Transformers 2 spoiler (female robot comming soon)

sox2k1 · Post by **sox2k1** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:31 pm

A major SPOILER about one of the new characters in the forthcoming sequel Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen has apparently found its way online. Consider yourself warned!

Latino Review points out a posting at TFW2005 that claims the character of Alice (Isabel Lucas) "is a Pretender."

As Wikipedia reminds us, "a Pretender is a Cybertonian who can inhabit or exist alongside a remotely controlled robotic shell. This shell can appear humanoid, alien, monstrous or have a vehiclular form. Some advanced pretenders shells can even transform between several forms or combine with their controller's vehicle form. Others can shrink in size to pass for real humans or animals."

TFW2005 claims that Alice's shell "will be an attractive human woman while the inner robot is best described as a hybrid of the Frenzy robot design from the first movie. The Pretender Transformer will have an arm that transforms into an energy weapon, a long tongue, and a scanning tenticle [sic]."

Robot Devil · Post by **Robot Devil** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 6:32 am

SWEEEET!!!

bilbo · Post by **bilbo** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:10 pm

Look forward to seeing spoiler pics of this character. Dont think the female actress will be 'unattractive'!!

DeusMachina · Post by **DeusMachina** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:56 am

That's great news! I've been in love with the Transformers since childhood anyway but the movie looked simply amazing.

minkwheel · Post by **minkwheel** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 12:30 am

I will most likely see the prototype of this figure this February... I have an invitation to Hasbro's "INVENTOR NIGHT" during the 2009 TOY FAIR in NYC... They want to show off their GI JOE MOVIE stuff, STAR WARS stuff, and TRANSFORMER movie things, etc... and then pick inventor's brains for offshoot ideas. -- minkwheel

Borias · Post by **Borias** » Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:20 am

TheSpotConlon · Post by **TheSpotConlon** » Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:26 am

Luckily that image was debunked a while ago. Maybe Bay goes more streamlined with Arcee, although I'm not holding my breath.

droidlvr · Post by **droidlvr** » Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:33 am

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:04 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uhm.. She looks horrible:

I agree.

DeusMachina · Post by **DeusMachina** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:56 am

Why can't they stick more to the cartoon look anyway?

Arcee looked much more feminine there. I liked the movie but I do think they went a bit overboard with the "new sci-fi look".

Borias · Post by **Borias** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 3:54 pm

PsychoKirby · Post by **PsychoKirby** » Sat May 02, 2009 4:14 pm

That's just mean, Bay.

TheSpotConlon · Post by **TheSpotConlon** » Sat May 02, 2009 4:29 pm

Michael Bay: Professional Jagoff. There are very few actors who are willing to work with him twice, even within franchises. The only real repeat offenders are Will Smith, who is just so nice he won't tell anyone no, and Shia La Beauf, who was roped into a contract he can't leave. Everyone else refuses to work with him. I hear tell of making actors cry on set, placing extras in dangerous situations, and generally getting up his own ass with the tech while forgetting about the movie.

To be honest, none of this surprises me. I have no time to go into a long screed right now, but here's why Arcee, and by extension anything interesting or vital to our fetish, gets ignored in Hollywood:

--Hollywood doesn't get "robots." There are exactly two points of reference: The Terminator, and Gigantor. They're thinking killing machine or mech, and nothing else. Try mentioning "Ghost in the Shell" as a reference, and most executives will default to "Ghost in the Machine," that horror movie about the serial killer who lives in the phone line. (You think I'm kidding. Guess what? First hand experience says I'm not. Holy shit, kids, that town is the Peter Principle in action.)

--Hollywood doesn't get women. In fact, they're scared of them. When a movie with a women does well, everybody freaks out and tries to figure out why. Mostly it's because the woman is well-written and believable, and the film isn't a pandering mess. The men of Hollywood don't have to deal with women most of the time, shutting them out of the creative process and relegating them to the sidelines in films. The successful female directors are, let's face it, bad at their jobs. (Kathryn Bigelow, Catherine Hardwicke, et al.) It's not helping matters, and it's a vicious cycle.

So we don't have a system that particularly likes women, and that doesn't understand what a robot is. What comes out of that? Nothing good, or rather an idea that gets killed off quickly and without development.

Sorry for the rant, but these particular parts of the industry have been bugging the crap out of me for a long time. Hopefully someone will manage to squeak a movie through which actually gets it, but I wouldn't count on it.

PsychoKirby · Post by **PsychoKirby** » Sat May 02, 2009 6:16 pm

TheSpotConlon wrote: --Hollywood doesn't get "robots." There are exactly two points of reference: The Terminator, and Gigantor. They're thinking killing machine or mech, and nothing else. Try mentioning "Ghost in the Shell" as a reference, and most executives will default to "Ghost in the Machine," that horror movie about the serial killer who lives in the phone line. (You think I'm kidding. Guess what? First hand experience says I'm not. Holy shit, kids, that town is the Peter Principle in action.)

Oh, you have no idea how true this is. Let me tell you a story.

I am a die-hard Isaac Asimov fanboy. I consider him to be not just the greatest science fiction author ever, and not just the greatest author of the 20th century, but a strong contender for the greatest author of all time. He was a master at writing both science fiction and books of actual science, and nobody, <b>NOBODY</b>, has ever been able to write robots better than him. (I'm actually an aspiring science fiction author. I've been working on a novel about robots and have taken Asimov as my biggest influence. But I'm getting off-track.)

When I first heard there was an "I, Robot" movie in the works, I was excited. As you said, Hollywood doesn't treat robots very well, and they could learn a thing or two from The Good Doctor. Then it turned out all similarities to Asimov's works ended after the title and the movie was just a bad Terminator clone. (Never mind that Asimov created the Three Laws of Robotics specifically to avoid the whole "killer robot" trope, which was tired and cliche in the 1940s and is even more tired and cliche now.)

I'm hoping one day we get a movie that treats robots properly. But considering the biggest robot movies coming up are another live-action Transformers movie and a Terminator sequel, that doesn't seem too likely right now.

droidlvr · Post by **droidlvr** » Sun May 03, 2009 6:12 am

Hollywood doesn't get "robots." There are exactly two points of reference: The Terminator, and Gigantor.

I can agree with.

Hollywood doesn't get women. In fact, they're scared of them.

Not so much. Not really sure how this is so when it seems that most American films today are for a majority female and for certain age group categorys.

minkwheel · Post by **minkwheel** » Sun May 03, 2009 8:26 am

Here's what HOLLYWOOD knows about women...... most have disposable incomes to go to a movie once in a while....but Hollywood's most bankable woman 'STAR" ...Ms. Julia Roberts, is busy with her kids and makes a movie a year roughly..... Women aren't crazy for Angelina Jolie much, but their boyfriends go to see her in movies............. There are romantic trends that any producer throws in the mix to spur interest, so let me take you into the mind of a Hollywood pitchman for the next 'CHICK FLICK" ......

"THINK ABOUT IT, J.B.----- WE GET JOHNNY DEPP OR MATTHEW MCCONNOHAY....however his name is spelled...... AND HE'S A SORROWFUL EX PIRATE, COWBOY VAMPIRE who has an eight year old DAUGHTER..... and he LOVES DOGS................. PURE GOLD! ---- stereotypes...... trying to prove a point that the same stuff gets churned out, and they expect people to flock to the stuff like lemmings...... The only way they truly claim to know what women want, is not with blockbuster movies, but in the TV MOVIE CATEGORY...... LIFETIME, HALLMARK, OXYGEN, and WE prove that daily with their schedules filled with 'strong women" films............. that's FINE with them, really.... see, the STORY and CHARACTERS matter.... and mostly NOTHING gets blown up, or they don't need HEAVY CGI. --I'm done ranting. --minkwheel

TheSpotConlon · Post by **TheSpotConlon** » Sun May 03, 2009 8:41 am

minkwheel wrote:"THINK ABOUT IT, J.B.----- WE GET JOHNNY DEPP OR MATTHEW MCCONNOHAY....however his name is spelled...... AND HE'S A SORROWFUL EX PIRATE, COWBOY VAMPIRE who has an eight year old DAUGHTER..... and he LOVES DOGS................. PURE GOLD!

Mink's got it. Check out any given "Chick Flick" poster. The guy's name is always first, and he's always front-and-center (with the female love interest slightly farther back and lower, always supplicating). Hollywood knows how to take money from women, but it sure as shit doesn't know anything about them. Next time a movie with a strong, solo, first-billed female character makes over one hundred million dollars I'll eat crow, but I'm not holding my breath.

Anyway, I feel like I'm drifting off-topic. The problem we have is that the market is not primed for anything we would consider pertinent to us, which in turn leads to some really boring-ass movies. It's a problem, and I don't know what's going to turn it around.

Borias · Post by **Borias** » Sun May 03, 2009 8:57 am

TheSpotConlon · Post by **TheSpotConlon** » Sun May 03, 2009 9:07 am

I was hoping Underworld as well! But amazingly enough the biggest of those, Underworld: Evolution, managed to gross all of $62 Million. To give a parallel understanding of that number, Wolverine just did $87 Million in its first two-and-a-half days. And then think about that third, ridiculous, poorly-planned Underworld film. Who's front and center on the posters? The male lycan. No mention of the female lead, who is not Kate Beckinsale anymore because she wisely jumped ship.

It's too bad, too, because you'd think that a successful franchise that's based so much on vampires in fetish gear would at least raise some interests in parallel fantasy fetishes. Such as it is, unfortunately.

Teknophile · Post by **Teknophile** » Mon May 04, 2009 11:09 am

Borias wrote:Well now I'm double depressed.

http://io9.com/5200581/michael-bay-kill ... use-he-can

WHAAAAAT????? For crying out loud!

First he takes some awesome, complex characters and gives them hardly any screen time for character development.

Then he takes Jazz, one of the coolest and most beloved characters from the cartoon (and a victim of said lack of development in the movie), and kills him off in the first film.

And now THIS?

As a longtime Transformers fan, you can imagine just how displeased I am. Poor Arcee....

As soon as the first fans leave the theaters, you can bet Fanfiction.net will be loaded with stories where she's rebuilt, resurrected, etc.

Transformers 2 spoiler (female robot comming soon)

Transformers 2 spoiler (female robot comming soon)

Great