Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

News Credits: 1014 · by **First Gen** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:23 pm

In an interview that was conducted by the Film School Rejects just days after the worldwide release of Transformers Revenge of the Fallen, film scribes Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman spoke about the plethora of projects they've been involved in and how they don't control every aspect of what happens in the films that they write.

An excerpt from the interview:
FLJ: ...I heard that the gold tooth was [Director Michael] Bay’s idea, but do you have anything to say to people who found The Twins offensive?

Orci: Number one, we sympathize. Yes, the gold tooth was not in the script. That’s true.

Kurtzman: It’s really hard for us to sit here and try to justify it. I think that would be very foolish, and if someone wants to be offended by it, it’s their right. We were very surprised when we saw it, too, and it’s a choice that was made. I think if anything it shows you that we don’t control every aspect of the movie.

FLJ: Were you offended by them?

Kurtzman: I wasn’t thrilled. I certainly wasn’t thrilled.

Orci: Same reaction. I’m not easily offended, but when I saw it, I thought, ‘Someone’s gonna write about that.’”

The rest of the interview really gives you an idea of just how bogged down the two writers were with the multiple projects they faced and how they tried to tackle each the best they could. You can view the entire interview by clicking here.

News Credits: 103 · by **Cyber Bishop** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:33 pm

Interesting read..

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:39 pm

I love how everyone involved with this movie seem to enjoy passing the blame around.

-edit-

And before anyone decides to turn this thread into a vehicle to bash Bay or bring up the racism debate again, just remember, Bay it seems is only responsible for the gold tooth, everything else was still the writers.

So I find it disappointing these two use the interview to highlight the gold tooth when people were getting "offended" over more than just the tooth.

If they truly sympathized they would have apologised for the whole characterisation of the twins, which is what people were offended over, the tooth is just a small aspect. Great way to deflect the blame guys!

by **SoulReaverprime** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:47 pm

Passing blame certainly seems to be the order of the day with this movie. Although I personally enjoyed the movie I thought about 15 minutes could've been cut out. But I find it interesting how these two guys "weren't thrilled" with some of the decisions made in the movie... Maybe that's why they claimed about 2 or 3 months back that they were NOT going to write the third installment?

by **Bouncy X** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:55 pm

i still dont get the big deal.

i personally had no problem with those two and i can see how someone might think they're stupid, pointless or something. but to actually call them offensive? wow...we see "wigger" kids in so many movies and tv shows (not to mention real life) and nobody cares, now two robots do it and its...

OH MY GOD THAT IS SO OFFENSIVE, HOW DARE THEY!!!!

people are just waaaaay too picky about this sorta crap. its just a movie, didnt like it then you never have to see it again. but to constantly harp and complain well that's just your problem. when i dislike things, i avoid them and never speak about them again....problem solved.

and sure my theater doesnt represent the world but a lot of people laughed at their antics and not just the kiddies. so this is just another case of blowing stuff outta proportion and making it seem like a bigger cause than it is.

i bet the people complaining here are some of the same people who accused The Passion of Christ of being "really gory" when in fact it barely was.

anyway i need to return this soap box to the store.

by **prowl123** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:01 pm

So,who put in the gold tooth? Whoever it is you really make me mad!

News Credits: 1 · by **YRQRM0** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:08 pm

I was more thrown back by Devastator's "testicles". They mocked a legendary character in my opinion...I was excited about his inclusion and then they just ruined him

News Credits: 1 · by **Kuribohfett** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Great this argument again. Since when is this new information? I remember reading this article the day the movie came out.

by **Cluggernugs** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:38 pm

I don't sympathize the viewers at all, to be offended by this is ridiculously stupid. People will try to find anything to cry about these days.

News Credits: 2 · by **Ultra Magnus** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:41 pm

I find this debate rather entertaining. It is Just a movie. However I do hope that someone at Hasbro, Paramount or somewhere decides to make the next movie a bit more tasteful and respectful to the mythos.

I couldn't believe they had Optimus say "Let's Roll" and then fly away...

:roll:

by **CommandrKetchup** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:54 pm

I dont know why they are apologizing for anything. The movie has broken all kinds of records and has made almost $400 million in only three weeks. They should be giving each other high fives. The PC nonsense has got to end.

by **CrabHeart** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:02 pm

i dont understand how it is offenceive. the tf movie made no mention that "skids and mudflap are going to be based on black people" they just made two thug characters. so the people who are truely raceist are the ones who think that haveing a gold toothed character must mean hes black.

News Credits: 1 · by **Dark Ops** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:10 pm

The only thing that really offended me about the movie is that Animated got canceled for that trash. And I /liked/ the first one.

News Credits: 2 · by **Cryo Prime** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:17 pm

good lord, why is this such a big issue. i found Skids and Mudflad funny as hell. i don't remember this much controversy over Jazz when he was labeled a "black transformer" and then was killed off. man people need to grow up. i have many black friends and they all didnt have a problem. and from what i understand its a group of white people who are offended? correct me if im wrong.

News Credits: 2 · by **First-Aid** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:24 pm

I still think this is more about culture than race. If you believe that what the Twins did and said were racist, then you are racist yourself- by stereotyping the culture they represented as exclusive to African Americans. Last time I checked, CULTURE and RACE are two different things. I'm not saying it wasn't a bit over the top, but I'm saying it wasn't racism.

One interesting note on that line: The new movie "G-Force" coming out has a guinea pig that acts in a similar manner (without the rudeness) as the Twins...and the guinea pig itself- Blaster- is a black guinea pig. You suppose we'll be seeing the same kind of complaint when that movie comes out?

by **Lockdown91** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:43 pm

well isnt that silly, in my opinion, it's being racist in saying "it's racist that skids has a golden tooth, stereotyping black people" because they're stereotyping people themselves, claiming that anyone with a gold tooth must be black. please, i have a golden tooth myself, people get them all the time, mostly to do with dentistry (such as myself) its called getting a crown

clearly skids has just gotten a crown

btw ive been looking on this site for well over a year now, looking for news on ROTF and only just right now decided to register, i dont know why i hadn't signed up yet since it only takes 2 seconds :S

News Credits: 3 · by **ShGarland_1383** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:50 pm

As far as actually being offended by anything, while I technically wasn't actually offended I had bigger problems with Wheelie mounting Mikaela's leg and Simmons'...um...ball bearings joke...than with the twins. (Those were just gross...) That being said, while I feel the twins weren't nearly as bad as I've seen them put over as being, they should have also been one hell of a lot better than they were.

News Credits: 8 · by **Megatron Wolf** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:09 pm

Um they're still partially to blame. They wrote the twins in the script. Hell they're to blame for most of the epic suckage in the film. It might not have been their idea but the wrote it in. Now id really like to know whos bright idea it was to have wheelie hump foxs leg for 5 min. That was worse then the Twins. The twins are annoying as hell but the wheelie thing (and the ball jokes) were the worst parts of all.

by **wingdarkness** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:22 pm

I could give a college course on reading between the lines based on this interview...Although a certain someone might have an E-Ulcer if I were to repeat this, but I'm in a small ulcer-giving mood...

Anyone who thinks Mike Bay lets the writers on his movies dictate things to him about what he ultimately wants, knows NOTHING about this man (I've written extensively on this in other threads)...The talk of the gold-tooth was the harbinger, or microcosm as you will of what Bay's directing style is really like...You think that's their only view on this? You think the "gold-teeth" are the only change Bay made to things they wrote? This man is known for not letting writers even on-set at times...I beg that if you are this naive, atleast be uncaring about it (That's only directed to those who apply)...

Wish I could be LOLing @ the people who are gonna just bypass the thoughts of the persons who wrote this movie they loved by saying it's still bull (The whole racial component regarding the twins--Not that it offended me personally though)...

@SoulReaverPrime - What other controversy has leaked amongst the staff? My catharsis is tingling :-?

...

News Credits: 1 · by **cybercat** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:44 pm

I think it's time I work my usual thread-killing magic. (No, I have no power, I'm just obnoxious).

I'm just a wee bit tired of people thinking that because they're 'offended' by something, that they must be immediately grovelled to. I see people (not here, but you know, in the real life with the great orange ball in the sky) who use the phrase 'I'm offended by that' as some sort of negotiating hammer.

I had a student who went to the Dean because a text I had the class read he found 'offensive'. It was _All Quiet on the Western Front_. He used his 'offended-ness' to demand an automatic A in the class. Yeah, that didn't work out so well for him.

Being offended never killed anyone. There are real problems and there is real bigotry in the world, but trying to pick this gold-tooth battle to fight the war on stereotypes is...completely ridiculous. Fight where the victory would actually count, maybe?

And honestly, I'd have a bit more respect for the writers if they had a backbone. If it's all Bay, stand up for yourselves; if it was partly you, take the frickin' credit, good *or* bad. This halvsie-walvsie stuff is pathetic.

HK, never mind testicles, do men have *spines* anymore?

News Credits: 1 · by **Solrac333** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:12 pm

So what if he had a gold tooth. Starscream has tattoos. Prime has flames, Megatron has a gimpy hand, Sideswipe has wheelfeet, Jetfire has a cane, Ravage has one eye, Devastator has two balls.

News Credits: 103 · by **Cyber Bishop** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:17 pm

omega666 wrote:Devastator has two balls.

I am sorry.. I Laughed so hard at this..

by **Joshua Vallse** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:20 pm

All I got from this article was,

Paramount GREEN LIT TRANSFORMERS 3!!!!!

Which means its moving forward per the studios request as i knew it would, which means they may be moving forward without Michael being they can't afford to loose a year if they wan to get this film out by 2011 at the least.

What I'm interested in now, being both the writers know about TF3 but are clearly not involved, is whats Dreamworks position is on the project being both Michael Bay and star Shia were apparently hand picked by Producer Steven Spielberg. And if Spielberg is being forced to move forward without Bay which might in turn effect if Shia would be involved with this project as well. As well as if Spielberg needs this franchise to keep Dreamworks afloat.

Verses Megan Fox, who I think will be more then involved in the film being her ties to Bay are less then her appearent ties to Paramount.

As for the writers and all this twin nonsense. I think the furthest direction they got from Michael was,
"I want two idot brothers who fight all the time for comedy relief, write them in the story somehow."

And so they did, not knowing what the brothers would end up being till they themselves viewed the artwork. I would argue what the brothers actually became was largely in part due to Michael directing the art staff and voice actors....which took the writers line, and fleshed them out more so during the pre-production process. Which is fine, I'm not mad at the writers for poor character development as a result of Directing. I'm mostly disappointed at why there wasn't a linear story and character development on key new characters or even old ones. I'm kind of sad the interview focused on an old controversal subject rather then the subject which has kept alot fo the debates here going, Plot holes and Critics reviews.

Laters,
Josh

by **syphonn** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:11 pm

Kurtzman: We feel really fortunate, and we’ve worked hard to make our directors feel like it’s a collaboration. Certainly, when you go into making a movie with Michael you know that Michael is a very particular kind of guy that wants to make a very particular kind of movie. When you try to push him out of that, it tends not to work. So I think the best thing we can do is to color between the lines. Once you accept that, the freedom is that you can throw out any and all suggestions within those parameters. So once you accept that you have parameters – which so many people see as not freeing, we tend to see – now we know the rules. Let’s play by rules, learn to break them when necessary, stick to them when necessary. I think we just kind of enjoy it. It’s nice to know what your mission is, and it’s nice to that you have one, because sometimes too much freedom can be a block.

Coloring between the lines, I think this right here is pretty much them saying they had a very limited scope within which to work set by MB

by **MagnusPrime72** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:52 pm

Hi everyone.....longtime viewer...first time post.

Here's what I was offended by.....

1.) After Prime takes down Demolisher in Shaghai, he kills him. SINCE WHEN IS OPTIMUS PRIME JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER!!!! The Optimus Prime I remember was a fierce warrior, but also a kind and compassionate bot. He would NEVER kill anything that couldn't defend itself, even Megatron. I compare Optimus Prime to a Lawful Good Paladin from the DnD RPG. It may have been Peter Cullen's voice, but that was NOT Optimus Prime.

2.) They show the above and then proceed to kill him off for most of the movie....are you kidding me!!!! It's bad enough he wasn't the Prime I remember, but he's the face of the frachise and he's gone for most of the movie. As Vizzini from the Princess Bride would say..."Inconceivable"!!!!

3.) Skids and Mudflap taking on Devastator by themselves...and hold their ground against him!!!!!! WTF!!!! Devastator is one of the most memorable (and powerful) villians in Transformers history. Even the Dinobots couldn't take him down but those two little schmucks gave him a run for his money and then he gets taken down by one shot of a rail gun.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I can go on about what was offensive in that movie, but I digress. Frankly, the only thing I DIDN'T find offensive were Skids and Mudflap. I didn't like them but I didn't think they were offensive either. I came into this movie with an open mind and was disappointed. I know this isn't G1, I understand that, but Mr. Bay, please don't pollute my fondest memory of a noble character like Optimus Prime with a deviant doppleganger. That is what truly grinds my gears...haha...Gears.