Transformers: Dark of the Moon (Transformers 3)


Recommended Posts

^That's what I thought about the new Megatron as well the instant I saw it.

He should be called Megatron Repair then :laugh:

Had half of his face blown off (think Two Face from Batman, which supposedly is the reason for the cape in the new movie), and was otherwise severely damaged from his fight with Optimus Prime. Starscream convinced him to retreat, saying something like "I'd never call you a coward, but sometimes cowards do survive". AFAIK, Megatron, Starscream, and Soundwave are the only 3 of the Decepticons on or near Earth known to survive the final battle.

There's still Barricade who disappeared from the first movie.

^He changed his disguise from TF1 to TF2 as well. It's so that the Autobots can't find him I guess. He stood out way to much on Earth as a futuristic airplane and futuristic tank.

Also, we haven't read or seen anything of the story for TF3 besides the teaser and a few stabs into the wild. So no one can really know for sure. All I know is that those 2 things are plausible.

^He changed his disguise from TF1 to TF2 as well.

Technically, he didn't change his alt mode, Scalpel changed it for him when they took parts from Scrapmetal to repair the damage he suffered during the first movie. I'm thnking that at least part of the reason for him finally taking on a disguise is the comment by Starscream at the end of ROTF about cowards surviving.

By the way, I've though about one other thing: Scalpel probably survived ROTF as well since, unless I missed it, he didn't participate in the final battle and wasn't injured or destroyed when Optimus Prime and Bumblebee rescued Sam from Megatron and Starscream earlier in the movie.

What happened to Megatron at the end of the last movie? I can't remember.

he is all crippled up (lost a foot & arm) thanks to optimus when he got power boot, personally i think we will see galvatron very early in TF3 :/

Technically, he didn't change his alt mode, Scalpel changed it for him when they took parts from Scrapmetal to repair the damage he suffered during the first movie. I'm thnking that at least part of the reason for him finally taking on a disguise is the comment by Starscream at the end of ROTF about cowards surviving.

By the way, I've though about one other thing: Scalpel probably survived ROTF as well since, unless I missed it, he didn't participate in the final battle and wasn't injured or destroyed when Optimus Prime and Bumblebee rescued Sam from Megatron and Starscream earlier in the movie.

They destroyed a Deception under water to revive Megatron. I believe Scalpel had nothing to do with it. I never really literally meant that HE had changed it, all I meant was that his disguise changed in Transformers 2.

They destroyed a Deception under water to revive Megatron. I believe Scalpel had nothing to do with it.

I've watched the movie countless times with my older son over the last couple of weeks since he's been out of school for Christmas (at almost 5 years old, he is a total Transformers fanatic, and can change his toys back and forth better than I can!), and trust me, Scalpel is there doing the "surgery" on Megatron. He is the one who tells the other Decepticons to "kill ze little one" (Scrapmetal).

Wouldn't it be cool if Optimus kept the parts donated to him by JetFire, to make him look like one real bad ass truck?

He shed those parts after his fight with Megatron and The Fallen at the end of ROTF.

I suspect this film will be crap like the last one

The only people who really seemed to think it was "crap" were movie critics who gave it horrible reviews. It did better at the box office than the first one did (better even than a lot of movies that got good reviews and even Oscar winners!). Sure, it had its weak parts, but all in all it was s really fun and entertaining movie.

I'm really of the opinion that most movie critics are totally out of touch with the reality of what MOST people really like in a movie. I can almost guarantee that if a movie critic hates a movie, it is probably going to be a box office hit, and one that I will love.

If movie critics and the Acadamy Awards had their way, we'd only have POS movies like "The Hurt Locker". Critics and awards shows don't tell us how good a movie is, we tell the studios by ticket sales, and ROTF wipes the floor with a LOT of movies that got far better reviews and even tons of Oscars.

And what, just left them in Egypt? Surely he'd keep them...

It was a one-time use thing. Most of the parts were badly damaged too. And not to mention, incompatible with his vehicle form. It's like trying to curl up with a suit of armour. It just doesn't work.

It was a one-time use thing. Most of the parts were badly damaged too. And not to mention, incompatible with his vehicle form. It's like trying to curl up with a suit of armour. It just doesn't work.

Yeah, but every molecule in the transformers body is dynamic; the parts could easily transform to become something more compatible, like a Jet-Truck. Come on man, use your imagination, where's the child within you?

Optimus getting the rocket upgrade at the end was about as awful as Robocop flying at the end of Robocop 3. It felt like it was thrown into the film to give the audience a, "WHOA! COOOOOL!!" moment, deus ex machina style. Hoping the third doesn't suck like the second.

Yeah, but every molecule in the transformers body is dynamic; the parts could easily transform to become something more compatible, like a Jet-Truck. Come on man, use your imagination, where's the child within you?

This doesn't really make sense in Bay's movies tbh. If this could work, then they would've used all the other destroyed Transformer as well.

@roadwarrior: Ah yes, now I remember. Guess this is my excuse to rewatch both movie 1 and 2 :p

@FusionOpz: Go have a look through this thread. There are photos posted with Optimus Prime's Trailer :)

@roadwarrior: Ah yes, now I remember. Guess this is my excuse to rewatch both movie 1 and 2 :p

I swear, I think I catch something new every time I watch ROTF. The action scenes are so visually dense that you really have to watch it multiple times to catch some of the things going on in the background. Many of the things that people complain about (such as the individual vehicles that make up Devastator also being present in other battle scenes while they should be attached to him) can also have a perfectly reasonable explanation (there were simply multiple versions of the consturction vehicles: the individual robots and also the components of Devastator, which you never see turn into robots).

I swear, I think I catch something new every time I watch ROTF. The action scenes are so visually dense that you really have to watch it multiple times to catch some of the things going on in the background. Many of the things that people complain about (such as the individual vehicles that make up Devastator also being present in other battle scenes while they should be attached to him) can also have a perfectly reasonable explanation (there were simply multiple versions of the consturction vehicles: the individual robots and also the components of Devastator, which you never see turn into robots).

Woah, I've watched the movie countless times but didn't realise that haha!

I swear, I think I catch something new every time I watch ROTF. The action scenes are so visually dense that you really have to watch it multiple times to catch some of the things going on in the background. Many of the things that people complain about (such as the individual vehicles that make up Devastator also being present in other battle scenes while they should be attached to him) can also have a perfectly reasonable explanation (there were simply multiple versions of the consturction vehicles: the individual robots and also the components of Devastator, which you never see turn into robots).

to be more specific you see some of the Constructicons in robot mode when they are searching for Sam and Mikalea in the shed/house thing. Also, if you look closesly at the Decepticon arrival , you also see Bonecrusher in vehicle mode.

to be more specific you see some of the Constructicons in robot mode when they are searching for Sam and Mikalea in the shed/house thing. Also, if you look closesly at the Decepticon arrival , you also see Bonecrusher in vehicle mode.

Yes, exactly. Bonecrusher surviving the first movie isn't necessarily impossible. Other Transformers were shown to be decapitated and still survive (Frenzy), and Bonecrusher's remains are never seen after the freeway battle (they aren't shown being dumped into the ocean at the end). As for Devastator and the Constructicons, it is entirely possible (and plausible) that the vehicles that make up Devastator are NOT the same ones that are seen fighting as robots in the other scenes. There are a BUNCH of Decepticon protoforms that fall to Earth just before the battle, certainly enough to account for two complete sets of construction vehicles. And we already know that at in at least two diferent cases, more than one Decepticon scanned similar vehicles (Blackout and Grindor both scanned similar helicoptors, and one part of Devastator is the same type of excavator as Demolisher that Optimus Prime destroyed at the beginning of the movie, although their colors are opposite of each other).

Yes, exactly. Bonecrusher surviving the first movie isn't necessarily impossible. Other Transformers were shown to be decapitated and still survive (Frenzy), and Bonecrusher's remains are never seen after the freeway battle (they aren't shown being dumped into the ocean at the end). As for Devastator and the Constructicons, it is entirely possible (and plausible) that the vehicles that make up Devastator are NOT the same ones that are seen fighting as robots in the other scenes. There are a BUNCH of Decepticon protoforms that fall to Earth just before the battle, certainly enough to account for two complete sets of construction vehicles. And we already know that at in at least two diferent cases, more than one Decepticon scanned similar vehicles (Blackout and Grindor both scanned similar helicoptors, and one part of Devastator is the same type of excavator as Demolisher that Optimus Prime destroyed at the beginning of the movie, although their colors are opposite of each other).

Sounds like a stretch to think multiple robots would take on virtually identical forms, save the twins. No need for excuses, they screwed up and Bay knows it.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!