Leonard Nimoy Joins Transformers: Dark of the Moon Voice Cast | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Leonard Nimoy Joins Transformers: Dark of the Moon Voice Cast March 31, 2011

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Celebrity,Nimoy,Sci-Fi , trackback

Leonard Nimoy, Star Trek’s perennial Spock, continues to remain un-retired with news today that he is returning to another sci-fri franchise. According EW, Nimoy will be lending his voice to this summer’s Transformers: Dark of the Moon. More details below.  

 

Nimoy Prime returns to Transformers

According to Entertainment Weekly, Leonard Nimoy has joined the voice cast of Michael Bay’s Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Nimoy will be voicing Sentinel Prime, the predecessor of Optimus Prime whose wrecked body was found crash-landed on the moon in 1969 (as seen in the teaser trailer below). According to EW, Sentinal Prime will be brought back to Earth and will take the form of a fire engine "in the movie’s massive, climactic battle through Chicago."


Nimoy returning to Transformers to voice Sentinel Prime

This will not be Leonard Nimoy’s first time with a Transformers film. He provided the voice for Galvatron in the 1986 animated film The Transformers: The Movie. According to the report director Michael Bay considered bringing Nimoy on board for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, but he was concerned he couldn’t afford the veteran actor. EW quotes Bay discussing Nimoy’s other connection to Transformers:

"I was too scared to ask him,” the director says. “Plus, he’s married to Susan Bay, who’s a cousin of mine. So I had to be careful. I’ve met him at family functions. But he told me, ‘I would be honored. I’m glad to be back!’”

The third Transformers film (and first without Star Trek scribes Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman) opens July 1. Here is the teaser trailer.

 

Comments

1. captain_neill - March 31, 2011

Great to hear Leonard will be doing a voice in the next Transformers film.

But this also now puts me in a difficult position, I had my heart set on not going to see Transformers 3 because the second one was apile of crap and one of the worst films of all time in my opinion.

Now Leonard is in the film and I think I might try it out.

2. I'm Dead Jim - March 31, 2011

Great! Did they design Sentinel prime to resemble Nimoy a little? I can almost see it.

3. Ivory - March 31, 2011

Glad to see Mr Nimoy’s 50th ‘retirement’ was short lived. He sure works a lot for a guy in retirement…Now let’s get him and Shatner on screen as Kirk and Spock one more time!!!

4. Brian from OR - March 31, 2011

From Galvatron to Sentinel Prime really excited to hear Leonard Nimoy being in Transformers again. So what you will of Michael Bay or the Transformer movies, but I love them.

5. Phil - March 31, 2011

No script from Orci and Kurtzman? So we won’t be treated to Shif LeBouf running under Sentinel Prime and yelling “over here, under the robot scrotum!!?

Three months till opening, and still casting voice talent. Hmmmm…

6. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - March 31, 2011

Great news to hear that Mr Nimoy is back with the Transformers. Looking forward to seeing it even more. Now. We need the Shat and Nimoy as Kirk and Spock one more time!!!!!

7. Shannon Nutt - March 31, 2011

Leonard, what are you doing “slumming” in a Michael Bay movie? I’ve actually heard him mention in the past his wife was related to Michael Bay, but he never got offered anything…so maybe Michael heard that and decided to pick up the phone.

8. John from Cincinnati - March 31, 2011

Next up for Nimoy; the voice of Smaug in The Hobbit.

You heard it here first!

9. Brian from OR - March 31, 2011

#5 Phil- casting voices this late in a movie is not unusual. Geoffrey Rush was just cast to voice Tomar-Re in Green Lantern and the movie is set for June.

10. Anthony Pascale - March 31, 2011

7 did you read the article?

11. keachick - March 31, 2011

Good for Leonard Nimoy.

Actually I have a family member who, on a couple of occasions, has *complained* that he has never been busier since he “retired”. True.

#2 Yes. I thought that too.

#5 “running under Sentinel Prime and yelling “over here, under the robot scrotum!!?”
Really? LOL Dam, I missed that bit. Gotta love the OK humour…

12. etter_1701 - March 31, 2011

Why nimoy? Bay-formers are garbage! the g1 was way better and galvatron was pure awesome. slightly dissappointed…

13. captain_neill - March 31, 2011

I really did have my heart set on boycotting Transformers 3, still trying to wash the second one away from my mind.

And the scary thing is Transformers 2 is number 15 in thehighest grossing films of all time. How does this work?

And before anyone jumps down my throat, that was a rhetorical question.

With Leonard in there I want to catch his voice on the film cause I love Leonard.

It is also because of Leonard I am beginning to relent and want to try Fringe.

This seems to happen when one of my fav actors appears in something I am not interested in.

14. Phil - March 31, 2011

@9. I did not know that, I learn something new every day. Thanks!!

@11. Rent Revenge of the Fallen and fast forward to the end. Truely a cringe inducing moment.

15. Keachick - March 31, 2011

We have both Transformer movies on DVD. I have three children. It is a kiddult movie. Why would or should any of you expect it to be anything more than that? Let the movies be that. Why, doesn’t anyone like or have kids here? Actually, I am grateful because, without those small but grand minds, I probably would not have discovered and enjoyed characters/shows like, eg Shrek or Spongebob Squarepants! Ease up on what is essentially kiddult entertainment. I mean, seriously?…

16. MJ - March 31, 2011

Brett Favre comes out of retirement again?

The only thing missing here is Nimoy doing Wrangler Jeans commercials.

:-) LOL

17. sean - March 31, 2011

I didn’t have any problem erasing the second Transformers from my mind, as it made absolutely no sense and was generally awful.

18. Remington Steele - March 31, 2011

I’m bloody delighted with this news!!

19. Dee - lvs moon' surface - March 31, 2011

Anthony Pascale … is having a busy day and fun here, for sure! LOL and +LOL

20. Dee - lvs moon' surface - March 31, 2011

And yes…. great that Mr. Nimoy is back…. :-) :-)

21. Phil - March 31, 2011

15. Oh, I have kids. I’m sick to death of Spongbob, and if I didn’t have to explain the humor in Shrek, I didn’t. ROTF was just packed with cringe inducing moments, and it had nothing to do with kids being in the audience.

22. Mantastic - March 31, 2011

Unfortunately, I think we all know that this movie is still going to be unbelievably terrible.

23. dayxday - March 31, 2011

Cool!

24. vantheman77 - March 31, 2011

Leonard has done voice work for the 1986 Transformers cartoon movie as Galvatron and he’s back in the Transformers universe in this new movie as Sentinel Prime. Also, he’s related to Michael Bay through his wife, Susan. It’s nice to see Leonard doing Transformers again and I think it’s going to be a great family venture between them.

25. Vultan - March 31, 2011

#15

The problem now is that many of these movies and tv shows are made by adults who think they know what kids like. They target these bathroom humor-filled “entertainment” pieces specifically towards that demographic. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with watching that sort of—crap—if you’re into, uh, crap.

But it is curious that the original Looney Tunes were made as filler material for theatrical movies decades ago—for adults! Yet, kids still loved them. Still do. A more recent example can be found in Batman:The Animated Series. A dark, intelligently written cartoon show that appealed to both kids and adults.

So, it can be done (with style and taste).

26. Keachick - March 31, 2011

#25 Well, these adults DO know what kids like (and some adults as well) and that is why these films do well. I don’t recall much in the way of bathroom humour in the Transformer movies. Besides, there is only so much low-brow humour one can put into a PG rated movie.

I do recall seeing an animated Batman movie and that was a dark film. None of us liked it. Style and taste? Hmmm
There is also something called opinion.

27. Phil - March 31, 2011

26. ROTF was a well earned PG-13. Age appropiate material is the issue with this, as opposed to Hot Tub Time Machine and movies of that genre. Because of the toy tie in, ROTF was aimed at a younger audience, and I’d of not recommended it for anyone under 10. I would not have wanted to explain what a scrotum was to a little kid, or why the robot kept dry humping Megan Fox, let alone why any robot would need to imitate a reproductive act in general. The stupid hip hop robots just played off of stereotyping (yeah, it was questionable in The Phantom Menace, too).

28. Rocket Scientist - March 31, 2011

He’s not really retired…as long as we employ him.

29. Vultan - March 31, 2011

#26

—Well, just as long as they make plenty of money doing it. That’s all that matters.

—Big difference between a Batman movie (yeah, there’s been quite a few of those) and the animated “series,” as in TV show.

—Oh, and thanks for letting me know there’s such a thing called opinion—on a COMMENT board. Brilliant.

30. Dr. Cheis - March 31, 2011

When they announced Peter Cullen as the voice of Optimus Prime way back before the first movie, I was really hoping Nimoy would be Megatron. I’m glad to hear he’s involved in the third one. He’ll be great I’m sure.

(For those who don’t know, after Megatron was “killed” he was turned into Galvatron in the movie when Nimoy originally voiced the character, although I don’t think he provided his voice when Galvatron reappeared in the series after the movie).

I’m pretty sure Nimoy doesn’t consider voice acting to be the same as regular acting, so he’s not really “out-of-retirement” because of this.

31. Greg2600 - March 31, 2011

Booooo Leonard! Why be associated with this crud of a film franchise?

32. GaryP - March 31, 2011

Nimoy WAS also the voice of Unicron the Planet in the 1986 animated version, but only during the second half of the movie. The character’s voice was played by none other than Orson Welles. He died halfway through the making, so Leonard took over the part as he was also voicing the character Galvatron. If you listen closely, you can hear the difference.

33. Phil - March 31, 2011

31. Greg2600 – March 31, 2011

Paycheck. Family favor, a close second…

34. New Horizon - March 31, 2011

30. Dr. Cheis – March 31, 2011
I was hoping Frank Welker would have been the voice of Megatron in the Transformer movies. He is and always shall be Megatron. It was a huge disrespect on Bay’s part to recast Megatron when Welker is such a huge voice talent.

35. MJ - March 31, 2011

I will say that it was fun seeing the first Transformers movies with my kids, but I was rather embarrassed to see the 2nd movie with them given some of the content. Plus the 1st movie had more charm and fun to it, and an OK story. The 2nd movie was a cluster-f**k on all accounts.

36. MJ - March 31, 2011

It would be cool if they could somehow work Nimoy’s silly Bilbo Baggins song into the end credits of one of the new Hobbit movies. I was disappointed that Jackson couldn’t work Zepplin’s “Battle of Evermore” into the end credits on one of the LOTR movies.

37. jas_montreal - March 31, 2011

Now i have a reason to watch Transformers 3.

38. Razorgeist - March 31, 2011

@ 32 GaryP

Incorrect The voice director later confirmed that all of Unicron’s voice acting was done by Orson Welles.

39. Dr. Cheis - March 31, 2011

34. New Horizon – March 31, 2011
Bay said he had considered Welker for the part, and had given him a voice test (this is mentioned in a DVD special feature I think). He felt that Welker’s voice didn’t feel right for Bay’s Megatron given the size and bulk of his version compared to the original, which other than being kind of tall was actually somewhat slim for a Transformer. And he thought it wouldn’t have been appropriate to ask Welker to try to do a different voice, so he hired a different guy.

Frank Welker did do the voice of Megatron for the merchandising though, such as the video game.

I agree with Bay on this one. I can’t imagine that high-pitched voice coming from such a giant machine, although I don’t much care for the gaint-sized Megatron in general.

40. Captain Karl - March 31, 2011

who retires more, Brett Favre or Leonard Nimoy? Let’s just call it retirement-lite…semi-retired…retired unless something really good comes along….retired until all outstanding favors have been called?…

Actually, I say, more power to him…if he wants to work, then work, if he feels like kicking back with the family, then kick away…I think Mr. Nimoy has earned that privilege.

41. Polly - March 31, 2011

Ah well this changes things a bit. so disappointed after the second movie, and was dead set on NOT seeing this one.

But Leonard Nimoy is “in” it.

Hey, sure, why not.

42. Nathan - March 31, 2011

This is nice. I’m still not going to pay money to see the Transformers movie if I can help it, though.

Good to see Mr. Nimoy still going strong, though.

43. Capt. of the USS Anduril - March 31, 2011

Well, with no writer’s strike bogging down this movie, it’ll hopefully be a tighter scripted movie. If Paramount hadn’t been so keen on having two summer blockbusters that year, they could’ve pushed back Transformers 2 and made a GOOD movie out of it, but no.

But this…Transformers 3 just became awesome.

44. Jim Nightshade - March 31, 2011

Nimoy did a voice for the land of the lost movie-it was the only 5 second in that movie that didnt suck–i expect the same from transdefoamers 3

45. DJT - March 31, 2011

Oh heck, YEAH!

46. Chris Pike - March 31, 2011

with a voice like that it’s a crime not to hear him more!

47. Cap'n Chris - March 31, 2011

No.39 Frank Welker currently voices Megatron on the Orci/Kurtzman Transformers Prime series. The voice he does is pretty much the same voice as Hugo Weavings, maybe even a little more guttural.

Frank Welker is one of the greatest voice actors of all time for a reason. Bay just wanted a mainstream recognised role in the voice despite what he said about wanting to hire Welker. At least he corrected this mistake somewhat and brought him into the second despite it being diabolical! I have high hopes for the second now O/K are off the job and no writers strike is involved.

48. Phobos - April 1, 2011

Well this is just fantastic news. :)

49. jim - April 1, 2011

One thing I think should be pointed out as a counter argument over the quality of the Transformer films is that ROTF was almost entirely made during the writers strike. Michael Bay took a lot of flack for the script of ROTF and a lot more work has gone into the DOTM script. Even MB thinks ROTF was shit. I have been and always will be a TF fan and I watch all the forums and news and I have to say the new film is shaping up to be very good indeed IMHO.

Let’s take a moment and consider whether it is truly fair to judge the MB TF Universe on the strength of the ROTF film as it was undoubtedly better than anything we could do and was a good effort considering the circumstances.

THE MB TF Universe, as far as I am aware, is actually a co-operation with Hasbro to create a single TF Universe which could, one day, match the quality of the Star Trek and Star Wars universes. So what we are witnessing is the birth pangs of a whole new era for Transformers and I for one am absolutely pumped

50. Niall Johnson - April 1, 2011

Hmmm…. Dark Side of the Moon is to be released before too long… Do I smell an April fool’s prank?

51. trekker 5 - April 1, 2011

so much 4 bing retired! i couldnt b more happy! i love nimoy! #6 i argee, shatner&nimoy 1 more time!

52. Darrell Kaiser - April 1, 2011

Haha! Nice try.

53. Kamdan - April 1, 2011

Haha! Nice try, fellas.

54. Shannon Nutt - April 1, 2011

10 – yes, I read the article, did YOU read my post? I was referring to the fact that NIMOY has mentioned in the past the relationship to Bay. The article refers to BAY mentioning the relationship.

55. Danpaine - April 1, 2011

13. captain_neill – March 31, 2011

“It is also because of Leonard I am beginning to relent and want to try Fringe.”

From reading your posts, I believe I’m around your age, Capt., (44). Fringe is a great show, and Nimoy is excellent in it. He has great chemistry with pretty much everyone he has a scene with. Highly recommended.

56. Keachick - April 1, 2011

#27 So your son (?) does not know that his balls or testicles sit in a sack called a scrotum? My sons do/did. It is called parents educating their children on what the correct names are for parts of the body! So you call this film out big time because you were “embarrassed”, “squeamish” about the possibility of having to explain the basics of human biology to a small, but curious child? Oh dear… At least, slang was not used. Now that does piss me off.

It was a case of the autobots copying what they saw some humans getting up to and thinking this is how to behave. These robots were capable of learning, adding to their programming, but it was often clumsy and lacking in context. They were aliens after all.

And no, it is not just as long as they make money. I do not have that attitude at all!

We have had a lot of cats over time. Several years ago, we were inundated with strays. A couple of times my young sons got to see some genuine feline humping; they asked; we told them. It is called LIFE. My children, including my then seven year old daughter, saw/sees how male guinea pigs behave when they get near female guinea pigs, and she also notices how much bigger and swollen the male genitalia become as well. Once again, this is a natural healthy fact of life. (We keep the males and females separated as we do not have the room for more babies and more importantly, after a certain age, it is very dangerous for an older female to breed, esp. if she has not already had babies – another fact of life).

57. Phil - April 1, 2011

56…Wow. How to respond. Well, you make a lot of assumptions that are completely, totally wrong about me and what I said, so I won’t. Can’t (or won’t) comment on the topic, so attack the person.
Have a nice day…

58. Vultan - April 1, 2011

#56

Nothing wrong with teaching biology to kids, but when film-makers use it to make cheap jokes, well, it comes off as rather… cheap. Everyone knows their body parts, but it doesn’t mean they want to hear about them in a sci-fi/fantasy film. Shouldn’t that genre concentrate on the UN-familiar—strange new worlds and ideas that make you think about the bigger picture? At least that’s what I think science fiction—and fiction in general—should be.

C’mon, do we really want a society that holds the lowest common denominator in the highest regard?

59. MJ - April 1, 2011

@57. Phil, I agree totally. There was some crude sex stuff (which you mentioned) in Transformers 2 that surprised the hell of me given my then 7-year old daughter and 6-year old son were sitting next to me. Especially the sex stuff with the Robot. I DID NOT expect to see that in a Transformers movie!

Keachick, sorry, but you fired a dud on this one. And you can fire off a multi-page response to us if you like, but my mind will remain unchanged.

60. Phil - April 1, 2011

58. Apparently…

61. Pensive's Wetness - April 1, 2011

why are they telling us this now when the film is mostly complete? It is coming out this summer right? If so, why is Mr Nimoy getting press billing just now? perhaps someone else was casted for SPrime and Michael Bay & Co decided to add Mr Nimoy’s voice talent to lure in more potential ticket sales?

62. Keachick - April 1, 2011

#27 – ” I’d of not recommended it for anyone under 10. I would not have wanted to explain what a scrotum was to a little kid, or why the robot kept dry humping Megan Fox, let alone why any robot would need to imitate a reproductive act in general.”

Phil – No, I was commenting on what you said about yourself. See above quote, made by yourself. I was not assuming anything.

I then went on to explain what I understood to be the nature of autobots. I quote myself for your convenience:
“It was a case of the autobots copying what they saw some humans getting up to and thinking this is how to behave. These robots were capable of learning, adding to their programming, but it was often clumsy and lacking in context. They were aliens after all.”

The *funny* aspect of this is that my family have watched ROTF many times (husband, two boys and a girl) and not once did they mention this line made by “Shia LaBoeuf” as being funny, bad, un – whatever… Either they did not hear it (I didn’t – but then I have not watched it as often as they have) or treated it as a ho-hum line. It is quite likely that my daughter just heard the word “scotum” and thought it was another of those big adult words that get used a lot in movies…no big deal. I recall hearing them laugh at various times at the antics of the autobots.

“Everyone knows their body parts, but it doesn’t mean they want to hear about them in a sci-fi/fantasy film. Shouldn’t that genre concentrate on the UN-familiar—strange new worlds and ideas that make you think about the bigger picture? At least that’s what I think science fiction—and fiction in general—should be.”

Really? Interesting. Think about how life on earth, in particular the humans and how they relate to each other (sexually and otherwise), must appear to a race of autobots coming from a very different world. It is clear that they can learn, imitate, already have social interactions between themselves of their own and clearly have an appearance of an anatomy that closely resembles humans (particularly human males). For the autobots, much of what they see is UN-familiar. They are in a strange new world, where ideas and behaviours probably do make them think about a bigger picture (being on earth automatically makes their picture a lot bigger)…Maybe this was an attempt to show how autobots perceived things and how they tried to relate to what they saw and heard. Relating to another in what we would regard as sexual is something unfamiliar to them, so got their attention.

I have no idea what the writers’ intentions were when writing the story. Ask Bob Orci. He comes here sometimes. However, there does seem to be more than one way of looking at a story, at least for me, there is.

How do you define “lowest common denominator”?

63. Phil - April 1, 2011

62. You assumed plenty in your response, and I’m not going to get into a pointless debate over your misperception of my parenting skills. My point, is that there was material in that movie that was not age appropiate. You may disagree if you wish, but that doe not invalidate any point of view that does not agree with yours.

64. Vultan - April 1, 2011

#62

Yes, I actually agree with you that it was the point the robots perceived humanity from a different perspective, and it is always enlightening to hear an outsider’s opinions of a society; it’s something Star Trek has always done very well. However, don’t you think it would have been more creative—and interactive for the audience—for them to do it in a more subtle way? The foundation of good storytelling is “show don’t tell.” If the film-maker leaves us with a question, to infer rather than blatantly flash before our eyes, then the results are always more rewarding—for audience and artist alike.

As for the lowest common denominator, I’m not talking mathematics here. The standard definition in this context is: the most basic, least sophisticated level of taste, sensibility, or opinion among a group of people. In other words: “Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen.”

65. Vultan - April 1, 2011

By the way, if you’d like to see how a proper alien-observes-humanity movie is done, watch “Starman,” starring Jeff Bridges and Karen Allen.

66. Phil - April 1, 2011

64.
The observation has been made about the robots imitating human behaviour – okay, as these are smart beings, why not create art, music, architecture, research, song, poetry, dance, or anything would indicate that in beauty, there is hope. Instead, we got well hung, horny robots. Talk about setting the bar low…

67. Phil - April 1, 2011

65. Vultan – April 1, 2011

Though it was a bit condesending, you could probably include “The Day the Earth Stood Still” on that list. Starman was an excellent movie.

68. Vultan - April 1, 2011

#67

Agreed. Klaatu was a bit condescending with his message, but it’s still a great movie—the original, that is. And whud’ya know! It had an iconic giant robot in it that didn’t behave like a juvenile idiot. Didn’t have to say a word for that matter.

69. MJ - April 1, 2011

@62 “How do you define “lowest common denominator”?

Well I know it when I see it. Crude bathroom and sexual humor and scenes in a movie franchise build on a kids cartoon certainly make the cut.

70. MJ - April 1, 2011

@63 “62. You assumed plenty in your response, and I’m not going to get into a pointless debate over your misperception of my parenting skills. My point, is that there was material in that movie that was not age appropiate. You may disagree if you wish, but that doe not invalidate any point of view that does not agree with yours.”

Agreed Phil. Unintentionally, I am sure, Keachick’s email came across like to lecture to Phil on how he should be raising his kids. Providing opinions, assumptions and lecturing on how any of us should raise our kids is really not appropriate for these boards, especially if it is a one-way conversation.

71. MJ - April 1, 2011

@62 “I have no idea what the writers’ intentions were when writing the story. Ask Bob Orci. He comes here sometimes. However, there does seem to be more than one way of looking at a story, at least for me, there is.”

I do more that that:

Bob, assuming you wrote those portions of the script we are refering to, those were inapprpraite for kids and reduced my enjoyment of the film. You blew it, my friend.

72. Keachick - April 1, 2011

Since when do you know what a “proper” alien is like? The starman is one kind of alien and the autobots another. Anyway, why does it bother you that an alien species might be well hung and apparently horny? How is showing what APPEARS to us as overt sexuality “setting the bar low”? Possibly most kids, along with some adults, may find these scenes funny or a bit strange, but it is all part of the film and no big deal.

All male creatures have scrotums. There is nothing “low brow” about this. You could ask (many have), why show it? Why say it? You could just as easily ask, why not show it? Why not say it? Is there something intrinsically wrong with a scrotum?

Actually, the autobots do seem to have the ability to design themselves so that they can appear like an ordinary motor vehicle, aeroplane, big rig, scorpion etc. I would think that there is a little in the way of imitation and possible a good deal of “architectural” thought and application there. The autobots have not been on earth that long but they do know all about humanity’s weapon systems. Oh well, just as long as it is not about learning to understand/copy, however clumsily, physical interactions between males and females…

73. MJ - April 1, 2011

@72. “All male creatures have scrotums.”

Huh? We don’t have the slightest idea of what a true alien reproductive system would like like. Is their some “universal scrotum constant” that I did not read about in my exobiology research? LOL

74. MJ - April 1, 2011

@72 “Anyway, why does it bother you that an alien species might be well hung and apparently horny? How is showing what APPEARS to us as overt sexuality “setting the bar low”?”

You make this movie sound like a serious science fiction treatment tackling alien concepts. Sorry, but it is kids cartoon turned into a Michael Bay action movie franchise. So discussing this like it is serious treatment of alien views of human sexually is laughable at best. Those scenes were in the movie simply to get laughs (and generate dollars!) out of the teen-to-twenty-some single male audience. You are kidding yourself if you think that those scenes were in there for serious science fiction reasons. Yes, of course the bar was set low here.

75. Keachick - April 1, 2011

I was not intentionally lecturing anyone on how to raise their kids. I do not see the comments in this regard as fair. The fact is the Transformers movies have a PG-13 rating, which states as regards ROTF:

“Motion Picture Rating (MPAA)
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, language, some crude and sexual material, and brief drug material.”

Hence, although anyone of any age can see this movie, it does mean that a child under 13 does need to have some guidance from a parent or other adult guardian.

I consider bloody violence and the high number of films showing whole cities being destroyed by alien invaders, natural disasters, whatever, as being sensationalist, cruel and somewhat perverse. There seem to be a lot more of these types of movies around and they all seem to be appealing to the “lowest common denominator” as well, imo. However, most people, even here, appear enthusiastic about them, despite the violence, the mayhem, the wholesale destruction (which would occur to so much life and not just human life, as well as destruction of property) that these movies portray…

Sorry, just don’t understand the double standards here.

76. MJ - April 1, 2011

FYI — from Michael Bay himself talking about the new movie as compared to ROTF:

“So I’m excited about this movie. It’s more serious. I got rid of the dorky comedy… the dorkiness is not there. Dork-free Transformers….It was a f**ked scenario all the way around, it wasn’t fair to the writer, it wasn’t fair to me, it wasn’t fair to anybody.”

There you have it. Bay himself knows he blew it.

77. MJ - April 1, 2011

@75, “Hence, although anyone of any age can see this movie, it does mean that a child under 13 does need to have some guidance from a parent or other adult guardian.”

Agreed. That is why, despite protests from my kids, we did not see the movie a 2nd time, and why I refused to purchase the DVD. (unlike the first movie, which we saw twice in the theater and the kids watch regularly on DVD).

Especially in regards to young boys, it is extremely difficult to tell that they cannot see a Transformers movie based on kids cartoon and toys, etc. The studio know this, and yet they still put this sex and bathroom humor in the movie nonetheless. I don’t think it was necessary to the movie, and nothing here in these posts is changing my opinion on that.

78. Vultan - April 1, 2011

#75

No double standard here. I can’t speak for others—you might want to try that yourself, by the way—but I would like for film-makers to cut back on graphic violence and gore along with the crude sexual and toilet humor. Not just in kids movies, but movies across the board.

Honestly, I can’t ever recall walking out of a theater and thinking: Man, that was a good movie… but it really could’ve used some scrotum references and potty jokes and a bloody decapitation or two and a few lewd gestures for good measure. Then it would’ve been perfect.

Sigh….

79. MJ - April 1, 2011

@75. “I was not intentionally lecturing anyone on how to raise their kids. I do not see the comments in this regard as fair.:

Yes, I am sorry I had to bring this up as I know you well enough to have not meant this. However, this is what you said to Phil:

“So your son (?) does not know that his balls or testicles sit in a sack called a scrotum? My sons do/did. It is called parents educating their children on what the correct names are for parts of the body! So you call this film out big time because you were “embarrassed”, “squeamish” about the possibility of having to explain the basics of human biology to a small, but curious child? Oh dear…”

Can you see how this might come across in the wrong way to us?

80. Vultan - April 1, 2011

#72

I meant proper alien movie, not alien. Proper meaning well-made, with some actual thought and care put into the script and performances. Then again, Starman’s script probably wasn’t written with a crayon.

Carry on.

81. MJ - April 1, 2011

@80. I love Orci, but that is a script (ROTF) I’m sure he would also like to forget. In comparison, his work on Xena looks like the screenplay to “Citizen Kane.” :-)

82. Greg2600 - April 1, 2011

Michael Bay simply doesn’t get it. Transformers was special because it starred robots. His garbage stars humans, with the robots as a side show. The special effects are nauseating. It’s disgraceful.

83. Keachick - April 2, 2011

The Transformer movies are not perhaps the best films of their kind, but they are not as bad as some would have me and others believe. The first one was definitely better. They are kidDULT movies. However, I don’t think my eight year old daughter, nor my older sons, have been somehow damaged psychologically by seeing TF:ROTF a number of times (with all that it contains). Time will tell, I guess.

I guess I don’t quite see things in quite the same way as other people do sometimes. Anyway, I do apologise if I came across as seem a little snarky and overbearing.

84. FFN - April 2, 2011

34. New Horizon – March 31, 2011

At the end of the day, it wasn’t really that big a deal to Transformers fans or to Welker. Welker seems to be into a Transformers gig mainly so he can work with Peter Cullen. In the late 90s, he passed on a cameo appearance as G1 Megatron on Beast Wars (generally considered to be the best televisual Transformers series) and recently in the Transformers Animated series.

Besides, Welker’s voice for G1 Megatron doesn’t really fit this version of Megatron. Listen to his work in the movie video games – it’s not a great fit at all. In the current Transformers Prime cartoon, Welker changed Megatron’s voice to make it more subtle and intelligent, and less cartoonishly shouty.

47. Cap’n Chris – March 31, 2011

Eh. Welker’s voice on TF Prime is still recognisably a Welker Megatron, but less high pitched and whiney. As for Weaving, I think we can give Bay the benefit of the doubt that he simply preferred Weaving as Megatron, because the movies barely made any publicity over it. Heck, the announcement was made via the Sector Seven alternate reality game site that most people weren’t even aware of.

82. Greg2600 – April 1, 2011

Sure, if it was a cartoon aimed specifically at kids. But as a movie, it needs to reach a wider audience, 90% of whom don’t know what Transformers is/are only peripherally aware of Transformers, and they might be into the film as a scifi film with the gimmick being CGI robots. Even the sheer majority of 20-30 something people into pop culture would have consigned Transformers to a dusty corner of their childhood memories and didn’t know it had been going on continuously with various toylines with accompanying cartoons and comics for almost 25 years (at the time of the 2007 movie’s announcement). To be blunt: These movies aren’t your Transformers, but if you forgot Transformers a long time ago anyway, then it’s hardly the franchise’s fault for moving on.

85. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - April 2, 2011

@2

Definately looks like Nimoy

86. skyjedi - April 5, 2011

Another Epic Fail for bay, Nimoy should be playing Galvatron.

87. Yammer - April 6, 2011

@84

The Transformers movies compare interestingly with the Trek movies. Besides the O/K writing connection you have the update in visual glitz — fans and detractors of the new Enterprise bridge have made points that could be applied to the new transform modes in which about five skijillion little flaps of metal whirl around. William Shatner is left out…Frank Welker is left out. New Trek cast for commercial necessity reasons = all the Transformers are GM branded vehicles.

Not that the final movies are similar experiences. I find the Transformers movies exhausting rather than exhilarating. They are highly padded with lengthy cutaways to the army and navy commanders uttering terse jargon. New Trek, IMO, is tight and flows amazingly. You never lose the emotional line. And the dialogue is crisp.

88. sirgalahad - June 11, 2012

always a great choice to add Mr. Leonard Spock Nimoy to any space oddyssy of space.
I felt Mr. Leonard Nimoy should have been asked to play in the movie with Clint Eastwood in “Space Cowboys” along the ranks with Mr. James Garner and Mr. Tommy Lee Jones. . .
Thanx for adding Mr. Leonard (Spock) Nimoy again.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.