New Transformers Movie Trailer Coming Dec. 20th?
CanMag has learned that the first full trailer for Michael Bay’s Transformers will be released one week from today, on December 20th. I’m a little confused, however, because the report says the trailer will be online December 20th, and then “become available through streaming feeds one day after Christmas, December 26th”. So if it’s not available through streaming feeds to begin with, then how will people see it? Maybe they just mean that it will be posted on the movie’s official site on Dec. 26th.
Either way, there seems to be a good chance that we’ll get our first look at actual Transformers in action very soon. I’ve mentioned before that I don’t have much in the way of expectations for this film (personally I think it’s going to be a fucking joke) but there’s a lot riding on this next trailer. If they truly want to get people hyped for this flick they’re going to have to show something impressive next week, not just another half a second glimpse of a blurry robot. I’m very curious to see what we get. CanMag has indicated that Yahoo! will be the ones to premiere the trailer, so be sure to head over there next Wednesday. Transformers is currently slated for release on July 4th, 2007.
» Related Link: Transformers Live
Comments (23)
I’m a little surprised that they’re not releasing this teaser even earlier and try to cash in on the Christmas toy buying.
Posted by Marina on December 13th, 2006Come on Sean… This movie is gonna be AWESOME!!1
I still have no idea wether or not this is going be worth watching. I’m worried that they are putting too much substance in it. And before you go “well michael bay dont put substance in anything!!! thats why spielberg HANDPICKED him”.
Michael Bay made Pearl Harbor. That movie has good action, but you don’t care because it has all the bullshit, and Michael Bay had no problem with putting that in the movie.
And was the action in The Island, Armageddon and Bad Boys even that good? I wasn’t at the edge of my seat during those movies.
As for Steven Spielberg handpicking him… *sigh* I don’t like Steven Spielberg. He has horrible taste, and his movies are borderline-to-hardcore ridiculous. If he has involvement in the movie beyond slapping his name on it to put a damper on the Michael Bay backlash, we can be expecting scenes of 23year old models telling their dying heroic fathers how they were the best parents anyone could hope for.
Posted by Henrik on December 13th, 2006I’d like you to qualify the ’scenes of 23year old models telling their dying heroic fathers how they were the best parents anyone could hope for’ comment.
If that’s a shot at Spielberg’s casting choices, just look at this short list of up-and-coming actors that he took a chance on…
Amy Adams
Vince Vaughan
Samantha Morton
Edward Burns
Jeremy Davies
Giovanni Ribisi
Vin Diesel
Adam Goldberg
Julianne Moore
Kumar Pallana (not necissarily and up-and-coming actor, but definitely a unique casting choice)
Hardly a list of ‘23 year old models’.
I think these are all examples of Spielberg’s (and his casting director’s) unique ability at keeping their ear to the ground and picking great actors out of the indies to perform in his blockbuster’s that frankly don’t need to be giving new talent a chance at stardom.
Posted by Jay C. on December 13th, 2006Not to mention his long-time working relationship with cinematographer Janusz Kaminski…a somewhat unconventional choice for such a mainstream filmmaker.
Posted by Jay C. on December 13th, 2006I’m surprised you didn’t add Christian Bale to that list.
Vin Diesel
Giovanni Ribisi
Adam Goldberg
These are great actors? I am not denying that Steven Spielberg has worked with good actors. They are standing in line to appear in his movies.
I admit I have no idea who Kumar Pallana, Jeremy Davies and Edward Burns are. I have never seen them in anything. I think Amy Adams is very good, and Vince Vaughn is funny. Julianne Moore is obviously talented. Steven Spielberg is utterly impotent when it comes to working with actors though. It doesn’t help when you have laughable dialogue and by-the-numbers cliché’d storytelling, but the only performances in his movies that are actually worth watching, are made by actors who are extraordinarily talented themselves, like Anthony Hopkins, Colin Farrell etc.
If you see how little he gets out of somebody like John Malkovich or even Tom Hanks, it’s frustrating.
And let’s not forget he also introduced people like Barry Pepper and Tom Sizemore.
Posted by Henrik on December 13th, 2006The cinematographer isn’t as unconventional as you might think. There are plenty of slavik-named cinematographers in hollywood – Stefan Czapsky, Emmanuel Lubezki. It’s one of the most international positions in main-stream movies, with even a couple of danes working on big budget productions like Michael Salomon and Dan Faustsen.
And as far as unconventional goes… John Williams is hardly unconventional, nor is Tom Cruise or Dakota Fanning.
Posted by Henrik on December 13th, 2006He didn’t introduce Tom Sizemore.
I just think the statement ‘Steven Spielberg is utterly impotent when it comes to working with actors’ is blindy cynical, and typical. Is he overly sentimental? Yes. Does it hurt some of his films? See A.I. But all of these people that try and say that Spielberg is in fact a HORRIBLE director (usually university film students) just don’t have anything to back it up. Sure you can’t judge taste, but you can judge success. And Spielberg has had both box office AND critical success time and time again…possibly more than any other living director.
Posted by Jay C. on December 13th, 2006What does his name have to do with being unconventional??
Posted by Jay C. on December 13th, 2006Well I had no idea what else would be unconventional about him.
I didn’t mean that the names of JW, TC and DF weren’t unconventional, but that they are as established as they come.
I realize that having to listen to people complain about Steven Spielberg all the time, will spark something, and you would feel the need to defend him. Trust me that I’m not bashing him just to make myself seem like I know something about movies and to prove that I am not mainstream.
I have no idea how you would think that the my opinion that he always has weak performances in his movies is cynical though. I don’t think the performances are necessarily romantic. I try and stay away from the ‘too-romantic’ argument as much as possible because I am tired of making it. But his movies are saturated with it, so if you want to, you can trace most of the problems his movies have back to it. Like the overuse of music etc…
I admit I am hard-pressed to think of a director who makes movies that are generally considered sentimental, and have good performances in them. I would name directors who are able to work with actors and have them act believeably, even in unbelieveable situations, but I’m sure you would just dismiss it as cynicism.
Posted by Henrik on December 13th, 2006My point wasn’t that Janusz Kaminski is unconventional because of his name or nationality, but rather his style.
Posted by Jay C. on December 13th, 2006I can think of a director who is considered sentimental and provokes good performances…M. Night Shyamalan. But he has one person to thank for that inspiration…Steven Spielberg. Both of whom are criticized for many of the same things.
Posted by Jay C. on December 13th, 2006Both of which can equally thank Alfred Hithcock.
Posted by Jay C. on December 13th, 2006M. Night Shyamalan always has extraordinary performances. I don’t necessarily find his movies romantic though. Not to the point of Steven Spielberg for sure. Mel Gibson telling god that he hates him, or Brendan Gleeson telling Joaquin Phoenix that sorrow can smell you. Not exactly a romantisized view on life.
THe thing that turns me on about Shyamalan is his lack of plot. There is no “innocent-cop-framed-must-prove-innocence” going on in his movies. There are no plot devices made to turn the wheels forward. In Steven Spielberg’s movies the devices are glaringly obvious and blatant. Like the “hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold” in A.I., the old geezer who lives far away with all the answers in Minority Report, or the loyal sidekick who the main character can rely upon and gives him a person to speak his thoughts out loud to in Schindler’s List.
Shyamalan also lacks the sensationalism that Spielberg is so fond of. The score is subtle, often haunting. There are far less words. Steven Spielberg takes ordinary people and turn them into superheroes – Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan. Shyamalan did the blatantly opposite in Unbreakable.
I don’t think I have seen a Kaminski shot movie that wasn’t a Spielberg movie, so I really can’t comment on the style. As for his style in the Spielberg movies, no big deal. Blue means sci-fi, grey means past. Blurry impressionistic images to go with the strings section to show the confusion of a war scene? How innovative and unconventional.
Posted by Henrik on December 13th, 2006I’m sure there’s many people that would disagree with you on both the romanticism of Shyamalan’s films (Lady in the Water) AND the contrived plots (The Village). There may be no “innocent-cop-framed-must- prove-innocence”, but there is “minister-who-lost -faith-only-to-regain -it-in-the-end”. Shyamalan’s only six films into his career, so give him some time.
Posted by Jay C. on December 13th, 2006So now we’re talking Shyamalan vs Spielberg? Hey I like both, but I’d say Shyamalan definitely has his fair share of sentimentality, stilted dialogue and contrived plot devices. The difference is that basically all of his movies are suspense/thrillers, so you forgive it because you’re caught up in the moment. He’s nowhere nearly as versatile or accomplished as Spielberg is.
I agree that Shyamalan’s movies have great scores but I don’t know how much that reflects on him as a director.
Posted by Sean on December 13th, 2006Six films? Are you counting Stuart Little?
Contrived plot of The Village? Who would say that? Who even knows what the plot of The Village is? That’s like the people who are trying to force a plot over the head of Babel or Clockwork Orange.
In The Village the characters are what’s followed. It’s not contrived in any way, it’s a natural development of these people’s lives. They are introduced in the beginning and what happens during the movie is born out of the characters. There aren’t any plot devices, and the characters are not being guided through a plot.
I don’t really think that minister-who-lost-faith-only-to-regain-it-in-the-end is in the same league as the innocent cop. Yes, you could take what happens in each of the movies and write it like that, and say that’s the plot, but it’s not what it’s about. The characters are realistic. They don’t comment their own situation. Joaquin Phoenix’s character and performance in Signs is every bit as important as Mel Gibson’s. I think Signs is probably his best movie, and it appeases *both* the people looking for plot and the rest of us. It’s also his most succesful and beloved movie for that very reason I think. His last two movies fail to comply with the cliché’s of a genre movie, and people check out within 10-15 minutes because of it. Of course a big reason for this is that they have both been marketed as Signs 2.
I am not including 6th sense in any of these arguments. Just to make that clear. I don’t like 6th sense at all, to me it’s just a genre movie.
Posted by Henrik on December 13th, 2006Ok, so let me get this straight. His last 2 movies ‘fall to comply with the cliche’s of a genre movie’ and you didn’t like the sixth sense. So out of his six movies (NOT including Stuart Little, he only wrote that) you think three are cliche’d genre movies?? HALF? If we’re not including Wide Awake, that’s still 3 out of his 5 movies that you think are cliched genre pictures.
I think you’ve picked the wrong director to make an example of Spielberg my friend.
Posted by Jay C. on December 13th, 2006I’ll let any of the thousands of people who hated The Village respond to ‘Contrived plot of The Village? Who would say that?’
Posted by Jay C. on December 13th, 2006In the end, I think Steven Spielberg makes genre movies, and he is at his best when he is the most honest (Jurassic Park, E.T.)
Shyamalan offers alot more food for thought, and is alot less compromising in his film-making. He does not make genre movies, apart from 6th sense, but his movies have genre elements to them. Signs pulls off the combination the best, I don’t think it’s a genre movie at all, but because he pulls off alot of the cliché’s of a horror movie so well (it has aliens for crying out loud) people are enarmoured with the movie. After 6th sense, people are just thinking of Shyamalan as a horror director (his own stylization of his name doesn’t help) and everytime he does something that fails at being a genre movie, and doesn’t have enough cliché’s to be called a straight-up horror movie people check out and call them “worst movie of the year” etc.
As for stilted dialogue… 6th sense has some ridiculous dialogue. If you’re talking about things like The Village however, even though there are monologues, they are not sensational. They aren’t delivered by people standing up and gesturing. I think The Village was a very poetic movie, and I think it worked within the environment. And I didn’t find it scary in the least, and I knew the twist beforehand because that’s all people could talk about leading up to the movie. Actually, that’s all people can talk about now, years later. How the twist was dumb.
Posted by Henrik on December 13th, 2006Don’t forget you’re the one who picked Shyamalan…
But he’s my favourite living director, and the only one who gets me excited just by his involvement, so I’m not going to refuse a chance to give him praise because I think it’s deserved.
I haven’t seen Wide Awake. I have no idea how to get a hold of it either. Of his other 5 movies, only 6th sense is a genre movie. The 4 other’s aren’t.
Posted by Henrik on December 13th, 2006Hey, I like both directors. All i’m saying is they share many of the same criticisms. And even though I like both of them, i know they both have their faults. Sentimentality is one of them, and i would have to agree to disagree on Shyamalan’s contrived plots.
Posted by Jay C. on December 13th, 2006I am sorry for derailing the topic though.
It’s just that nobody makes posts where people can actually talk about the final product, the meat and potatoes so to speak, so sometimes whenever you get a chance you just go with it.
Posted by Henrik on December 13th, 2006This may be bullshit, but I have to make another point.
The Village and Lady in the Water are unconventional movies. Lady in the Water in particular is far out. The only time I can remember Spielberg doing some far out, he failed horribly with 1941. He can only dream of succeeding in such extreme environments.
Posted by Henrik on December 13th, 2006Leave a Reply