Transformers 3 [spoiler] news/rumours

Post by **Blackjack** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:41 am

SPOILER! (select to read)
Elita is dead (until they next revive her again, she's cheated death twice now, that bitch) but Chromia and Arcee survived, apparently wounded. Why Barber loves them so much, I have no effing clue.

Regardless, screw the Arcee sisters! Here be new TV Spot, 'Biggest Adventure':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSMcFVk6 ... r_embedded

Confirms Wheelie's role in the third movie. Dog-riding FTW! Also,

SPOILER! (select to read)
LAZORBEEEEK

I EXCITED

glazios · Post by **glazios** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:57 pm

Linkin Park's new "Iridescent" video shows us the first imagery of

SPOILER! (select to read)
Megatron's transformation. You see it around the 2min30sec mark.

'Iridescent' on MTV UK

SPOILER! (select to read)
Hmm... there's something about that transformation sequence that's different to all his other, past transformations. I'm not entirely sure what it is, but to me it seems... I dunno... kinda slow. Careful. All his past transformations by comparison have been swift, frenetic...violent. This one isn't. Plot point, maybe?

Also, really digging the way he reaches up to pull that hood down over his head just as he finishes transforming.

I'm not really a fan of this song. Or their new album, actually... For me their music has drifted away from where they started. The song fits the feel of the film, don't get me wrong..., but as music, it's just not for me.

Times change, sure, and music changes with them... but Linkin Park have changed their music just a little bit too much. I preferred them during the days of Hybrid Theory and Meteora, and maybe even Minutes to Midnight in some places. But not this new stuff - it's a step too far away from who they were when they began.

Post by **Blackjack** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:16 am

With little more than 20 days to the big event, TV spots are raining from the sky.

Cover Up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PtgkJ49 ... r_embedded

praetorian · Post by **praetorian** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:39 pm

All trailers, teasers, and (thirteen!) TV spots here in HD:

http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2011/ ... railer.php

Spoilers abound, obviously.

I've watched them all (and seriously wish that I hadn't). I feel like I'm going to be disappointed because it seems like I've seen most of the action shots in the whole film; the only thing missing is the plot to link it all together.

Summerhayes · Post by **Summerhayes** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:14 pm

I was thinking of finding all the TV spots and doing that, but you've put me off. I don't want to end up knowing the whole film like with ROTF.

Jesus, its only a week away! I should find a midnight opening and book a ticket.

Edit: looks like I can watch it Tuesday night at 9pm . . . excited!

The cinema lists it as 1 hour 39 minutes- is it just me or does that seem a tad short, compared to the last one?

JDandCoke7 · Post by **JDandCoke7** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:22 pm

Summerhayes wrote: The cinema lists it as 1 hour 39 minutes- is it just me or does that seem a tad short, compared to the last one?

I suspect it should say 139 minutes (so 2 hours 19mins) rather than 1hr 39m. Bay's explosions last longer than that...

Brimstone · Post by **Brimstone** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:21 pm

No...it's 99 minutes according to Cinemark. What the hell? Not even going to give me two hours of entertainment for my $20 it costs to see a freaking movie these days?

This one is going to feel like the odd man out. That, and this doesn't bode well...I have yet to see an "epic" movie clock in under the 2 hour mark and be good.

(of course there's been plenty over the 2 hour mark that were bad...I'm just sayin'...I'm already worried)

JDandCoke7 · Post by **JDandCoke7** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:34 pm

hmm, according to Vue Cinemas here in UK (http://new.myvue.com/latest-movies/info ... he-moon-3d), its running at 154 mins.

Someone's wrong somewhere...

Afterthought: Is there a difference in length between 3D and 2D versions? I can't see it'd make a big difference between the running times though, so not expecting that to be an explanation, just curious?

Brimstone · Post by **Brimstone** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:39 pm

I was just about to mention that.

http://transformerslive.blogspot.com/20 ... -time.html

These guys say 157 minutes (from frame 1 to the first frame of the credits). They had a lot of other information too...like length (in feet) of the film. Not sure who to believe.

I don't know about a difference in length between 3D and 2D. Can't imagine it'd be an hour difference though. I heard once that IMAX had to be shorter (max running time like 1:45 or something like that), but I'm pretty sure that if that was once true, it isn't any longer.

JDandCoke7 · Post by **JDandCoke7** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:47 pm

I guess we just have to wait and see - I'd be surprised at it being <120mins though.

See IMDB has a bunch of "reviews" up already...

Summerhayes · Post by **Summerhayes** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:50 am

Brimstone wrote: 157 minutes

That sounds more likely. And more to my liking . . .

Post by **inflatable dalek** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:15 pm

Perhaps the absence of lengthy slow motion Fox jiggle cut the running time down?

Summerhayes · Post by **Summerhayes** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:31 am

Its just been replaced with a slow-motion Huntingdon-Whitely jiggle.