Call it a result of the trickle of Transformers: Dark of the Moon news, but guess can't hurt to know that someone close to the production has identified the ship in the teaser trailer as "The Ark". Probably not a surprise to anyone. The more or less official confirmation comes from two posts by Nelson, the admin of MB.com that has access to info about the movie.The first post was a comment from an article by CollectSpace.com that is an interesting, if overzealous comparison with the real Apollo 11 mission. Spoiler, the trailer isn't historically accurate.
Not that I missed, I simply didn't care.The second post was to correct the assumption that Michael Bay did not direct the footage used in the trailer.
A 1956 Continental Mark II convertible could've been parked next to the Ark on the moon and I would've not cared.
I guess someone needed some web hits!
Wrong. He said initially he didn't have anything to do with it and then later became totally involved. Who do you think shot those NASA, astronauts walking on the moon, and Ark scenes?
The "news" is mostly trivia fun for the Transfans. Much like the Nemesis in Revenge of the Fallen I doubt it will be identified by name in the movie. From a story perspective the ship itself is the important part, the name not so much. It could be called “The Bayhem” for all impact the name will have on the overall story arc. Hopefully if the identified by name in the story, they stick with The Ark.One a related note, the image to the right theorizes that the ship that Shia and Rosie filmed on in Detroit could be an escape pod or something from the Ark. Thanks to John for the pic. Speculate away in the comments (but keep it civil or will just delete your comment).
I find this highly disappointing that it's supposed to be the Ark.
ReplyDeletethe "Official" prequel novel to the first movie had the Ark locked in battle in another part of space with the Nemesis in 1969 while Apollo 11 was taking place.
Guess they just didn't keep track of it all. Even reading a wiki on Transformers : Ghosts of Yesterday (the book title) it said that they couldn't keep track of when megatron was moved to the dam between the various media.
I'd really liked the book.
So did the autobots from TF1 come from this ship on the moon. Then when optimus put how his call to fellow autobots seeking refuge among the stars they hopped out of the ship too and came on down for TF2 or something like they crashed how ever long ago those that survived took off to do there own thing then came back to earth years later ?
ReplyDeletehope that gets clarified in some way in the movie
I wouldn't automaticly call it "official". Nelson just repeated what everyone else said
ReplyDeleteNo! That ship in Moon isn't same than in Detroit filming. They're not same size. That thing used in Detroit is too small for transformers that were inside ship on moon.
ReplyDeleteThe Ark indeed. So it means all the Autobot big guns are on that ship. Wheeljack etc.
ReplyDeleteJust curios if Silverbolt is in that ship or not, and if so will it be with his fellow Aerialbots...
Look at the red lines, dude. They are clearly matching up to a smaller subsection of the afterburners on the Ark. Looks plausible to me.
ReplyDeleteI already mentioned this ship thing earlier this week.
ReplyDelete@ anon 3:37 AM:
Like Lionboogy also said, didn't you watch the picture, it's a smaller part of The Ark.
I'm not surprised it's The Ark, we all hoped and quessed it to be. It's jawdropping AWESOME looking!!!
Like with IDW's storylines, maybe it's an ark as opposed to 'the ark'... perhaps what nelson was referring to was just the ark on the moon that is one of many...?
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's 'The First Ark' and they've taken some Dead Universe vibes from Furman's Revelation series?
If (and this is a big if) the Detroit set pieces indeed match the afterburners on the Ark maybe there's a twist here in that the Ark is actually Omega Supreme. We did have confirmation from an earlier posting about a "very large Autobot" fighting in downtown Chicago for the final scene. Perhaps they weren't referring to the RP firetruck or whatever Silverbolt/Aerialbots end up being. It's possible that we see more Autobots than just what we see in vehicle form (wheeljack, red ferrari, firetruck) like in the last movie with those anonymous 'cons. Hope they do explain what happened to everybody on the ship though, would like to have some plot holes closed for once. Likely won't happen.
ReplyDeleteLooks like it could be omega can make out what looks like his head turret below the afterburners.
ReplyDeleteThe ship we saw on the set piece may not have been complete either. They could easily cg more stuff onto it.
ReplyDeleteI LOVE Omega Supreme! It was awesome that he was the ship the Autobots came to Earth in in TF:A. It would be cool if a piece of the Ark (like a shuttlecraft as mentioned in the post) was him.
Beau,
ReplyDeleteThe Extended Universe books are not "official" any more than Star Wars or Star Trek EU books are official. They are just book writer's ideas that get approved by Hasbro/Dreamworks, but it doesn't mean the movie writers are obligated to follow them. What's on screen is what is considered canon and official.
How many book continuities were messed up when Lucas wrote the preqels? It's not like he read every book and comic written and adhered to those stories. No more than Kruger and Bay have to follow any of what was written in the Transformers books and comics.
sam and rosie jump onto it suggesting that it is a hand/arm of this giant autobot...which i also thought was omega way back. omega could transport the autobots this is just a different version of him like everyone else is
ReplyDeleteIn the interview with Bay last week, Bay nicknamed the Ferrari Dreadbox, I don't think he will be called that, since the Chevy Suburbans are called The Dreads? Almost the same name, I'm guessing the Ferrari is Wheeljack, since he was a Lancia Stratos in G1, then he stays Italian. If not, the Merc has to be Wheeljack.
ReplyDeletebut I thought u Arc carried animals..hahaha lololo
ReplyDeleteAhhhaaah. Learn English. An arc is a segment of a circle. An ark is a vessel that carries thing.
ReplyDeleteYour joked failed.
So that prop in the film is for an escape pod?
ReplyDeleteSo what if that chamber in the trailer was the escape pod, and that robot was the only survivor of the crash?
Mind boggles...
@Anonymous 9:34 - Fail
ReplyDelete@Anonymous 3:50 - Pointing out Fail, Fail
If you're going to point out incorrect grammar, you can't use incorrect grammar to do so.
Back on Topic.
I'm still a little confused as to why people thought this was anything other than the Ark, or an Ark. I do agree that the setpeice looks like some kind of escape pod, but pointing out that the 2 jet engines look the same as 2 of the jet engines on a larger opject hardly mean they are one in the same. Thats like saying that a Boeing 787 is the escape pod of a C-5 because their engines LOOK the same. Cool that you caught that, but I'm not buying it. Besides, the peice between the two engines looks nothing like the one on the Ark. Just my opinion though.
Does anyone remember the G1 Jumpstarter
ReplyDeleteTop Spin? That set piece ship looks just like him.
@ 12/15/2010 3:06 PM
ReplyDeletenot too sound all comic nerdy and what not
but if you got the collected edition of the movie prequal and epilouge comics the writer of the comic series LITERALY sits down with the writer/s of the movie, just so to stay in continuity
so this would mean that this Ark is probably another autobot crew ship, it probably landed before Optimas's Ark landed somewhere else, unless opt's ship really did land there in which the autobots have been around for a while, 'cause if people look into TF1 hard enough they'll know the other autobots besides 'Bee were on surrounding planets
@ 11:54am 12/16
ReplyDeleteI was thinking the same thing but i kinda doubt it.
THE ARK!!!
ReplyDeletefar too many plot holes already , the storyline is all over the place now . I can guarantee you this movie will be a laughathon of stupidity
ReplyDeleteHey don't judge the movie until we actually see it. If this is indeed the Ark than that would be pretty awsome and so far the plot holes haven't been revealed and may not be like the first two movies. So stop complaining and just wait till the movie comes out.
ReplyDelete"I find this highly disappointing that it's supposed to be the Ark. The "Official" prequel novel to the first movie had the Ark locked in battle in another part of space with the Nemesis in 1969 while Apollo 11 was taking place."
ReplyDeleteHow about the battle with the nemesis being at the start of 1969 and them warping to the moon and crash landing sometime in January, causing the spacerace to accelerate before the Apollo landing on July 20 1969?
"Far too many plot holes already , the storyline is all over the place now . I can guarantee you this movie will be a laughathon of stupidity"
Yh, there will probably be alot of plot holes however they`ll cover most of the plot holes in comics or books instead of the film. Aslong as this film is better than the first 2 (Which can easily be done because the first 2 were crap) then most people will be content.
Just like Star Wars, if the film contradicts one of the novels then it’s all but void. The film(s) come first and only the film(s).
ReplyDelete@Scorpio: the first two movies might be crap to you and other whiners like you but it's a fact that people worldwide loved them despite all the hatred and critics and against them. People didn't stop watching them turning the franchise into a success boxoffice first and DVD/Blu-Ray disc sales after that, if people didn't love the movies only a few would have bought the discs, it's just as simple as that.
ReplyDeleteThe real huge mistake causing a huge plot hole and breaking consistency and continuity is how Michael Bay is going to get rid of Mikaela Banes character since he fired Megan Fox. It's a mistake to give Sam Witwicky a new girlfriend and it's a deadly mistake to tell that Mikaela Banes just dumped Sam Witwicky after everyone watched the first two movies.. it's going to make zero sense and people will dislike that. The only good option would be to show Mikaela Banes funeral, her death in a flashback and then the movie could work without Megan Fox and Mikaela Banes character despite the fact that Sam Witwicky with a new girlfriend is a mistake anyway plot and character development wise.
Saw tron Legacy last night, Pissed off that they did not show the transformers trailer in front of it
ReplyDeleteDid people think it was gonna be the Titanic?
ReplyDeletenerdgasm oh yah TF3 will be awsome
ReplyDeletethe movies exist in their own continuity much like the different versions of the comics it seems like bay is taking parts of all the various generations of transformers and forming his own transformers universe. Hopefully the whole mikela situation was planned from the beginning to cover up her death if not it still works. if anything it brings the movies closer to the 80s cartoon ie carly was sam's love intrest for several episodes. also the appearence of prime's trailer as seen in several pics previously seems to indicate this film will be closer to the 80s cartoon than say armada...
ReplyDeletelet me clarify planned from the beginning of the filming of 3 cause we all know they are making each one up as they go along causing several contiuity errors...shouldve had a 3 movie plotline to begin with and go from there..
ReplyDeletehttp://www.transformersmovie.com/
ReplyDeleteup and running official website
Corey Burton won't be Shockwave's voice. http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/corey-burton-uninterested-in-reprising-shockwave-for-transformers-3-david-warner-is-rumored-171124/
ReplyDelete@Anonymous; 12/18/2010 5:22 PM
ReplyDeleteI am not whining, i personally find that certain parts of the first 2 films were good, but overall they were made crap because of certain scenes. You cant honestly tell me you wanted to see john turturro in underpants and probably the most awesome robot in the film (Devastator) having robot testicles?
I agree about the megan fox bit though,they should just kill her off. Apparently they are just having it that she dumps him (Or the other way around) because he/she doesnt want their only attachment to be because of the transformers.
who cares about Mikaela? she wasn't central to the story, just a piece of eye/arm candy. easily replaced as we will see.
ReplyDelete@Hud: you obviously never watched the movies or you were on drugs while watching. If you can't follow even the two main characters that both movies were so focused on then you got some serious issues of your own.
ReplyDeleteAnon 5:02 - She may have been a main character but that doesn't equal plot relevance.
ReplyDeleteMikaela definitely was not central to the story in either movie, other than being the necessary love interest and as Hud mentioned, eye candy (though snotty attitudes cancel out nice eyes in my book).
Her role was completely interchangeable, and the character as she portrayed it always felt like she was on the border of giving a crap about Sam. I'm glad to see her go, she won't be missed and I don't think the story will be affected negatively at all.
then you got a problem buster brown u dont care u never did honey no not ever
ReplyDelete@TheChief: it's obvious that you didn't understand anything about characters and plot even if you ever watched the first two movies. Your comments are just silly. Only someone that didn't understand anything would write what you wrote there. Really. Telling that Mikaela Banes didn't care about Sam Witwicky it's just plain dumb and absolutely false. Which movie did you watch becomes the question then because from your comments you didn't watch the first two movies for sure.
ReplyDeleteWell actually, Anonymous, if that really is your name, I didn't say that she "didn't care about Sam". I said "as she portrayed it always felt like she" didn't care. Call it bad acting, or my own personal biases against the actress Megan Fox, whatever. To me, she came off as not being able to portray real romance toward this person that in the 2nd movie, she claimed to love. It felt really fake to me and her character took something out of the movie for me.
ReplyDeleteYour misunderstanding aside, the Mikaela love interest was, at best, a "B" story in the first movie and, definitely a "C" story in the second - behind the main arch and Sam's arch.
Come back when you can string together a coherent sentence.
She could have been dropped from the movie entirely, with no replacement, and the story would have been able to push forward easily without her. Thus, she is irrelevant to the story and is interchangeable.
ReplyDeletethats right hunny talk bad back to me cause im not baby, im not washin the dishin
ReplyDeleteHey Anonymous, I would like to understand why you feel so strongly about Mikaela's character? As TheChief mentioned, she could have been dropped from the movie all together and it wouldn't have hurt either film. she was not "central" to the plot. and Carly won't be either. Not saying she didn't have a part, just that it wasn't that important. It's a movie about intergalactic robots, fighting a battle on Earth with human intervention. Girlfriends just ain't that important, IMO.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny looking back on this seeing how wrong everyone was 🤣
ReplyDelete