Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Sabrblade wrote:

o.supreme wrote:So then..are all the IDW movie tie-ins considered "canon" to the live action universe, (I always figured so, even though i cant remember what happened in most of them) because if so...that presents a whole other dimension of issues.

AOE threw all those out the minute it introduced the Creators and Knights, which TLK then threw out with Quintessa being "the Great Deceiver" and its having a completely different set of Knights.

The IDW comics only really work for the first trilogy, so there are at least two (or three) major timelines for the movies:

• Movies 1-3, plus some tie-in material (IDW comics, novels, Cyber Missions cartoon, etc.)
• Movies 1-5 with no tie-ins
• Movies 1-4 and Bumblebee as a prequel

Though, the Bumblebee tie-in comics were also thrown out by their own movie, but since those were written under the assumption that TLK would be accounted for in Bumblebee's timeline, one could possibly put those Bumblebee tie-in comics with Timeline #2 above (as sad as that is since the Bumblebee comics were written to tie in with, you, Bumblebee).

Probably needed to be more coordination between IDW and Paramount

Sabrblade wrote:

o.supreme wrote:So then..are all the IDW movie tie-ins considered "canon" to the live action universe, (I always figured so, even though i cant remember what happened in most of them) because if so...that presents a whole other dimension of issues.

AOE threw all those out the minute it introduced the Creators and Knights, which TLK then threw out with Quintessa being "the Great Deceiver" and its having a completely different set of Knights.

The IDW comics only really work for the first trilogy, so there are at least two (or three) major timelines for the movies:

• Movies 1-3, plus some tie-in material (IDW comics, novels, Cyber Missions cartoon, etc.)
• Movies 1-5 with no tie-ins
• Movies 1-4 and Bumblebee as a prequel

More like:
1. Movies 1-3, plus some tie-in material
2. Movies 1-5 with no tie-ins
3. Movies 1-4 without TLK
4. Movies 4-5 with some of the previous backstory
5. Bumblebee

Nemesis Maximo wrote:More like:
1. Movies 1-3, plus some tie-in material
2. Movies 1-5 with no tie-ins
3. Movies 1-4 without TLK
4. Movies 4-5 with some of the previous backstory
5. Bumblebee

How is #4 different from #2?

And, again, Bumblebee is no more incongruous with Movie 1 than any of the sequel films were.

• Movie 1 painted Megatron up to be this big bad worst guy ever, and the AllSpark as the source of all Cybertronian life.
• But then ROTF went "Well, actually, Megatron was just working for someone else even worse than himself," and needed Optimus dead so The Fallen could reign supreme and destroy Earth's Sun, which would have destroyed the Earth as well.
• Then DOTM went, "Well, actually, he had also made a deal with Optimus's predecessor and needed Optimus alive so he could be located," and needed Earth intact for a plan involving the enslavement of humanity that would lead to them reconstructing Cybertron, which couldn't have happened if The Fallen had succeeded in destroying Earth in the previous movie.
• But then AOE and TLK both came along and spat in the face of Movie 1's AllSpark lore, with AOE going "Well, actually, there's these Creators who are now the ones who built the Transformers," and introduced a group of Knights (the Dinobots) into the lore, with Optimus also being a Knight, apparently.
• Then TLK was like "Well, actually, the Knights of yore were a completely different group from the Dinobots named the Guardian Knights that Optimus also had nothing to do with," and introduced Quintessa to, at first, seemingly fill the void left by AOE's introduction of the Creators, but then the movie did a complete 180 by then saying "Well, actually, she's just this alien 'Great Deciever' who lies about everything and should never be trusted by what she says." Oh, and it says that modern day Autobots like Bumblebee and Ironhide were on Earth back in WWII and when old wooden sailing ships were in use, rather than 2007 being Ironhide's first time on Earth.

All Bumblebee did was nullify TLK's claim of modern-day Transformers being on Earth in the distant past (and good riddance to that nonsense). Anything else there is between itself and Movie 1 can be handwaved away as easily as (if not more easily than) the issues between Movies 2-5 and Movie 1.

• I know you're gonna mention "Optimus and others coming to Earth in 1987" as one such example, but like Lorenzo said, they don't stick around. They come to Earth in 1987, hide out from humanity for a bit, and then go back into space when they're free and clear to do so. Then Optimus and a small team come back to Earth 20 years later in 2007 when Bumblebee, having stayed behind on Earth, discovers that the AllSpark and Megatron are on the planet.
• Oh, and that red truck we see Bee driving next to on the bridge at the end, I never took that as Optimus, and have no reason to think of it as anything more than an Easter egg. When we see Optimus in robot mode on Earth, he acts as if he's only just then reunited with B-127 at that very moment, yet it's nighttime in that scene. Bee was driving next to the truck in broad daylight, several hours before his rendezvous with Optimus. It makes no sense for that truck to be Optimus even disregarding any of the other movies.

Sabrblade wrote:

Nemesis Maximo wrote:More like:
1. Movies 1-3, plus some tie-in material
2. Movies 1-5 with no tie-ins
3. Movies 1-4 without TLK
4. Movies 4-5 with some of the previous backstory
5. Bumblebee

How is #4 different from #2?

Yeah ok now that you point it out I really don’t know where I was going with that, other than to be a bit of a smartass.

Sabrblade wrote:And, again, Bumblebee is no more incongruous with Movie 1 than any of the sequel films were.

I’m not sure I can agree with that 100%. Movie 1 seemed pretty clear on the fact that Optimus was there only after Bumblebee contacted him in that film, and that they were on earth for the Allspark, not to establish a base, but then they decided to stay on Earth because of the relationship they had just built with Thurman’s and the fact that it’s the last place the Allspark had been.

I’m not saying the continuity is airtight in the sequels, by any means. I just think that as a prequel, Bumblebee should be held to a higher standard of fitting into what was established.

Sabrblade wrote:

• Movie 1 painted Megatron up to be this big bad worst guy ever, and the AllSpark as the source of all Cybertronian life.
• But then ROTF went "Well, actually, Megatron was just working for someone else even worse than himself," and needed Optimus dead so The Fallen could reign supreme and destroy Earth's Sun, which would have destroyed the Earth as well.
• Then DOTM went, "Well, actually, he had also made a deal with Optimus's predecessor and needed Optimus alive so he could be located," and needed Earth intact for a plan involving the enslavement of humanity that would lead to them reconstructing Cybertron, which couldn't have happened if The Fallen had succeeded in destroying Earth in the previous movie.
• But then AOE and TLK both came along and spat in the face of Movie 1's AllSpark lore, with AOE going "Well, actually, there's these Creators who are now the ones who built the Transformers," and introduced a group of Knights (the Dinobots) into the lore, with Optimus also being a Knight, apparently.
• Then TLK was like "Well, actually, the Knights of yore were a completely different group from the Dinobots named the Guardian Knights that Optimus also had nothing to do with," and introduced Quintessa to, at first, seemingly fill the void left by AOE's introduction of the Creators, but then the movie did a complete 180 by then saying "Well, actually, she's just this alien 'Great Deciever' who lies about everything and should never be trusted by what she says." Oh, and it says that modern day Autobots like Bumblebee and Ironhide were on Earth back in WWII and when old wooden sailing ships were in use, rather than 2007 being Ironhide's first time on Earth.

Here’s something I see when you put everything in those terms; ROTF seems to be the worst offender as far as continuity, obviously as a result of the Writer’s Strike (not defending the film, just stating fact). If you take out ROTF, more so than any other film, the continuity tightens right up. And even TLK going nuts with The Guardian Knights and the Creators isn’t that bad considering AOE was as much or more of a **** as/than TLK.

Sabrblade wrote:All Bumblebee did was nullify TLK's claim of modern-day Transformers being on Earth in the distant past (and good riddance to that nonsense). Anything else there is between itself and Movie 1 can be handwaved away as easily as (if not more easily than) the issues between Movies 2-5 and Movie 1.

I’ll give you “as easily as” but I definitely disagree about the issues being more easily handwaved. Again, being a prequel designed to show how we got to square one, it should fit into what square one established. Imagine if Rogue One didn’t fit in to established Star Wars continuity. To me, that’s what it feels like with Bumblebee doing it’s own thing.

Sabrblade wrote:

• I know you're gonna mention "Optimus and others coming to Earth in 1987" as one such example, but like Lorenzo said, they don't stick around. They come to Earth in 1987, hide out from humanity for a bit, and then go back into space when they're free and clear to do so. Then Optimus and a small team come back to Earth 20 years later in 2007 when Bumblebee, having stayed behind on Earth, discovers that the AllSpark and Megatron are on the planet.
• Oh, and that red truck we see Bee driving next to on the bridge at the end, I never took that as Optimus, and have no reason to think of it as anything more than an Easter egg. When we see Optimus in robot mode on Earth, he acts as if he's only just then reunited with B-127 at that very moment, yet it's nighttime in that scene. Bee was driving next to the truck in broad daylight, several hours before his rendezvous with Optimus. It makes no sense for that truck to be Optimus even disregarding any of the other movies.

I mean, I hate taking anything LdB says as truth, he’s the epitome of the Hollywood Tool Producer. The man has no real clue.

And I definitely took that red truck at the end as Optimus Prime himself. That’s way too specific of a reference to be anything but Optimus Prime. And hey, shifting from Day to Night in a matter of minutes is something that just happens in Michael Bay movies, so maybe that’s also a reference to continuity!

So I asked my partner this, and she couldn't answer, so now we're both curious.

Were Dropkick and Shatter named in the movie? Neither of us recall their names being mentioned at all.

Burn wrote:So I asked my partner this, and she couldn't answer, so now we're both curious.

Were Dropkick and Shatter named in the movie? Neither of us recall their names being mentioned at all.

No unfortunately which is a shame, one of my few criticisms with the movie, I feel like they could of introduced themselves by name to Sector 7 to appear more friendly but I can understand why they wouldn't bother telling the human's their names.

Hopefully a Cybertron movie if there is one could have the two in a smaller role but be named there.

Deadput wrote:

Burn wrote:So I asked my partner this, and she couldn't answer, so now we're both curious.

Were Dropkick and Shatter named in the movie? Neither of us recall their names being mentioned at all.

No unfortunately which is a shame, one of my few criticisms with the movie, I feel like they could of introduced themselves by name to Sector 7 to appear more friendly but I can understand why they wouldn't bother telling the human's their names.

Hopefully a Cybertron movie if there is one could have the two in a smaller role but be named there.

That ... is a massive balls up. They were the major bad guys and they weren't named? How does something like that get overlooked?

Getting this out of the way before my response to the larger preceding post:

Burn wrote:

Deadput wrote:

Burn wrote:So I asked my partner this, and she couldn't answer, so now we're both curious.

Were Dropkick and Shatter named in the movie? Neither of us recall their names being mentioned at all.

No unfortunately which is a shame, one of my few criticisms with the movie, I feel like they could of introduced themselves by name to Sector 7 to appear more friendly but I can understand why they wouldn't bother telling the human's their names.

Hopefully a Cybertron movie if there is one could have the two in a smaller role but be named there.

That ... is a massive balls up. They were the major bad guys and they weren't named? How does something like that get overlooked?

Sadly, only B-127/Bumblebee, Optimus Prime, and Ravage were named in the movie. Shatter, Dropkick, Blitzwing, and all other TFs in this movie were only named in the end credits' voice cast list.

As for how it happened, well, Drift was likewise never named in AOE, so, it happens. Still sad, but, what can you do?



Anyway,

Nemesis Maximo wrote:I’m not sure I can agree with that 100%. Movie 1 seemed pretty clear on the fact that Optimus was there only after Bumblebee contacted him in that film, and that they were on earth for the Allspark, not to establish a base, but then they decided to stay on Earth because of the relationship they had just built with Thurman’s and the fact that it’s the last place the Allspark had been.

I mean, there's nothing explicit in the first movie that declared the 2007 arrive scene to be very first time that Optimus & Friends had ever been on Earth before (something which TLK did try to retcon in before this movie threw that out with its own less egregious take on the idea); it was only implied since we had no reason to think otherwise at the time. But now that we've had much more of the history revealed to us over time, our perception of the 2007 arrival scene is given new light by this movie showing that at least Optimus had been to Earth 20 years prior to that scene. And at that time, neither he nor any of the Autobots knew of the AllSpark being on Earth, so when they were ready to leave Earth between this movie at the first, they saw no reason to stick around if they believed the AllSpark was elsewhere, but were evidently keen enough to let Bumblebee stay behind "just in case".

Also, who's Thurman?

Nemesis Maximo wrote:I’m not saying the continuity is airtight in the sequels, by any means. I just think that as a prequel, Bumblebee should be held to a higher standard of fitting into what was established.

That's a good sentiment to have. But since there's a whole lot of empty unknown space between 1987 and 2007 in this timeline, there's a lot that we don't know about during that time that could serve to explain the connectivity between this movie and Movie 1. A lot can happen over the span of 20 years. and we know that at the beginning of this movie, the AllSpark is not a priority since merely getting off Cybertron and away to safety is the Autobots' main concern. Cybertron didn't look dead yet at the start of this movie, so searching for the Cube wouldn't yet be as urgent as when the planet does go dark later. For all we know, the quest for the AllSpark in this movie's timeline may not have formally begun until, say, 1991; four years after this movie's time and 16 years before Movie 1. We just don't know at this point. It's all 'wait and see' right now.

Nemesis Maximo wrote:Here’s something I see when you put everything in those terms; ROTF seems to be the worst offender as far as continuity, obviously as a result of the Writer’s Strike (not defending the film, just stating fact). If you take out ROTF, more so than any other film, the continuity tightens right up.

Save for Megatron beingvery much alive and (mostly) well in DOTM, despite having definitely died and been dumped into the ocean at the end of Movie 1.

Nemesis Maximo wrote:I’ll give you “as easily as” but I definitely disagree about the issues being more easily handwaved. Again, being a prequel designed to show how we got to square one, it should fit into what square one established. Imagine if Rogue One didn’t fit in to established Star Wars continuity. To me, that’s what it feels like with Bumblebee doing it’s own thing.

Like I said, 20 years is a long time for things to happen between then and now.

Sabrblade wrote:I mean, I hate taking anything LdB says as truth, he’s the epitome of the Hollywood Tool Producer. The man has no real clue.

Sure, but, in this case, I can't see any fault in the idea of the Autobots leaving Earth once they're able to after this movie's events. Their coming to Earth in this movie in the first place always struck me as a temporary thing. A tactical retreat to give the Autobots a chance to regroup and recuperate until they were ready to head back out and continuing fighting the good fight. Since at this point in the timeline the Autobots have no reason to seek any help from humanity (unlike in Movie 1 where they specifically needed help from the descendant of Archibald Witwicky), and need to remain autonomous in their time of hiding on Earth from the Decepticons (rather than fully bringing their war to Earth at this point), they wouldn't feel obligated to become the planet's guardians like they later do in the sequel films, and could leave Earth without fear of the Decepticons wrecking the planet in their absence, since the war wouldn't have fully spread to Earth yet.

Nemesis Maximo wrote:And I definitely took that red truck at the end as Optimus Prime himself. That’s way too specific of a reference to be anything but Optimus Prime.

Or, it's Travis Knight showing just how much of a G1 fanboy he is by going out of his way to include a truck and trailer like that that so heavily resemble G1 Cartoon Optimus Prime's altmode.

Plus, in the designs video Knight was in, he talked about how Optimus, being in his Cybertronian body, would not yet have certain Earth truck designs like the truck grill and such, and so deliberately omitted those kinds of details from the design for Optimus. Yet, when Optimus appears on Earth in that final scene, his body is exactly the same as it was in the Cybertron scenes, suggesting that he has not (yet) scanned an Earth altmode since, as evidenced by other scanning instances (both in this movie and in the others), his body would have changed to feature new elements of his altmode had he already scanned one before that final scene.

Nemesis Maximo wrote:And hey, shifting from Day to Night in a matter of minutes is something that just happens in Michael Bay movies, so maybe that’s also a reference to continuity!

Eh, this movie's got much better internal consistency when it comes to the transitions between night and day and scene locations (e.g. - no starting out in Washington D.C. and stepping outsite of the Smithsonian to suddenly be in Arizona). Plus, that final scene took place in a remote forest. Bee was last seen on the Golden Gate Bridge in the big city San Francisco Bay Area. Some time definitely passed between the bridge scene and his rendezvous with Optimus.

Sabrblade wrote: Or, it's Travis Knight showing just how much of a G1 fanboy he is by going out of his way to include a truck and trailer like that that so heavily resemble G1 Cartoon Optimus Prime's altmode.

Then why did Bumblebee pull up and match speeds with that very truck specifically?

And why does the Studio Series figure have that exact truck mode and the box saying that he was representing the "San Francisco Bridge" scene?

It's very obvious it's supposed to be Optimus Prime, why else would that scene be filmed the way it was and have the Optimus forest scene right afterwards with Bumblebee already with him?

Would of made more sense to you know have Bumblebee drive off by himself and not meet Optimus Prime at the end. (Hey that would of actually made it more like a prequel)

Deadput wrote:

Sabrblade wrote: Or, it's Travis Knight showing just how much of a G1 fanboy he is by going out of his way to include a truck and trailer like that that so heavily resemble G1 Cartoon Optimus Prime's altmode.

Then why did Bumblebee pull up and match speeds with that very truck specifically?

To show off the truck for additional G1 fanservice.

Also, to keep within the speed limits on that bridge, as the idea of passing a big ol' tractor trailer like that from the right side (rather than the left side), let alone on the Golden Gate Bridge, is really not a smart thing to do.

Deadput wrote:And why does the Studio Series figure have that exact truck mode and the box saying that he was representing the "San Francisco Bridge" scene?

Marketing. And what else would they have that toy transform into if not the vehicle that was doubling up on the G1 fanwank hype train?

It's not like they haven't previously made plenty of Movieverse toys whose altmodes were based directly on vehicles seen in the movies. Otherwise, would you say that the tow truck from Movie 1 was Longarm and not just a tow truck? Or that any of the Ospreys were Incinerator? Or that any of the Sector 7 assault buggies were Landmine? Or that any of the Sector 7 SUVs were Stockade? Or that the giant plane that Optimus jumps out of at the beginning of ROTF was Stratosphere? Or that any of the Cemetery Wind cars and SUVs were secretly Vehicons? Why wouldn't they make the obvious fanservice truck based on G1 Optimus's altmode into the altmode for the new Studio Series Bumblebee movie Optimus Prime toy? It's too obvious an idea to pass up for the toy to not take advantage of it.

Deadput wrote:It's very obvious it's supposed to be Optimus Prime, why else would that scene be filmed the way it was and have the Optimus forest scene right afterwards with Bumblebee already with him?

What sense would there be to make the truck be Optimus when he's shown to still be in his unchanged Cybertronian body in the very next scene?

Sabrblade wrote:What sense would there be to make the truck be Optimus when he's shown to still be in his unchanged Cybertronian body in the very next scene?

Budget? The design is kept in Shadow anyways and what would they change to make him different besides a grill abs and replacing the tires? The robot mode is clearly very Earth mode already.

Shatter's Cybertronian design isn't much different from here Earth mode either and the Seekers still have that Earth jet's part, so you can't bring that up. (Also Sentinel's Cybertronian design was the same as his Earth one as well, so there you go)

I consider it to be more of a stretch that the truck is not Optimus then the other way around.

Then why would they not show Optimus and Bumblebee meeting if that wasn't the two meeting?

Like why would it not be Optimus, people are going to think that first over it not being him.

We see the two together very shortly after, it's clearly Optimus, the movie gives more of a reason for it to be him then for it not to be him.

More of a stretch then the film being a prequel.

I agree with Sabrblade but with the caveat that you see what you want to see. This could be solved however by asking the director at the next available opportunity (or hope its brought up in the commentary on the home release)

Lemme put it this way.

I had no reason to believe that that truck was Optimus because, prior to the final scene that took place several hours after the bridge scene, I had no reason to believe that Optimus had even arrived on Earth at that point.

If he had, wouldn't he have tried to contact Bumblebee at all? There was no onscreen arrangement for Bumblebee to meet up with the truck we see on the bridge. Something like that would have been important enough for us to have been told about by the movie. Bee only left Charlie to go driving next to that truck because she insisted that he had to leave her in order for him to be safe, not because that truck was his leader and that Bee needed to be with him. You could take that truck out of the farewell scene completely and it would have played out exactly the same in every meaningful way. It was completely superfluous to Bee's departure from Charlie.

It definitely *I think* is a mater of seeing what you want to see. Not saying you are wrong Sabre, but on this count, you definitely have an uphill battle.

I searched at least a dozen different synopsis online from the most generic, shallow movie review websites and most of them read something like this...

Looper wrote:Still, when Bee transforms into Sam's Camaro and drives off with Optimus, the film does connect nicely to Bay's franchise and upholds a mostly seamless handoff from solo movie to existing series, even with the timeline shake-up.

Now again, I'm not saying these summaries are accurate, but they are ALL consistent. Heck even I when I saw this in the theater on the 22nd (having not been spoiled), in my childish glee, gave my wife a huge smile and Thumbs up as Bee pulled up next to who I *Obviously Thought* to be Optimus. And the mid-credits scene only seemed to substantiate this. It's only after processing it, that it doesn't make sense, but then, as we both know, the movie continuity has been messed up for a long time.

o.supreme wrote:It's only after processing it, that it doesn't make sense, but then, as we both know, the movie continuity has been messed up for a long time.

Yes, but at least this movie is the one that has had the most healthy doses of sense and logic put into it.

Sabrblade wrote:

o.supreme wrote:It's only after processing it, that it doesn't make sense, but then, as we both know, the movie continuity has been messed up for a long time.

Yes, but at least this movie is the one that has had the most healthy doses of sense and logic put into it.

Agreed 100%

One more thing to note on the subject is that the original test cut version of the movie is said to have not had that mid-credits forest night scene at all (nor the other mid-credits scene where Charlie gets her dad's car working), meaning that it was only added in later as an afterthought (and replaced a different mid-credits scene that better tied the movie to the 2007 one, in which Sector Seven was shown to have Megatron frozen in ice, but it's better that they took out this scene since Megatron's design was changed to a different one from his 2007 movie look, which would have looked wrong).

Saw the movie.Loved it.It was very charming.

Sabrblade wrote:in which Sector Seven was shown to have Megatron frozen in ice, but it's better that they took out this scene since Megatron's design was changed to a different one from his 2007 movie look, which would have looked wrong).

My personal headcanon is that since the pose which Megatron was found in the ice is not same that he was in the Hoover Dam,is that Sector Seven partially unfrozen him and messed a bit with his body and maybe they could use that to explain the difference in the designs.

TulioDude wrote:Saw the movie.Loved it.It was very charming.

Sabrblade wrote:in which Sector Seven was shown to have Megatron frozen in ice, but it's better that they took out this scene since Megatron's design was changed to a different one from his 2007 movie look, which would have looked wrong).

My personal headcanon is that since the pose which Megatron was found in the ice is not same that he was in the Hoover Dam,is that Sector Seven partially unfrozen him and messed a bit with his body and maybe they could use that to explain the difference in the designs.

It's not that his pose was different, it's that the replaced scene had changed Megatron to look less like Movie Megatron and more like G1 Megatron, when the onscreen flashbacks of Archibald Witwicky finding him in the 2007 movie had showed him to look the same as when he was in Sector Seven's captivity in 2007.

I assumed that truck on the bridge was Prime, and I'll believe that way until Knight says otherwise.

and I thought it was cool meta-commentary: See, the movie-verse and G1 can coexist, no need to kill each other over it

Travis Knight sat down with Empire for their spoiler podcast to discuss the Bumblebee movie in his most candid interview yet. While he discusses a lot of this prequel's aspects we wanted to share some segments pertaining to the continuity with the Bay films. It is a subject he does address, and one the interviewer is very curious of (as we all are). He does mention why certain aspects may be inconsistent or not mentioned, even though it is a prequel and within the larger Bayverse. We have a transcript of those questions and answers below along with a question pertaining to Alf.

Please note, the transcript is a slightly edited version of what was said, for ease of reading.

Was it important to bring sector 7 back in because it was a nice little running thing for this

Yeah, we wanted to have a foot in each world. There is the last 10 years of Transformers movies, directed by Michael Bay, which have a ton of mythology and also the original wave of Transformers which had its own mythology and its sometimes connected and sometimes not with the films and so I wanted to have a foot in each world. So we're paying tribute to the last 10 years of live-action films but also a foot in the origins of these things where we can pay tribute to the initial wave of Comics and cartoons. So sector 7 was something that he evolved out of Michael's films. It was a secret society that hunts Transformers and there is a lot of subtle nods to the stuff that Michael has done. Even if you have never seen a Transformers film you can watch Bumblebee and nothing else matters but for those were fans of the live-action series or the cartoons there are a ton of layers and easter eggs and sector 7 is one of them including agent Simmons who is a young John Turturro who becomes one of the heavies later in the series.

Witn John Cena I wanted an actor who was physically formidable and who had layers of menace and aggression and when necessary humor and pathos. For me because I had seen him as a comedic actor, I had never seen him do what we ask him to do in this movie. I was incredibly impressed by what he was able to bring to the movie and he was a real joy to work with.


Regarding the Michael Bay films, were there points of cannon and that you had to stick to? Did you feel constricted that you have to meet certain things or not contradict certain things?

Yes, there is always concern with that although I think that continuity is certainly not a huge priority of Michael's. He prioritizes other things like incredible visuals and spectacle and fun. But even within the films themselves as much as I enjoyed them there are inconsistencies, so with this film if you're going to be consistent with one thing you'll be inconsistent with another thing. But it was important that I had a degree of continuity and wanting to tell a self contained story that was not necessarily bound by a decade of mythology, which was a little bit tricky. We had to simplify it. I wanted to make sure that an audience could come to the film watch it from beginning to end and have a good time, get all the information and all the fun they can get out of it. But at the same time someone who is a Transformers fan can get other layers of entertainment. But yes there were definitely things you couldn't play around with (editor's note, see Megatron article for examples) and there were other things that we could take some liberties with.

Everyone in this reality seems to really like Alf so is that a personal favorite?

Yes that is absolutely me, nobody else cares about Alf, that was me, that was me putting Alf in there.
Alf is amazing and ALF stands for "alien life form" so its a nod to Bumblbebee and his origins as well.

Travis Knight wrote:I think that continuity is certainly not a huge priority of Michael's.

Yeah. Thanks for official confirmation of what we all knew.

Travis Knight wrote:He prioritizes other things like and spectacle and ass shots.

There. I fixed that for ya.

okay, FINALLY an official executive of sorts who is associated with the Transformers films ADMITS that there's NO respect for continuity in the bayverse. He said it very politely, witch is to be expected, but he did, indeed, admit it.
can we all give Mr. Knight a round of applause for that alone?

jtanimator wrote:okay, FINALLY an official executive of sorts who is associated with the Transformers films ADMITS that there's NO respect for continuity in the bayverse. He said it very politely, witch is to be expected, but he did, indeed, admit it.
can we all give Mr. Knight a round of applause for that alone?

jtanimator wrote:okay, FINALLY an official executive of sorts who is associated with the Transformers films ADMITS that there's NO respect for continuity in the bayverse. He said it very politely, witch is to be expected, but he did, indeed, admit it.
can we all give Mr. Knight a round of applause for that alone?

But that confirms that Bumblebee can still be within the Bayverse even though lots of things contradict that. So anyone who was hoping for a reboot is **** out of luck.