 23, 2012 by big F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoryHolmes Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 GM did quite well by backing this franchise. I don't think the redone Camero would've had NEARLY the selling point it did without that Patented Bay Beauty Shot of nu!Bumblebee rolling up to Sam and Mikaela on the tunnel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Focker Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I just watched Transformers 3 for the first time. Wow! What an awesome movie! Alien Autobot robots who speak with thick accents of foreign stereotypes. I love how they did that in the Star Wars prequels! Optimus Prime is stone cold killer - That's the role model kids need! I wonder what Megan Fox character was doing during all of this? Now they are making a 4th one I'm soooooooo thereeeee!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeyondTheGrave Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Headmasters? Was thinking more along the lines of saren from mass effect or iron man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.