Transforminators: Terminator meets Transformers

With a fair bit of moaning on the interwebs about how Terminator Salvation was attempting to infringe on the popularity of the giant robots of Transformers by including new giant terminator-mechabots, I appropriately found this cute little trailer mashup online that features clips from Transformers as its universe clashes with Terminator.

…And eating all our sand.


Comment with Facebook

27 thoughts on “Transforminators: Terminator meets Transformers

  1. I dug the movie and I wasn’t really floored by the first three. Par of why I liked it was the giant robots but I didn’t even think about the Transformers. The gritty feel of the movie worked for me even though the post acocolypse landscape thing has been played out. The Guns N’ Roses nod was also cool.

  2. I love the Christian Bale voice/impression. So spot on! That’s basically how Bale talks throughout the whole movie.

  3. That would have been a better movie than Terminator Salvation. I just saw it yesterday and wasn’t impressed.

  4. Not once did I think about transformers during the terminator movie…..but then again I was just there to watch a movie.

  5. Gotta say that I loved the movie. Critics are being way too hard on this movie – they seem to like Crank but not this, why? The actions actually better here and so is the writing.

    1. Yeah i agree

      Terminator fucking ruled

      And they liked fucking Crank? Wtf? All that movie is is cursing, fucking, and senseless action…i literally felt my IQ steadily decrease as i sat watching it bit by bit

      The writing for Terminator 4 was great, I dont see why people are saying the 3rd ones better.

    2. ya i agree….crank wasa pos movie that had really the worst story arc of all fucking time…yet when u meet the director i guess you better say a few good things to pump the movie up lol…sometimes i wonder if john n rodney met McG would that have helped its ranking?

    3. Having met the director had NOTHING to do with liking Crank.

      Crank was what it was. Action. It didn’t try to be serious, and it didnt try to be realistic. It was honest about what it was.

      Nonstop adrenaline pumped action. Nothing more. And in that it succeeded.

      Terminator was trying to be action with strong themes and it fell short.

      You think that we are going to suddenly change favour because we met someone? Have we EVER done that?


      Our reviews are about the movies themselves. Nothing to do with our personal feelings about the stars or the directors. John HATES Uwe Boll but gave a decent review of In the Name of the King giving it a half decent rating.

      You can have a difference of opinion, but dont think for one second that you can challenge our integrity on our own reviews. We call it like we see it.

      I for one LIKE McG as a director and alot of his stuff I watch and enjoy. He just wasn’t a good match for this.

    4. I really don’t think McG is to blame here though. For what he had to do, he did it reasonably well. The script was fundamentally flawed – rewrites were going on throughout production (for the better, the full original script leaked out today and it’s TERRIBLE). They really made a gem out of what could have been a complete disaster. You might not love the film, but it at least does have redeeming qualities.

    5. Damn Rodney, there was nothing redeeming about Crank 2, it was downright awful. I have a very hard time believing that this website’s relationship with the directors doesn’t have something to do with the positive reviews.

    6. Rodney,
      Two things, one, even the most serious and prolific critic (in any medium) knows that a personal relationship with someone involved in a product they review WILL alter their opinion (many will even admit it…. out loud). That is one of the (many) reasons that most film critics don’t respect Ben Lyons, he is a complete star whore and it clouds his (already cloudy) judgement. I’m not saying that you would have loved Salvation if you and McG were pals, or John would have hated Crank if he didn’t know those guys, but to act as if you are an unwaivering force like that when it comes to reviewing films is utterly rediculous. You very well may call it like you see it, but knowing the artist will make you see the painting through rose colored (or whatever colored) glasses. Claiming that you are immune to something so obvious that has affected even the most stallwort critic is much more damning of the integrity of your reviews, than anything anyone has posted on this board.

      Secondly, defending Crank’s score by saying it only tried to be non-stop action and achieved that so it is a success, is a bad arguement. Same with saying the reason Salvation was a failure was because it tried for more, but didn’t accomplish everything it set out to (that’s not why it was bad). That’s like saying “this movie set out to be complete shit, it accomplished that with flying colors, so I will give it a perfect score”……. We how insane that sounds?

    7. Matt, Are you really going to try and argue that a movie that sets its goals and achieves them is somehow measured by a different stick?

      If a comedy tries to be funny and it isn’t its a failure. But if a comedy is funny, but not AS funny as something else, but still good in its own right… you say it still fails???

      Terminator tried to be action and drama. It succeeded as action. It failed as a drama. Which is precisely what I said in my review.

      And John is as dear and as close a friend as I have had in my life, and you think for a second if his movie sucked ass I wouldn’t tell him that?

      Your assumption that my feelings for a person would change my opinion of their work is narrow. Your comparison of a kissass reviewer KNOWN for tainting his reviews has anything to do with me is inaccurate.

      God invented the platypus, and I have some strong feelings about the guy, but damn that is a dumb animal.

    8. Rodney, I thought I made myself clear, I guess not. If you read my comments again (slowly, this time) you will see that I was making the exact same point you made after me. It IS rediculous to measure different films with a different stick, yet with your earlier comments defending your reviews of Crank and Salvation you gave me the impression that you do just that (reread your prior comments as well). You seem to like to take comments in a radical direction sometimes, when I in fact said the opposite of what you claim I said.

      Your claim that your relationship with someone can in no way alter your opinion of their work is the real narrow idea. I think you honestly know that. Also, my comparison to Ben Lyons is very relevent, but go ahead and dismiss it if you don’t like it.

      Speaking of God, you to might be related, if you really are the unwaivering force that you claim to be.

    9. Matt, your whole arguement is based on assumption.

      You assume that I cannot remain unbiased. My relationship (or John’s) have never tainted our review to be more favoured. If anything both John and I have been more critical.

      And I measure a comedy by a comedy and an action as an action. An action that tries for drama and fails, will get called for just that. Which I have.

      I never said I was an “unwaivering force” but your application of hyperbole is the only way you have a point so you can presume if you want. Doesn’t change my review, and surely doesn’t change how I do them in the future either.

  6. Terminators/Skynet vs. Transformers/Optimus Prime. Sweet.

    However, I didn’t see where Terminator Salvation was infringing on Transformers movies. Giant robots of the future had been established in the previous Terminator films, including the first Terminator film.

    Not to mention giant robots have been a mainstay of science fiction for decades. Granted, when there’s a Transformers sequel opening in the same summer year, there’s bound to be some gripes. But if Robotech The Movie got made, or an video game to motion picture of Mech Warrior, what will people say then?

    But why stop there?

    Let’s also add in:

    *Mad Max/Road Warrior

    *War Of The Worlds

    *Any post-apocalyptic Zombie films

    and the list goes on.

    Then let folks bitch about “oh, Terminator has a giant robot! They are ripping off Transformers!!”

    Give me a break.

    1. They are making a Robotech movie. If I remember right the same dude who wrote The Empire Strikes Back is doing the script. It’s going to be freakin’ sweet!

      But ya, I totally agree with you about silly complaining about the similarities between Transformers and Terminator series.

      By the way, you left out The Matrix trilogy on your list, which was also about humans in an apocalyptic future trying to fight a war against an army of machines with huge robots. ;)

    2. I disagree… Although there are giant robots in Terminator, the likeness of the robots, not just in detail, but in motion/movements and cinematography, is very much a copy cat act. Where were these “giant robots” in the other movies? There were NONE that large. A LOT of movies are infringing on the successes (or, IMO, failures) of other movies because it’s cheaper. You can design a new skin or face on a CGI robot easier than you can actually create a brand new robot from scratch through the same method.

    3. Which is why I called it “moaning”. There is a buzz around the net that McG was trying to ride the popularity of the Transformers wave by including giant robots instead of just terminators and flying ships and tanks.

      But it makes sense that they would have these heavy’s around. Terminator Ships don’t need to be piloted, and bikes don’t need to be ridden. I actually liked that they made them autonomous entities.

      I am not saying they are right, but there are people who (wrongly) complain about this like it matters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *