Comments on: Transformers 2: Cybertronian Anatomy & Some Fun Facts!

By: smartbomb8

smartbomb8 — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:35:19 +0000

robo-testicles and phallic weapons? hope it is nothing like adding nipples to the Batsuit

By: nick

nick — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:04:23 +0000

Maybe thats how they overcome devastator, shoot him in the balls?

By: Panda

Panda — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:25:04 +0000

Small Soldiers? For some reason I was thinking more like Gremlins (or was it Gremlins 2?)

The whole “cube turns machines into transformers” is silly. One of the worst plot points from this serires. I’ll still see this movie for the robot fighting tho.

By: greenknight333

greenknight333 — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:02:23 +0000

Love that picture of Prime at the top..It shows Prime has “balls” without have to physically put them up on the screen…

By: greenknight333

greenknight333 — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:00:16 +0000

The testicular appearance(if it is true) is perhaps one of the worst ideas in the history of cinema..it didn’t take balls for Bay to do that it just took a lack of brains. Why didn’t someone involved heavily in this production tell Bay to scratch the idea?..Maybe he thinks the character is a reflection of him and his testicular size or maybe he wants to be remembered as the guy who put giant “balls” on a ten story robot..Moron..

By: Paulie

Paulie — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:16:26 +0000

@Rob Keyes
So where was the weapon placement you were referring to? A little hard for me to make you on my 19″.

By: Rob Keyes

Rob Keyes — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:32:59 +0000

@ Fenix,

It definitely reminds me of Small Soldiers as well.

By: DAG

DAG — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:25:53 +0000

I cant wait

By: T

Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:57:56 +0000

Newsflash…there is a current argument going on as to what exactly constitutes an IMAX film. IMAX argues that it is a physical process, others disagree and argue the physical SIZE of the screen does it…either way there is a VERY good chance that your view of OPTIMUS PRIME does NOT equal someone else’s view of “him” so claiming that he is “life sized” on the IMAX screen is a disengenuous point at best.

By: Zipper Stevens

Zipper Stevens — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:32:06 +0000

OKay, i’ll finally say it: This is a rental. Where’s the Michael Bay hate-wagon? I’m jumping on…

By: jerseycajun

jerseycajun — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:18:28 +0000

Is it just me, or is all the focus that’s being placed on the technical CGI aspects of the film a tacit acknowledgment that the story/characters will suck as bad or worse than the first?

By: hud

hud — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:09:47 +0000

i was so tempted to read the spiolers but i didnt

By: Fenix

Fenix — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:07:27 +0000

haha ok clip was kinda cool ( I love the dad in this movie) but it reminded me of small soldiers… which ironically this dad played another dad in that movie. But I’m more concerned with the addition of that many new robots and the fact that devastator has “robot balls”. I’m all for the humor and stuff but this seems like a little much and wayyy to immature. What did Bays 15 year old son beg him to put that in as a joke? I hope this movie doesn’t suck balls.

By: Matt Keith

Matt Keith — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:32:34 +0000

That clip was pretty cool.

By: Voice of Reason

Voice of Reason — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:05:12 +0000

@Ollie
let me get some spoilers

By: Ollie

Ollie — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:37:44 +0000

I saw this film last night at the cinema? so i dunno why its not out in your country yet but just to let you know without spoilers, ITS AWESOME!!!!!!!