maninblack

which is what hollywood has done with every single comic book/cartoon movie that have made. I dont know why it is so acceptable to destroy a story that has worked for decades and created generations of fans. They always abandon all their fans when something becomes a movie. The amount of innaccuracies in x-men, spider-man, hulk, iron man, fantastic four, transformers, etc is unforgivable. fucking ebay brought the transformers here...nice commercial placement there. umm...somehow they still did it. dont get me wrong it was a decent action movie until you remember its the Iron Man story they just butchered right in front of you. but like you said, its a re-imagining and wasnt meant for me, an actual fan. um, as if giving them decades of comics to reference was going to make them stay more true to the story and not fill it with hidden commercials? also they had much more than just one cartoon. there were alot of them and even more in japan. and they had a comic book too with that cartoon you mentioned. I also had a line of books and some were even "choose your fate" type things...so lets not say they didnt have much to work with, they just ignored it all. the only, and i mean only, thing about transformers that resembles anything a transformers fan might recognize is the names. GI Joe, I suspect, will be the same as all those that came before it. Um, sorry. No. You lost me when you brought out the "true fan" card. The live-action Transformers is a separate product from all the other Transformer product lines that have been produced the past 25 years. And practically each product line has their version of the popular guys like Optimus Prime, Megatron, etc. Why should the live-action movies be slavishly following a previously established product line, when the Transformers as a brand practically gets rebooted every few years? And what's all this malarkey about "butchering" the source material? Marvel's Ultimate comics line reimagined established characters, and it's selling well enough. Are the people who buy Ultimate "fake fans" then? Shakespeare has his work reinterpreted quite often when turned to film. Why should comics or cartoons be subject to different rules when adapted for the big screen?

Oh I'm not disagreeing that having Devastator taken out by a railgun was cutting short what would've been a helluvan action scene. I think the in-story rationale they had was that the railgun was an experimental new weapon, and it hit Devastator at a critical point. I read on a Transformer forum that the production cost for one CG transformation equalled Shia LeBeouf's salary. So maybe there were more practical considerations as to why Devastator was taken out relatively quickly.

I dunno man, railguns can shoot shit up to seven times the speed of sound (thanks Wikipedia). A projectile flying that fast should fuck up almost anything.

Happy for Vettel winning another race. I still think Button will be able to wrap it up come July or August though.

Would Night of the Living Bread count?

The transformations were terrible, and the product placement unforgiveable. The bad acting and shite story just helped to bury it. You could barely figure out what was going on half the time. Let's not forget the painful dialogue. And the "fun popcorn action flick" excuse doesn't hold up when a movie like Iron Man came out a year later. That was a fun popcorn flick. That's a movie that showed us that you can make a movie where shit blows up, but still have a script that isn't flat-out insulting. One had decades of great character development to base itself off of, the other was based off a line of toys and a cartoon. I'd say for what Transformers had to work with, it was quite well done. Which would be a valid argument, if it weren't for the fact that there was already a Transformers movie that was infinitely better than the dross the live-action film dealt us. Yes, how could the studio not just make a live action version of an 80's animated film that bombed at the box office. Shame on them for not thinking that was the right direction to go in. Quoted for emphasis. The '80s cartoon movie eventually became a cult classic, but it didn't make money when it came out. Heck, you could say it was little more than a movie-length commercial promoting the next wave of Transformer toys to replace the ones they killed off. Agree with Maxx. Transformers has been around for 25 years, but the brand's been rebooted several times with new toylines and cartoons. It's like how we get a new Gundam or Batman cartoon every several years. Can't be helped really, as Transformers' main market has always been children, and those customers are going to eventually outgrow Transformers. I certainly am not a fan of the live-action Transformers movie, but it could have been a lot, lot worse than what it is. It brought Transformers a lot of mainstream publicity. And story-wise...there's been worse fiction published for Transformers before the movie was ever given the green light. Sadly, the level of venom some hardcore Transformer fans have for the movie and Michael Bay could rival Republican looniness towards Obama; "Michael Bay raped my childhood" continues to get a lot of mileage. So much so I thought they were just saying "GI JOE GONNA SUX" to make themselves feel better about the Transformers sequel

It would certainly be fitting if Federer wins No. 15 at Wimbledon, where it all began. Hopefully he doesn't pay attention to the media hype and just focus on winning the matches. Going back to Nadal a bit, I think it's very probable that he'd match Federer's career Grand Slam (maybe this year?), at least before his legs give out.

Was hoping Orlando could have at least forced a game 6. In any case, congrats to the Lakers and their fans. They were just too strong and too hungry to be beat.

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU... Ah well, at least Orlando won a finals game

Gaaaaah, up 5-4. You can do it, Federer. YEEEEEESSSSS

I'm dithering on whether to watch the men's final or not. Got to get ready for some errands. If Federer does win it, I hope he gets to beat Nadal at a future French Open to clear the asterisk that's going to be attached to the '09 title.

Whoa, Webber on 2nd.

Wasn't Russell part of an era where certain stats weren't even counted, though? But that's the thing though. James has to get over the hump at this point. Sure, he is this season's MVP, but there are MVPs who have never won a title. All those other accolades like scoring titles, rebounding titles, how many triple-doubles in a season, etc., they're great for padding the player's body of work, but someone as hyped up as James who can't win a championship is treated as unfulfilled potential. I'm not saying he won't ever win one. Just not this season.

Wait, wha? Russell has more championship rings than fingers and that's not good enough to be best player ever?

To be fair, Monaco's notorious for having very few overtaking opportunities. What we do need are more races in the middle of heavy rain I honestly laughed reading that. Thanks mate. That's not really traditional at Monaco, is it? I can't recall anyone else doing that in previous years right now.

I would agree with you, but Denver gave the Lakers enough chances to win. Gutted for 'Melo though. LeBron hits The Shot, and Melo becomes The Goat. Agreed. Though I see it more as Van Gundy taking the heat so Orlando's morale won't take such a hit. Pretty much everyone knew LeBron was gonna be the go-to guy for that play. Turkoglu nearly cut him off, but he wasn't fast enough.

Vettel Does Piquet have a clause in his contract that requires him to commit epic fail at every race? Geez. Good win for Button though. Brawn look well on course to wrapping it up by...what, August?

We're gonna have new champions this season after all. Cavs vs Magic in the East! After last season's championship, Boston were due to pay the piper. But at least their WIN NOW lineup from last season paid off.

Houston ties it 3-3! Now all they have to worry about is Kobe going el fuego on them in Game 7 But I do want me a Houston-Denver series, just for the lulz on David Stern.

Yep, they just had their British GP earlier this month (http://www.a1gp.com). According to the site, Ferrari is already supplying the cars to A1GP; the league's cars are based on the F2004.

Ermm... Ferrari are arguing that the budget cap will mean the cars AREN'T even. The budget cap isn't mandatory, and some teams feel 40million is just too low. Eddie Jordan was talking at the weekend and said one of the teams (I can't remember which, I think it was BMW or Williams or someone like that) had a budget of 200million last year. Coming down from 200million to 40 million is one year is a ridiculous ask. That's why some of the teams feel like it's just going to end up as a two tier championship - those who want to work under the budget cap (currently two teams) and those that don't (everyone else - bar one that is sitting on the fence). Ferrari are stating that at least at the minute all the cars are subject to the same regulations as each other, it's just up to designers to do the best within those limitations. That's exactly what's happened this year with the split-level diffusers and people are saying it's one of the best seasons in years. The optional budget cap (with penalties for those who don't use it and rewards for those that do) will create anything BUT even cars. Virtually every team acknowledges the need for the costs in F1 to be reduced. Many of the teams have said a budget cap would be a good idea - but 40million is just too low a budget considering the price of the technology. The only reason Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley are proposing this is to get more cars on the grid. And with Super Aguri dropping out last season and the Honda/Brawn team only just making it back for this season, I guess they fear for the numbers involved. Plus more drivers isn't going to hurt the competition on raceday. The only problem, especially with Ecclestone, is the ridiculous way that he uses F1 to line his own wallet. One of the biggest reasons that the sport is unsustainable is because Ecclestone and the FIA bleed the money out of the sport at every opportunity. The teams, and certainly the tracks, get virtually nothing from F1, while drivers are paying way over the odds for the super-licences they need to race. The cost this year was just under £10,000 for the licence - then the drivers are charged (just under) a further £2,000 for every point they won last season - so they are effectively punished financially for their success by having to pay more. After winning the championship last year, Hamilton had to pay £242,000 just to compete in the sport! Where else are teams or players made to pay to be a part of the sport, with the cost dependant on how well they performed the previous year? If Ecclestone wants costs down, how about subsidising from his own over-inflated wallet? THIS. The contract terms given to teams, drivers and racetracks to get into F1 are ridiculously one-sided. Bernie probably needs more money now to pay for his pending divorce, but if they want more teams to enter F1 they'll need to lower the entry barriers. Maybe give higher payouts to smaller teams when it comes to revenue sharing, or subsidize their startup budget so they get good equipment for at least the first season. I can see the logic of the FIA lowballing the teams with a $40 million cap, so there'll be room to raise it. But I don't agree with how they'll restrict the technology used. F1 should always be about the pinnacle of automotive racing technology.

Rockets take game 1!

Eh, wasn't able to catch the race itself, just the highlights afterwards. Good win for Button.

Adding to what 1PWCorino said, Button appeared to have been largely written off until Brawn surprised practically everyone with their car. But even then it's not all machinery - he's shown to be consistently better than Barichello this year.

Ahhhh fuck! Sutil! EDIT: But a well-deserved 1-2 for Red Bull!