Is it pointless to hope for a better script than the first movie?

[The Lizard]

I just recently sat down and watched Transformers again -- albeit this time with the Rifftrax (http://www.rifftrax.com/rifftrax/transformers) audio commentary by the Mystery Science Theater 3000 guys, which is totally hilarious if you haven't heard it, BTW.

Anyway, although I was entertained by the action and FX in the movie theater, I have come to realize that any scene in the movie that doesn't have actual robot battles in it is totally unwatchable. The acting, script and delivery are just that bad.

So... has there been any indication at all that we could possibly get a better script and a less lamebrained storyline in TF2, or is everyone just automatically assuming it will be more of the same? I'll take any kind of improvement at all, whether is be different writers, actors or whatever.

[Spade]

I hope, but since I know I'm never going to get a Transformers film where the most important part- the Transformers themselves- are a focus, I'm just hoping Shia and the rest of the human characters don't hog up the screen more than they did in the first.

[dark_b]

I hope, but since I know I'm never going to get a Transformers film where the most important part- the Transformers themselves- are a focus, I'm just hoping Shia and the rest of the human characters don't hog up the screen more than they did in the first.ithink in 50 years when CGI will be cheaper they will be able to make a movie with robots as the focus.

[bunk]

I just recently sat down and watched Transformers again -- albeit this time with the Rifftrax (http://www.rifftrax.com/rifftrax/transformers) audio commentary by the Mystery Science Theater 3000 guys, which is totally hilarious if you haven't heard it, BTW.

Anyway, although I was entertained by the action and FX in the movie theater, I have come to realize that any scene in the movie that doesn't have actual robot battles in it is totally unwatchable. The acting, script and delivery are just that bad.

So... has there been any indication at all that we could possibly get a better script and a less lamebrained storyline in TF2, or is everyone just automatically assuming it will be more of the same? I'll take any kind of improvement at all, whether is be different writers, actors or whatever.

There's no reason to think Bay will be interested in making a completely different movie from the first. Still, depending on the tone of the sequel it may not lend itself to the comedy and supporting character meandering quite as much. You'll notice The Island for instance, doesn't have the same amount of comedy as TF and has much more focus on main characters.

[Golgo-13]

The writers stated in an interview not too long ago, that they wanted TF2 to have the same vibe as TF1;in the humor department that is, so no i'm not expected any complex type story, but the same 'wham bam thank you mam' type movie we got the first time around, and thankfully Anthony Anderson is no where in sight this time around.

[Tonicky]

All I know is Shia is going to say No no no again.
The writer said something about more robots and less storylines

[Sweetchuck]

I too just rewatched TF1 after not seeing it since I bought the HD-DVD a year or so ago. Shia Lebouf acts like an idiot and does his best to hog the screen when he's on it. Its hard to watch him act. And I hesitate to call it "acting" cause he really overdoes it. He for me is easily the worst part of the film. And I honestly thought that the blonde austrailian computer geek girl was just as hot as tatoo chick. I mean Megan Fox. She just wasnt wearing come-****-me clothes. If you put her in the same outfits that Megan was wearing I'd take the Australian chick over Megan "Tatoo Chick" Fox..

[Tonicky]

I'd rather Megan Tatoos are awesome

[Tonicky]

Shia gona say No no no again because thats what he dose.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I actually thought Shia was good in the movie, he gave us a character we could relate and when it came time for him to properly act he did very IMO, particularly the Bumblebee capture scene.

[Golgo-13]

Shia's non stop 'babbling' can become very annoying. You can tell he's improving alot of it.

[Tonicky]

I actually thought Shia was good in the movie, he gave us a character we could relate and when it came time for him to properly act he did very IMO, particularly the Bumblebee capture scene.

I don't think he was bad he just says No to much.

[storyteller]

I respectfully disagree with all your negative points. I don't see how the non robot scenes were unwatchable. I found them believable and funny. Maybe thats just not your cup of tea. To me the acting was fine and I thought i saw normal people who get tossed into a sci fi situation. Shia also is one of the actors who can control the scene and not just seem there. But hey you cant like everyone.

Anyway, the script for the first one didnt really need to be better then it was. Sam and co were all regular people. Regular people do normal stuff and respond differently. I think the script will be better just because the Transformers are taking a more active direction in the movie(in the first we followed sam and we observed the transformers through his eyes, now the transformers have been established).

Also if by bad script you mean not complex, then what exactly would you have added to the last one.

[The Lizard]

I respectfully disagree with all your negative points. I don't see how the non robot scenes were unwatchable. I found them believable and funny. Maybe thats just not your cup of tea. To me the acting was fine and I thought i saw normal people who get tossed into a sci fi situation. Shia also is one of the actors who can control the scene and not just seem there. But hey you cant like everyone.

Anyway, the script for the first one didnt really need to be better then it was. Sam and co were all regular people. Regular people do normal stuff and respond differently. I think the script will be better just because the Transformers are taking a more active direction in the movie(in the first we followed sam and we observed the transformers through his eyes, now the transformers have been established).

Also if by bad script you mean not complex, then what exactly would you have added to the last one.

:dry:

More robot action. Less pointless backstory with inane dialog. More coherent action sequences.

[Sam Fisher]

As long as it's as fun as the first one, that's all I care about.


It's Transformers, come on...

[Ace of Knaves]

With teh Bay involved don't get your hopes up.

[Sam Fisher]

I honestly feel that Bay gets too much hate.

[Ace of Knaves]

I think he is an awesome action director, but theres only so much cheesy music and fluttering American flags I can take.

[Ratcrawler]

I liked how most of the humans (and robots for that matter) acted like they had some type of mental condition. It reminded me of Invader Zim.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

There is an extra screen-writer this time isnt there, so maybe that will mean the script will be more coherent. Though I didnt have much of a problem with the first movies script.

[Darthkush]

So... has there been any indication at all that we could possibly get a better script and a less lamebrained storyline in TF2, or is everyone just automatically assuming it will be more of the same? I'll take any kind of improvement at all, whether is be different writers, actors or whatever.


I'm assuming more of the same...unfortunately. Also, unfortunately, nobody will care and it will make more than the first one. As an Transformer fan, it's very disconcerting how comic characters get much better respect from filmmakers and they get very little. sigh.:csad:

[storyteller]

What was so incoherent about the last film?

[Avangarde]

Shia pretty much sums up my thoughts of the script.

8IXCK1EyP4s

[dark_b]

i like the epic NOOOOO

[LightningFlash]

The script wasn't THAT bad.

[escobar2248]

:dry:

More robot action. Less pointless backstory with inane dialog. More coherent action sequences.

I can't really see why 40 robots wouldn't = more action, carnage and robot destruction.



I honestly feel that Bay gets too much hate.

Especially on here. It's a bandwagon effect.

A couple users that have 5,000+ posts say that they hate something and new member feel compelled to have the same opinion because they feel it will make them "fit in" faster. Just like....high school, LOL. 90% of the clowns that are on here that bash him are the same ones that would act like girls at a Jonas Bros concert if they saw him in real life, lol.

Every film that Bay has done has been VERY entertaining, at least to me. I thought that he delivered on the first film. Especially since the guy never really even knew what a TF was a year before filming.

[LightningFlash]

Plus...Spielberg has always said Bay was his first choice...

so why don't anyone bash Spielberg?

[Avangarde]

I can't really see why 40 robots wouldn't = more action, carnage and robot destruction.



Especially on here. It's a bandwagon effect.

A couple users that have 5,000+ posts say that they hate something and new member feel compelled to have the same opinion because they feel it will make them "fit in" faster. Just like....high school, LOL. 90% of the clowns that are on here that bash him are the same ones that would act like girls at a Jonas Bros concert if they saw him in real life, lol.

Every film that Bay has done has been VERY entertaining, at least to me. I thought that he delivered on the first film. Especially since the guy never really even knew what a TF was a year before filming.

You can't be serious :huh:

Sure, Bay has made some films that look pretty to the eye (until you get motion sickness), however they all lack depth. Usually the plot is paper thin, and the characters are two dimensional. Heck, he prides himself on teh explosions :dry: The reason he gets hate here from some posters is because when we, the old school fans, found out Bay was behind this film we instantly knew he would butcher what we loved about Transformers, we predicted what would happen and we were right, we got a crazy kid running around for a whole movie, a bunch of useless government babble, and an army recruiting advert. Oh yeah and a light sprinkling of robots. They should have called the movie The Humans featuring Transformers. Plus after all that Bay in his condisending way takes a stab at the fans like we are morons. Transformers isn't just about robots smashing the **** out of each other, they all had unique personalities, flaws, and dilemmas what we could relate to, it showed that we were not so different to them. People cried when Optimus Prime died in the animated movie, I can't see people crying if/when Bay decides to kill off Optimus Flame. The only positive that came from the Bay movie was brought on by the fans, and that was the decision of having Peter Cullen reprise his roll of Optimus, ugh imagine if we got someone else. My only hope for TF2 is that Orci, Kurtzman and Kruger give us more depth this time around, they are getting better at writing stories but their character development in screen plays needs much work.

I just can't do it anymore :facepalm

[Golgo-13]

Plus...Spielberg has always said Bay was his first choice...

so why don't anyone bash Spielberg?

I was constantly bashing him in the old thread, because he's been around longer and should know better. but, alas, no one wanted to hear it. :csad:

[Avangarde]

Plus...Spielberg has always said Bay was his first choice...

so why don't anyone bash Spielberg?

Because he is an executive producer aka Mr Moneybags

[LightningFlash]

So we only bash the director because of his lacking-of drama/depth in his movies...but not the guy who chose Bay?

I need to write these rules down.

[Avangarde]

Bay is the one with creative control, if a movie is crap it's because of him, not the guy behind the desk. As shallow as his movies are they still make heaps of money and that's exactly what Spielberg wants, so really he has done the right job.

[Jake Cassidy]

You can't be serious :huh:

Sure, Bay has made some films that look pretty to the eye (until you get motion sickness), however they all lack depth. Usually the plot is paper thin, and the characters are two dimensional. Heck, he prides himself on teh explosions :dry: The reason he gets hate here from some posters is because when we, the old school fans, found out Bay was behind this film we instantly knew he would butcher what we loved about Transformers, we predicted what would happen and we were right, we got a crazy kid running around for a whole movie, a bunch of useless government babble, and an army recruiting advert. Oh yeah and a light sprinkling of robots. They should have called the movie The Humans featuring Transformers. Plus after all that Bay in his condisending way takes a stab at the fans like we are morons. Transformers isn't just about robots smashing the **** out of each other, they all had unique personalities, flaws, and dilemmas what we could relate to, it showed that we were not so different to them. People cried when Optimus Prime died in the animated movie, I can't see people crying if/when Bay decides to kill off Optimus Flame. The only positive that came from the Bay movie was brought on by the fans, and that was the decision of having Peter Cullen reprise his roll of Optimus, ugh imagine if we got someone else. My only hope for TF2 is that Orci, Kurtzman and Kruger give us more depth this time around, they are getting better at writing stories but their character development in screen plays needs much work.

I just can't do it anymore :facepalm

Ehren Kruger, apparently, has an encyclopedic knowledge of TF. He's also a very good writer, so I think it will be better.

[protocida]

According to USA Today, the movie will be centered in Sam and Mikaela. Sam discovers something about the Transformer's origin (Maybe when he touches the Allspark) and their story on Earth (Problably in Egypt). That knowledge makes him a target to the Decepticons, that must capture him, and not kill him, as they we're trying to do in the last movie. In order to save Sam, Optimus Prime and the Autobots unite with a special team created by the government, and formed by Lennox, Epps, Graham, among other, to attack the Decepticons and destroy them. How the Fallen get's involved in the story, no one knows.

[sandmjuggalos]

Ehren Kruger, apparently, has an encyclopedic knowledge of TF. He's also a very good writer, so I think it will be better.

Let's hope and pray....

[LightningFlash]

Bay is the one with creative control, if a movie is crap it's because of him, not the guy behind the desk. As shallow as his movies are they still make heaps of money and that's exactly what Spielberg wants, so really he has done the right job.

So if the director is to blame...regarding Spider-Man 3, how come a lot of people blame Arad and not Raimi for the awful film?

Double standards or no?

[Avangarde]

I have no idea, that's something you need to take up with the Spider-man 3 fans I guess :huh:

[Ace of Knaves]

The reason fans were pissed off at Avi Arad was because he forced Raimi to include Venom. Raimi was still the one in main control, he was the one that decided to include a cheesy jazz dance number.
I completely agree with Avangarde, Bay is a great, great action director. But I don't think he has a clue on how to realistically develope characters or he is unable to write a story that doesn't some how include those bad ass marines and what not. AWESOME!!!!

Please tell me they have got rid of that blonde girl who is strangely enough, smarter than every boffin that works for the US government. She can't act to save her life and the whole character is just stupid anyway. It's typical Bay, the woman genius has to be absolutely gorgeous.

[LightningFlash]

What's wrong with a beautiful genius? Lol. But yes, Bay took her and Anthony Anderson's character out of the sequel.

[Ace of Knaves]

Good, I hated them in the first one.

[LightningFlash]

Maybe Bay is learning?

I myself didn't mind the character; Anderson has always been funny in any film he's in, imo.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea Anderson wasn't so bad, but that blonde bird done my head in.

[LightningFlash]

What was funny about the blonde woman was that her accent was so thick, it sounded fake for the longest.

[Jake Cassidy]

^ That's because she was surrounded by Americans. It makes it stick out more.

[knowsbleed]

Transformers are more advanced than humans.

Yet they need Shia to run around like a babbling fool in order to save the world from Megatron...



... :dry:




I just hope that the Transformers aren't 2nd fiddle goofballs in the sequel. They are noble (Autobots) and dastardly (Decepticons) beings who shouldn't come across as comic relief.

[LightningFlash]

Optimus wanted to take care of the Allspark himself, knowing he could not take out Megatron himself. It was Sam's idea to kill the Allspark and Megatron. Hence to keep the story of the Autobots still with Sam. Otherwise...Optimus would be dead and the rest of the Autobots would have left in different directions in the country.

I could see Bumblebee live in Paris however...

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Sure, Bay has made some films that look pretty to the eye (until you get motion sickness), however they all lack depth. Usually the plot is paper thin, and the characters are two dimensional. Heck, he prides himself on teh explosions :dry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRS90V8BQGo

[Ratcrawler]

For the record, I thought Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was waaaaay worse than Transformers and blame sPielberg. As crazy as Sam Witwickey was, at least he never sword fought a fake Ukrainian psychic standing on 2 jeeps which he later vine-swung faster than and commanded an army of monkeys.

And personally, I prefer a crazy leading man over an overly-relatable, bland, boring one

[Marvin]

The reason fans were pissed off at Avi Arad was because he forced Raimi to include Venom. Raimi was still the one in main control, he was the one that decided to include a cheesy jazz dance number.
I completely agree with Avangarde, Bay is a great, great action director. But I don't think he has a clue on how to realistically develope characters or he is unable to write a story that doesn't some how include those bad ass marines and what not. AWESOME!!!!

Please tell me they have got rid of that blonde girl who is strangely enough, smarter than every boffin that works for the US government. She can't act to save her life and the whole character is just stupid anyway. It's typical Bay, the woman genius has to be absolutely gorgeous.

Aha

Bay didn't write Transformers the movie, nor did he write any of his films
ppl need to start realizing this...

especially the people that critique his story elements and lack of thought provoking scripts...

no one says the same thing about the Farley Bros and their comedies(i assume it's them that made something about mary and etc), but when it comes to this man that has made about 6 huge summer action movies and succeeded )and not failed at something like Benjamin Button or American beauty).., he gets called a failure...tsk tsk

success is defined by what your goals are...

funny enough the retort being bay succeeds at making bad movies hawr hawr

that being said

apart from the island, just about all of bay's movies have been more successful then say Superman returns...which failed at being a relevant, engaging superman film...
Transformers on the on the other hand...

lets just say my 10 year old brother loved the show, and he really loved the bay movie.

my 30year old aunt finds the show childish and pointless...and guess what?
she feels the about the movie.

success is defined by what you are trying to do...

I would have loved for it to be Terminator 2, but it didn't need to be.
(terminator 3 did tho)

-end

on a side note

it would be so effin easy to finally stick it to all his naysayers by just "picking" a strong substance driven script(and if he can't i'm sure he has people around him who can...me for one) and just do what most these overrated minimalist filmmakers do and put the camera down on the tripod in front of the table and let the strong actors read the script...
I love that people think he can't do that...yet praise singer for it time and time again...then when it came time for singer to apply some sort of visual direction to a film(u know step out from behind a good story and actually earn his keep as a director, visual translator to the audience) he just delivered the same tired old singeresque experience minus the good script...Superman returns 30years too late..

one day soon bay will stop wanting to make oodles of money, he won't care about being a cultural icon in the action genre(for better or worse), and he'll make a "good" movie
one day soon, just to prove he can.

peace.

[LightningFlash]

It's on like Donkey Kong.

Sorry, I just watched that one Oreo commercial with the Mannings.

[CFlash]

Aha

Bay didn't write Transformers the movie, nor did he write any of his films
ppl need to start realizing this... especially the people that critique his story elements and lack of thought provoking scripts...


But he picks the scripts he directs. Which I guess says a lot.

Yes, Michael Bay is good at what he does. The Backstreet Boys and NSync were also... and they were loved by millions. They pandered to millions. There's a difference between them and The Beatles or the Rolling Stones, etc. Likewise Bay panders... and directs big, long (and very fun... if you turn your brain off), music videos.

I'm not trying to insult anybody that likes Bay. I liked M.C. Hammer once upon a time too. There's no shame in it. lol.




no one says the same thing about the Farley Bros and their comedies(i assume it's them that made something about mary and etc), but when it comes to this man that has made about 6 huge summer action movies and succeeded )and not failed at something like Benjamin Button or American beauty).., he gets called a failure...tsk tsk


A lot of music lovers dislike mindless bubblegum pop music too. I think Bay is the cinema equivalent.



apart from the island, just about all of bay's movies have been more successful then say Superman returns...which failed at being a relevant, engaging superman film...
Transformers on the on the other hand...

lets just say my 10 year old brother loved the show, and he really loved the bay movie.

my 30year old aunt finds the show childish and pointless...and guess what?
she feels the about the movie.


But do you think your 10 year old brother will regard the movie the way people regard Aliens, Terminator.... The Matrix.... etc when he grows up? Or will it be more like Iron Eagle? A fun movie that came out, people liked, but was soon forgotten?



success is defined by what you are trying to do...

I would have loved for it to be Terminator 2, but it didn't need to be.
(terminator 3 did tho)


Now THIS I COMPLETELY agree with. (tho, I think T3 is a tad underrated... it was a good sci-fi movie... just a bit underwhelming). I thought Transformers could have been Terminator level in the hands of the right director.


on a side note

it would be so effin easy to finally stick it to all his naysayers by just "picking" a strong substance driven script(and if he can't i'm sure he has people around him who can...me for one) and just do what most these overrated minimalist filmmakers do and put the camera down on the tripod in front of the table and let the strong actors read the script...
I love that people think he can't do that...yet praise singer for it time and time again...then when it came time for singer to apply some sort of visual direction to a film(u know step out from behind a good story and actually earn his keep as a director, visual translator to the audience) he just delivered the same tired old singeresque experience minus the good script...Superman returns 30years too late..


Superman Returns was beautiful to watch. And, all in all, it was very very well directed. But it was seriously miscast and the script needed serious work.


one day soon bay will stop wanting to make oodles of money, he won't care about being a cultural icon in the action genre(for better or worse), and he'll make a "good" movie
one day soon, just to prove he can.

peace.

It would be nice to see that. He's definately got talent. I'd like to see him prove that he's not as shallow his movies make him seem.

[Chris B]

This past New Years Eve, I was home and I decided to watch both Transformers and Iron Man. And watching them back-to-back, I realized just how much I prefer IM over TF for just being a better overall film and as well as adaption.

Now, I'm not beating up on TF because I still enjoy it and think that it did capture the essence of what the franchise on a whole is about. But a lot its flaws have become more prevalent for me in my recent viewings of it. Mainly the topic of this thread, the story.

[Marvin]

But he picks the scripts he directs. Which I guess says a lot.

yes and no, it says alot about his ability to pick scripts that contribute to his goals.

for example, he can pick a script that will entertain an audience(in his hands that is) and will make it's money back

one can't honestly believe he thought Bad boys was going to win awards, Armageddon is repeatedly stated to be a fun big movie that any hick can jump on and have fun with...

why turn the fun machine that was armageddon into 2001 a space odyssey?
so it will have no turnaround?
until someone shows me a script that is gold on paper that bay turns into crap, the hack argument is moot..

honestly in his position
i would make some of the same choices

David Gordon Green did with his lastest movie...

I want money, i go the atm, bay wants money he makes a money making movie..
at some point he'll want acclaim, and he'll pick a good script..(like ie the Wrestler script)

Yes, Michael Bay is good at what he does. The Backstreet Boys and NSync were also... and they were loved by millions. They pandered to millions. There's a difference between them and The Beatles or the Rolling Stones, etc. Likewise Bay panders... and directs big, long (and very fun... if you turn your brain off), music videos.

I'm not trying to insult anybody that likes Bay. I liked M.C. Hammer once upon a time too. There's no shame in it. lol.

well unlike the many failed boy bands out there, at least BSB and Nsync were successful, that's why when he's called a "hack" it not accurate, is Justin timberlake a hack?
note Ratner and Wisemen
or even Boll

I honestly would have loved to see Ratner's Transformers(same script), I'm sure the sequel would be as eagerly anticipated as bays next film..

it's simple, if your going to make a comedy, it should be successful, if your going to make a fun summer movie, it should be successful...

bay is doing that right now, and again, he's only made like 6 films
how many has Spielberg made?
when bay makes that amount of movies and there not all intended summer releases, then i'll love to really sit down and discuss his ability

till then, his 6 fun movies are more fun them most ppls 6 fun movies(pearl harbour being the worst script ever, but honestly looked the way superman should have)


A lot of music lovers dislike mindless bubblegum pop music too. I think Bay is the cinema equivalent.

Truthfully speaking, when compared to Victorian opera or Mozart and Betovhen...the Beatles and Rolling stones are no better than blink 182

BUT

you still like these bands (i'm assuming)
and that's cause instead of being pretentious and composing symphonies for an audience that couldn't care less (would rather be entertained than know they're listening to fine art) they, one: know who they are
and two: they know who their audience is.


But do you think your 10 year old brother will regard the movie the way people regard Aliens, Terminator.... The Matrix.... etc when he grows up? Or will it be more like Iron Eagle? A fun movie that came out, people liked, but was soon forgotten?

He won't need to, when he grows up, he'll have aliens and terminator to meet his now mature needs...
the true audience that the material and filmmakers need to respect is the original age group
they really shouldn't concern themselves with the over sized pasty bearded folk, wearing their shirts from when they were ten, petitioning from their parents basement about why the material "all of a sudden" is childish and not as james cameronesqe as they remember

it was a show for kids, of course the movie is going to be "for kids"

if anything that's the true example of respecting the material/audience

the way fans talk today is comparable to 17 year old girls wanting the barbie movie(bratz) to be the sex and the city

unlike say batman(which does appeal to children), Transformers was made to sell toys to kids..

I really only realized this after watching the original movie(my gosh)
cause beastwars was for the teens.

and honestly, apart from a few summer hollywood dumb phrases coming from an autobot here and there, they were just as noble and "intelligent" as they were in G1
for anyone to tell me Bay's optimus isn't saying the same things and thinking the same way as his G1 counterpart, needs to....check again.


Now THIS I COMPLETELY agree with. (tho, I think T3 is a tad underrated... it was a good sci-fi movie... just a bit underwhelming). I thought Transformers could have been Terminator level in the hands of the right director.


no it couldn't have
one because, only cameron can make a terminator level movie(in said genre)
and two:
because directors (unless your cameron) traditionally aren't responsible for the story(and i've noticed it's mostly story problems with bay films)

if anything it would have been the same pointless movie and direction wise it would have been underwhelming

visually the movie radiates and that's thanks to bay, period
story wise it's childish and that's thanks to a lot of people(yes bay being one of them, i'll admit)


Superman Returns was beautiful to watch. And, all in all, it was very very well directed. But it was seriously miscast and the script needed serious work.

yes better script and cast for sure
but visually it was one of the most forgettable films i've ever seen

singer is one of those guys that hides behind a good story and this time there was nothing to hide behind.

ignoring usual suspects(too easy)
X2 was mostly entertaining due to what the plot was giving us...ie wolverine killing a mansion full of people...cool on paper..

I used to rag on nolan but i think he really stepped with DK(it was like a fincher movie) and if Singer did DK, it would have LOOKED a step above tim story's work.

It would be nice to see that. He's definately got talent. I'd like to see him prove that he's not as shallow his movies make him seem.

it won't last, but for now it's working, and if it ain't broke...

beside Spielberg called him the best shooter in the biz
and he and Cameron are good friends and admittedly the same kind of director

all he needs is the right script to apply himself

sorta like how rourke applied his usual self to his new movie and it worked out.

[Marvin]

This past New Years Eve, I was home and I decided to watch both Transformers and Iron Man. And watching them back-to-back, I realized just how much I prefer IM over TF for just being a better overall film and as well as adaption.

Now, I'm not beating up on TF because I still enjoy it and think that it did capture the essence of what the franchise on a whole is about. But a lot its flaws have become more prevalent for me in my recent viewings of it. Mainly the topic of this thread, the story.

if he and favareu switched scripts, the truth would set us all free

[LightningFlash]

This past New Years Eve, I was home and I decided to watch both Transformers and Iron Man. And watching them back-to-back, I realized just how much I prefer IM over TF for just being a better overall film and as well as adaption.

Now, I'm not beating up on TF because I still enjoy it and think that it did capture the essence of what the franchise on a whole is about. But a lot its flaws have become more prevalent for me in my recent viewings of it. Mainly the topic of this thread, the story.

:whatever:

It's pretty much the script.

Sure, Bay's at fault when it comes to "goofs", such as Sam having his jacket on, and then off, and then on again. And then Sam talking to his parents with no box, and then he has a box under his arm. And then when they go to Hoover Dam and it says NEVADA TIME, and then TIME, and then NEVADA TIME again...but, c'mon, Spider-Man had many goofs like that as well, and that is only nitpicking.

But the script is absolutely fine, imo. It's straight to the point, and it didn't leave me any questions.

Plus, I might be the only one who likes Bay's "lighting" with his movies. It makes it more intense, imo. And even he's not the only one who does that.

But, yet again, people bash Bay and no other director, just because Bay does what he wants.

[Avangarde]

It's the way he shoots and edits that makes his films more prone to these blunders, he cuts from scene to scene so fast is it any wonder how someone can keep up with positions. You can take the good with the bad when it comes to his movies, unfortunately there is more bad with good :csad:

[The Lizard]

It's the way he shoots and edits that makes his films more prone to these blunders, he cuts from scene to scene so fast is it any wonder how someone can keep up with positions. You can take the good with the bad when it comes to his movies, unfortunately there is more bad with good :csad:

Exactly.

When you look at the most effective action scenes in Transformers, they are almost all scenes where the action is slowed down so you can actually see clearly what the hell is happening. That's another one of the problems with the new Transformer designs. The fact that they all look so similar, coupled with Bay's hyperkinetic editing, actually lessens the impact of certain fight scenes because it's hard to tell what's going on or what movements the robots are going through.

[Marvin]

The coherency of his editing is very subjective

the lizard says that the most effective scenes in TF were when bay slew down
well
that's still bay
the fact that you can point out scenes that were effective means "bays" editing works

at the same time there are people out there that claim not to have been able to see anything, and i believe them...

it's like this;
I call it the horror movie audience syndrome;
when a director wants to scare you in a horror movie they will keep things from their audience, they will keep visual cues out of the shot, in order to place their audience in the mental state they want them to be in.

for example in films like the ring or scream, they you'll see people die and not see who killed them, you'll see people walk down hall ways with the camera's vision focused in directions that will keep said audience in the dark as to what is really "behind them" or whats going on. This is done in order to give the audience the experience and not just tell the story.

that's the difference between alot of directors, some just tell stories and some visually take you through the story.

some film foot ball scenes from out and about so as to let the audience see everything they want to(like it's seen on tsn or something) and some put you in the action a stong example being bw5aF-QNyho, will your granpa find that commercial confusing and disorientating? no doubt. Could it be clearer? sure, "pull the camera out" and "stop shaking it." sure there are cons to that approach, but look at the pros...
it's a wonderfully immersive, kick ass experience...or at least, it tries to be, but at least the attempt was made...

What's the point in tracking though the hands and feet along the lines of scremich(sp) as a key point in the story occurs, the ball i hiked...it just adds pointless fancy new age movement to something that could be conveyed all the more clearer with a traditional approach..

now, when it comes to battles, the same thing applies, and i seem to remember a celebrated little war movie that came a few years ago that was said to really "put you in the action" the "experience was unforgettable" and said director moved and entertained us.

e8SebJtPKuk

funny enough everyone looks the same!
and everyone has the same colours on!
the camera shakes like mad
the editing has more cuts the that emo girl with the long sleeves
and so on and so fourth, do these qualms sound familiar?
they should, they're the problems people have with Bays transformers.

there is no one who can sit here and not tell the world how to clear things up in SPR, how to make it more visually coherent
but no one ever said or says anything about the visually kinetic battle scenes in saving private ryan other than Awesome.

cause even a 7 year old could tell you Spielberg did it to place you in the action, to have you feel as if you are storming the beach as one of those men...and most significant to this argument...
to convey the true disorientation of a battle whilst still communicating the important stuff.

Now, after watching that.
this, with it's 10 or so characters, with bright colours that DONT blend into the background like camo gear in the woods...
4QBZgAd7msg

seems all the more clear

so we all wanted to see what happened with Bumblebee and Barricade, but don't let what you wanted from the bottom of your heart interfere with critical thinking/analysis, that early in the movie, bay wanted us to rely on our imagination more(note later optimus holds bonecrushers head to the camera and cuts it off just for those fans that might not see it the first time...as the story progresses things get more clear..

moreover anyone ever notice how just about all the TF battles or scenes that have humans around are just about never shot from above, but rather always low angle?
is this cause bay love cool low angle music videos?
or could it serve a greater purpose?

a purpose that would be so evident if it was a kubrick film...

the truth is, if you do find yourself lost, it's great, because it means you are immersed, a lot of the camera work is rack focusing and hand held shots and human pov's just help to remind you that giant robots are fighting 10 feet from you and yes, the ground is going to shake and you're only going to see parts of them from behind your car door.
(the use of dark foreground elements is the work of an artist imo it add so much depth to the composition...ahem singer:cwink:)

but bay just sucks and along with all his other failures in the art of film, even his claim at fame, shooting action; sucks...:yay:

stay away from Batman Begins cause the action in that is bay inspired 30 cuts a minute lol(and it's all in the dark...)
is it possible that nolan was trying to serve a purpose?
or should he have shot every scene in the day time for those who want to see everything in every way...

lastly, this scene has the exact same editing as Transformers, and yes the fact that it's in a straight line helps but ask yourself, how confused are you, and why?
cPmLmRbxNVA

peace

[Chris B]

:whatever:

It's pretty much the script.

Sure, Bay's at fault when it comes to "goofs", such as Sam having his jacket on, and then off, and then on again. And then Sam talking to his parents with no box, and then he has a box under his arm. And then when they go to Hoover Dam and it says NEVADA TIME, and then TIME, and then NEVADA TIME again...but, c'mon, Spider-Man had many goofs like that as well, and that is only nitpicking.

But the script is absolutely fine, imo. It's straight to the point, and it didn't leave me any questions.

Plus, I might be the only one who likes Bay's "lighting" with his movies. It makes it more intense, imo. And even he's not the only one who does that.

But, yet again, people bash Bay and no other director, just because Bay does what he wants.

I don't really agree with that. They crammed in to many human storylines. Obviously you needed Sam's story, but the hacker storyline wasn't needed, and the military storyline should've been trimmed down a bit.

I didn't really have a problem with them thinking that the human characters needed to be used as a bridge into the TF's world because I can understand that line of reasoning. But all they really needed was Sam's story and a smaller military story and it would've been fine. And by that same token they would've allowed for more TF development.

[dark_b]

I don't really agree with that. They crammed in to many human storylines. Obviously you needed Sam's story, but the hacker storyline wasn't needed, and the military storyline should've been trimmed down a bit.

I didn't really have a problem with them thinking that the human characters needed to be used as a bridge into the TF's world because I can understand that line of reasoning. But all they really needed was Sam's story and a smaller military story and it would've been fine. And by that same token they would've allowed for more TF development.ok for example if there was no hacker stolyline no military...then what? more sam? ok of you are for more sam.

i have rather 100% finished ILM transformers then more FOX ''lets make cheap'' CGI transforers.

if this new movie that has 200 milions will nto have more robots screentime and less humans i will agree with everyone here. but in the first movie that was basicly a test?

[CEREBRAL....]

The coherency of his editing is very subjective

the lizard says that the most effective scenes in TF were when bay slew down
well
that's still bay
the fact that you can point out scenes that were effective means "bays" editing works

at the same time there are people out there that claim not to have been able to see anything, and i believe them...

it's like this;
I call it the horror movie audience syndrome;
when a director wants to scare you in a horror movie they will keep things from their audience, they will keep visual cues out of the shot, in order to place their audience in the mental state they want them to be in.

for example in films like the ring or scream, they you'll see people die and not see who killed them, you'll see people walk down hall ways with the camera's vision focused in directions that will keep said audience in the dark as to what is really "behind them" or whats going on. This is done in order to give the audience the experience and not just tell the story.

that's the difference between alot of directors, some just tell stories and some visually take you through the story.

some film foot ball scenes from out and about so as to let the audience see everything they want to(like it's seen on tsn or something) and some put you in the action a stong example being bw5aF-QNyho, will your granpa find that commercial confusing and disorientating? no doubt. Could it be clearer? sure, "pull the camera out" and "stop shaking it." sure there are cons to that approach, but look at the pros...
it's a wonderfully immersive, kick ass experience...or at least, it tries to be, but at least the attempt was made...

What's the point in tracking though the hands and feet along the lines of scremich(sp) as a key point in the story occurs, the ball i hiked...it just adds pointless fancy new age movement to something that could be conveyed all the more clearer with a traditional approach..

now, when it comes to battles, the same thing applies, and i seem to remember a celebrated little war movie that came a few years ago that was said to really "put you in the action" the "experience was unforgettable" and said director moved and entertained us.

e8SebJtPKuk

funny enough everyone looks the same!
and everyone has the same colours on!
the camera shakes like mad
the editing has more cuts the that emo girl with the long sleeves
and so on and so fourth, do these qualms sound familiar?
they should, they're the problems people have with Bays transformers.

there is no one who can sit here and not tell the world how to clear things up in SPR, how to make it more visually coherent
but no one ever said or says anything about the visually kinetic battle scenes in saving private ryan other than Awesome.

cause even a 7 year old could tell you Spielberg did it to place you in the action, to have you feel as if you are storming the beach as one of those men...and most significant to this argument...
to convey the true disorientation of a battle whilst still communicating the important stuff.

Now, after watching that.
this, with it's 10 or so characters, with bright colours that DONT blend into the background like camo gear in the woods...
4QBZgAd7msg

seems all the more clear

so we all wanted to see what happened with Bumblebee and Barricade, but don't let what you wanted from the bottom of your heart interfere with critical thinking/analysis, that early in the movie, bay wanted us to rely on our imagination more(note later optimus holds bonecrushers head to the camera and cuts it off just for those fans that might not see it the first time...as the story progresses things get more clear..

moreover anyone ever notice how just about all the TF battles or scenes that have humans around are just about never shot from above, but rather always low angle?
is this cause bay love cool low angle music videos?
or could it serve a greater purpose?

a purpose that would be so evident if it was a kubrick film...

the truth is, if you do find yourself lost, it's great, because it means you are immersed, a lot of the camera work is rack focusing and hand held shots and human pov's just help to remind you that giant robots are fighting 10 feet from you and yes, the ground is going to shake and you're only going to see parts of them from behind your car door.
(the use of dark foreground elements is the work of an artist imo it add so much depth to the composition...ahem singer:cwink:)

but bay just sucks and along with all his other failures in the art of film, even his claim at fame, shooting action; sucks...:yay:

stay away from Batman Begins cause the action in that is bay inspired 30 cuts a minute lol(and it's all in the dark...)
is it possible that nolan was trying to serve a purpose?
or should he have shot every scene in the day time for those who want to see everything in every way...

lastly, this scene has the exact same editing as Transformers, and yes the fact that it's in a straight line helps but ask yourself, how confused are you, and why?
cPmLmRbxNVA

peace


:wow: holy crap man....i couldn't read all of your novel..but i have never seen anyone go to such lengths to prove a point. Video game editing and so on and so forth (are u serious??)...and what's in bold i actually think it's a bunch of b.s. There was a lot of issues with tranformers..Michael Bay was not the right person for this job....i don't really care if i was a mindless cartoon....a better effort could of been had for everyone to enjoy...bottom line....i also expect the same for TF2 which will be very dissappointing...

[CEREBRAL....]

ok for example if there was no hacker stolyline no military...then what? more sam? ok of you are for more sam.

i have rather 100% finished ILM transformers then more FOX ''lets make cheap'' CGI transforers.

if this new movie that has 200 milions will nto have more robots screentime and less humans i will agree with everyone here. but in the first movie that was basicly a test?


I have to agree with chris b....just cuz you take our hacker story line, or military story lines also with the budget they had..doesn't mean you still couldn't produce a better TF movie...i mean come on, we are in 2009 (back then 08) after everything we all have witnessed on film since we were all old enough to make sense of movies...they could of made TF work with with they had..i mean James Cameron made Terminator 1 and 2 work and when were those movies made??

coming up with reasons...well i should say...trying to come up with excuses to why TF was so lackluster or was made the way it was..whether budget or some other reason, i just can't buy...the whole team is suppose to be talented..that's what they got paid for...sit down and make it work..

like i said before..it shouldn't have been to hard; They have way to much of a foundation from the cartoon to comic books to work with..

for instances..if you're talking about cuz of the budget being the reason they couldn't get more robots then cut the movie short then..the producers already said the one thing they regret was the length of the first movie..

[Marvin]

:wow: holy crap man....i couldn't read all of your novel..but i have never seen anyone go to such lengths to prove a point. Video game editing and so on and so forth (are u serious??)...and what's in bold i actually think it's a bunch of b.s. There was a lot of issues with tranformers..Michael Bay was not the right person for this job....i don't really care if i was a mindless cartoon....a better effort could of been had for everyone to enjoy...bottom line....i also expect the same for TF2 which will be very dissappointing...

it's the spacing actually

but if long rhetoric/content/reference filled post are anything new to message boards(especially on the hype) you probably don't visit the comic book section all the often

some posters have points and ideas and rhetoric that they waste their time on such boards sharing with people that really couldn't care less, but they feel they have to get it off of their chests

other posters like to pop up here and there and contribute statements that they hope can stand on the short legs the poster has provided.

other posters just can't get off of the bandwagon they have been lured onto so they just present a "short concise" argument and usually no one retorts...why would they, it's bandwagon...

(lastly there are trolls, which are self explanatory)

I won't defend my habit of posting full, long arguments with reference to boot
(it makes this waste of time fun and worth it.)
plus it gives the guests a reason to come back.


BS you say?
well i guess i can't argue with that.

then again

like i said, the first time we see robot on robot action or rather alien
the bulk of the confrontation is off camera, why?
because it's early on and past examples of story telling pertaining to extra terrestrial or mutant has proven that it is better to build up the audience curiosity until either the final reveal or when the time is right...

Look at(pointless reference);

The Ring(note at the end we see the ghost in her full glory, every time before that, especially the first time its cut away or off camera)

Pitch Black
Predator
Jurassic Park(raptor attack at the very start)

best handled in Ridley Scott's Aliens

and for an example from something with a similar audience, TMNT.

of course it's perfectly plausible that bay is just a nincompoop

but then again, why is it that is the scene that is edited in that manner?
the fact that we don't see what puts barricade down but later we see each decepticon and even jazz go down in pretty much slow motion?

perhaps it's "BS"
or maybe there is a method to the bay madness.


Every Movie could be better no doubt, but why this movie is outed for not being as good as it could have been is hypocrisy through and through.
For with that Rhetoric so few movies a are actually good

Iron man could have been way better even TDK

I'm not going to go there though

I actually think the movie was very good and i give almost all credit to the director this time

for like everyone has been saying for the past few months, the story was absolute tripe
yet, here were are and it's one of the 3 most anticipated films of the year

"A film is a collaboration, but it is the director's energy and vision that brings the elements of script, performance and production into a satisfying totality."
DGA

if the directors don't write the story but rather present the material to us

Bay is a miracle worker
and he does it on time and always under budget.

:ikyn

[LightningFlash]

Damn.

[The Lizard]

Well, Marvin, like I said in the opening post in this thread, I did overall enjoy the scenes with the robot battles taking place, despite my personal opinions about Bay's directorial and editing styles. I stand by my observation that there were certain action scenes that would have been more effective if the editing were less chaotic and ADD-friendly, but as I initially said, the action scenes are really the only parts of the first film that I can go back and watch now without mocking the film openly.

When it comes to the robot action in TF2, Bay will be Bay, and I can deal with that as long as he pulls off a few beautifully effective action scenes on par with the best of the first movie (eg: Blackout's initial attack on the Qatar base, the military airstrike against Scorpinok, Ironhide's blast-and-flip maneuver in the city, Bonecrusher skating up the highway). I just want to see more robot action than I saw in the first movie.

BUT -- as far as the script, characterization and dialog goes, I would really, really, REALLY like a vast improvement over the first movie. There was just so much that was totally lame and fell flat whenever the humans were talking (eg: dorky racial sterotypes, Sam's typically annoying clueless parents, the total lack of any real chemistry between Sam and Mikhaela, the stupid chihuahua wee-wee jokes for the kids, the totally insufferable and unfunny Agent Simmons, etc, etc).

That was my original point. I'm hoping for (but not really expecting) better writing in TF2 so that the non-robot parts of the movie are a little easier to stomach this time around.

[CEREBRAL....]

it's the spacing actually


I won't defend my habit of posting full, long arguments with reference to boot
(it makes this waste of time fun and worth it.)
plus it gives the guests a reason to come back.


BS you say?
well i guess i can't argue with that.

then again

like i said, the first time we see robot on robot action or rather alien
the bulk of the confrontation is off camera, why?
because it's early on and past examples of story telling pertaining to extra terrestrial or mutant has proven that it is better to build up the audience curiosity until either the final reveal or when the time is right...


The Ring
Pitch Black
Predator
Jurassic Park(raptor attack at the very start)


for like everyone has been saying for the past few months, the story was absolute tripe
yet, here were are and it's one of the 3 most anticipated films of the year

"A film is a collaboration, but it is the director's energy and vision that brings the elements of script, performance and production into a satisfying totality."
DGA

if the directors don't write the story but rather present the material to us

Bay is a miracle worker
and he does it on time and always under budget.

:ikyn

ha ha again with the novels..sorry i couldn't read all that, but i just saved what i think i could debate with you about.

first...for movies like the ring, pitch black, Predator..etc it's ok for the "villain or main creature" to be introduced to the audience later on in the film. Cuz no one knows what it/they is or what it/they look like..so the "classic" unveiling of what "they" look like it at the end makes sense...but for BAY to take this approach with part 1..really aint a big deal but when u overall look at it...why do that??..The audience knows who they are, and from the origin of the TF's they are introduced pretty earlier in the story....i can see "the fallen" in this nex coming film being introduced later on..but for Megs (for instance) to come in at that classic villain end...ahhh not impressed and seemed lazy approach to the story or film...

and plz dont be like everyone else with the whole "well if it was so bad why did it do good numbers" arguement..cuz logically speaking theres more to a movie then the numbers it does or any of the hype it generates...it's a hyped movie...most people whether they liked it or not..are given them a chance to improve on what some feel they messed up on....and if it's basically the same as the first movie...then i'm sure if they do decide to make another one, the hype for tht movie won't be so much.....

i mean action movies/summer blockbusters are always talked about cuz that's what we all crave, but that by no means makes them a good movies...

[Marvin]

Well, Marvin, like I said in the opening post in this thread, I did overall enjoy the scenes with the robot battles taking place, despite my personal opinions about Bay's directorial and editing styles. I stand by my observation that there were certain action scenes that would have been more effective if the editing were less chaotic and ADD-friendly, but as I initially said, the action scenes are really the only parts of the first film that I can go back and watch now without mocking the film openly.

When it comes to the robot action in TF2, Bay will be Bay, and I can deal with that as long as he pulls off a few beautifully effective action scenes on par with the best of the first movie (eg: Blackout's initial attack on the Qatar base, the military airstrike against Scorpinok, Ironhide's blast-and-flip maneuver in the city, Bonecrusher skating up the highway). I just want to see more robot action than I saw in the first movie.

BUT -- as far as the script, characterization and dialog goes, I would really, really, REALLY like a vast improvement over the first movie. There was just so much that was totally lame and fell flat whenever the humans were talking (eg: dorky racial sterotypes, Sam's typically annoying clueless parents, the total lack of any real chemistry between Sam and Mikhaela, the stupid chihuahua wee-wee jokes for the kids, the totally insufferable and unfunny Agent Simmons, etc, etc).

That was my original point. I'm hoping for (but not really expecting) better writing in TF2 so that the non-robot parts of the movie are a little easier to stomach this time around.

i see your point
i still have to contend that

no one raises any issues with films like saving private ryan which are about 4x more chaotic and "shaky + fast editing,"

side by side TF is about 4x more clear and the characters look different from eacher other and the area

to me that reads as "I just want to see with perfect clarity because honestly i'm interested" and you know what, I can understand everyone perfectly, it's very interesting stuff with beut cgi and i wanna see it too

...but if the director is interested with immersing us in a mega war on earth from the human perspective that's his commitment to his art...maybe next time he'll just have as watch from the sidelines like we're at some baseball game...

moreover it's from the human perspective(optimus vs bone crusher.."cool mom" mag vs optimus- car windows and lamp posts in most shots, bumblebee vs barricade - harsh low angles on account of sam being there....Iron hide jumping over the blue dress lady)

it's less like say spiderman who's living his life and more like Jurassic Park where it's not from the T-rex's pov but from ours. For all it's faults the one thing TF has really done is leave it's audience in awe, if you watch it with a kid, they're just so mystified...imo it's the best decision bay made...because the material was initially for them...we say it was for us but we were kids when we like it...teens, like bay said himself were interested in other things and other films

and now we teens demand the material be for us?

your right tho, alot of things could be better story wise but anyone who brings up T2 needs to stop being selfish and think of the younger kids, whom we all owe many thanks for making this film possible.

and it all honesty, my theater was laughing and cheering all the way...

[Boom]

I just recently sat down and watched Transformers again -- albeit this time with the Rifftrax (http://www.rifftrax.com/rifftrax/transformers) audio commentary by the Mystery Science Theater 3000 guys, which is totally hilarious if you haven't heard it, BTW.
Holy piss. I must own this.

[Marvin]

ha ha again with the novels..sorry i couldn't read all that, but i just saved what i think i could debate with you about.

that saves time

first...for movies like the ring, pitch black, Predator..etc it's ok for the "villain or main creature" to be introduced to the audience later on in the film. Cuz no one knows what it/they is or what it/they look like..so the "classic" unveiling of what "they" look like it at the end makes sense...but for BAY to take this approach with part 1..really aint a big deal but when u overall look at it...why do that??..The audience knows who they are, and from the origin of the TF's they are introduced pretty earlier in the story....i can see "the fallen" in this nex coming film being introduced later on..but for Megs (for instance) to come in at that classic villain end...ahhh not impressed and seemed lazy approach to the story or film...

and the first ninja turtles movie?
and Jurassic Park?

sure we all knew what turtules and dinos looked like going into the movie, especially with the way the trailers were presented, but
with any re-imagining for the screen, your audience is 100% in the dark and trust me when i say, blackout in the dessert and BB transforming for the first time was simply new for everyone and their mothers...

story telling is story telling and building up and holding back are classic tools that should never not be capitalized on.

and plz dont be like everyone else with the whole "well if it was so bad why did it do good numbers" arguement..cuz logically speaking theres more to a movie then the numbers it does or any of the hype it generates...it's a hyped movie...most people whether they liked it or not..are given them a chance to improve on what some feel they messed up on....and if it's basically the same as the first movie...then i'm sure if they do decide to make another one, the hype for tht movie won't be so much.....

i mean action movies/summer blockbusters are always talked about cuz that's what we all crave, but that by no means makes them a good movies...

I didn't mean to go there, but my point wasn't so much if it was such a bad movie why did people go..

my point is
we all know how bad the script was due to the story, we've all seen pretty cgi not save movies in the past(eragon and avp and hulk, etc

we've all seen movies that have popular material not draw in the crowds it's supposed to(based on hype)

will all that going against it, the DIRECTOR (with his approach) made gold out of it, so much gold that it's the event this year

you notice the next superman won't really be the event when it comes out?

what about that garbage that came out last time was good enough to make it the event(when i say event i just mean as hotly as anticipated as this)

it's not like brad pit or (rumored) will smith is in a captain america costume
it's not like it's a cameron film
and its not like transformers the material is that much of a draw to the mainstream
...it's not like it's heath ledger's last performance
and it's the fist time ILM has done work on a film
it's not like mickey rouke whose going to win best lead this year for playing himself is has just been cast as the antagonist....
it's not like lucus, ford and spielbeg have reteamed after 20 years or what not
it's not like it's a live action tokien book

the story was weak and yet the film somehow did this(previous success and current buzz)

that's BAY(he's the buzz maker for better or worse)
the man deserves credit
(more then other directors that either have good stories to film, or rely on the above things to draw an audience)

....maybe it's shia

[CEREBRAL....]

that saves time



and the first ninja turtles movie?
and Jurassic Park?

sure we all knew what turtules and dinos looked like going into the movie, especially with the way the trailers were presented, but
with any re-imagining for the screen, your audience is 100% in the dark and trust me when i say, blackout in the dessert and BB transforming for the first time was simply new for everyone and their mothers...

story telling is story telling and building up and holding back are classic tools that should never not be capitalized on.

^^sorry this is way to much anazlying.....those movies were directed fine...like i said for the origin of the tf movie...no tf needed to be introduced late...bring in the deceps and megs in better then you did...




will all that going against it, the DIRECTOR (with his approach) made gold out of it, so much gold that it's the event this year

you notice the next superman won't really be the event when it comes out?

what about that garbage that came out last time was good enough to make it the event(when i say event i just mean as hotly as anticipated as this)

it's not like brad pit or (rumored) will smith is in a captain america costume
it's not like it's a cameron film
and its not like transformers the material is that much of a draw to the mainstream
...it's not like it's heath ledger's last performance
and it's the fist time ILM has done work on a film

the story was weak and yet the film somehow did this

that's BAY
the man deserves credit
(more then other directors that either have good stories to film, or rely on the above things to draw an audience)
^^^
sorry you are given Bay to much credit and i can't convince u otherwise and that's fine..no disrepect it's your opinion but superman has not been hyped anymore cuz the last few films sucked....TF there hasn't been one, and honestly i dont see TF being anymore hyped then any other superhero movie..they are all the same..they all create a buzz hence this site and the fact that hollywood wants more and more of them..

I sure i can find a lesser director then Bay and they would of done a better job...flat out his verison of TF sucked..any director doing this film would of had the same success....

[Marvin]

^^sorry this is way to much anazlying.....those movies were directed fine...like i said for the origin of the tf movie...no tf needed to be introduced late...bring in the deceps and megs in better then you did...

i was actually referring to the bumblebee fight
meg coming in late is another story

^^^
sorry you are given Bay to much credit and i can't convince u otherwise and that's fine..no disrepect it's your opinion but superman has not been hyped anymore cuz the last few films sucked....TF there hasn't been one, and honestly i dont see TF being anymore hyped then any other superhero movie..they are all the same..they all create a buzz hence this site and the fact that hollywood wants more and more of them..

superman was in the same boat as batman..um except batman being more recent and sucking more, nolan revamped bats to moderate success and the TDK was hotly anticipated, singer "revamped" superman to less then moderate success and the next one isn't anticipated at all

that being said if bay did such a bad job with his TF movie, then this new one should be in the same boat as superman was...
last film sucked and the director has an up hill battle to climb...
doesn't look that way

I sure i can find a lesser director then Bay and they would of done a better job...flat out his verison of TF sucked..any director doing this film would of had the same success....

respectfully I have to disagree with you last part
his energy and vision gave this property a very strong momentum that most others wouldn't be able too

there's ppl out there that believe a director swap equates to a story swap, and that just isn't true.
most other directors limited with this script would have made a movie as lame as TF was written to be
Len wisemen being the prime example

[CEREBRAL....]

respectfully I have to disagree with you last part
his energy and vision gave this property a very strong momentum that most others wouldn't be able too

there's ppl out there that believe a director swap equates to a story swap, and that just isn't true.
most other directors limited with this script would have made a movie as lame as TF was written to be
Len wisemen being the prime example

IF your talking about the BB fighting scene..then i'll have to agree with others and say it was shotty camera work..could not see what was going on.....all of the TF's fighting was basically the same

wow..like i said your a fan of Bay's work..i really dont see how BAY gave any life to this movie( or TF's in general)..sorry..like i said a lesser name director would of gotten the same results (as far as popularity goes) and probably done a better job..most people view Bay's work the same..i guess there are other's such as yourself that see me as actually being good!!:wow: ok...no disrespect..maybe TF2 would be better....maybe..

[Marvin]

IF your talking about the BB fighting scene..then i'll have to agree with others and say it was shotty camera work..could not see what was going on.....all of the TF's fighting was basically the same

what's shotty about it
i mean ignoring the two possible functions i pointed out...whats so shotty?
the lack of a tripod?

wow..like i said your a fan of Bay's work..i really dont see how BAY gave any life to this movie( or TF's in general)..sorry..like i said a lesser name director would of gotten the same results (as far as popularity goes) and probably done a better job..most people view Bay's work the same..i guess there are other's such as yourself that see me as actually being good!!:wow: ok...no disrespect..maybe TF2 would be better....maybe..

I'm a fan of alot of work
especially work that is visually praised by talented people and garners accliam

as far as popularity, bay also made the property notorious...in only a way he can..contempt from fans and general bay haters

it's not just good visual interpretation, it's powerful, visually it's a step or two under terry malick when it comes to raw photography(many would argue that it's the bay photography that let ILM stand out as much as they did this time)

content of story is another relm

but you wanna hate, i'll not stand in your way
no disrespect

[LightningFlash]

Damn.

[the_joker]

You can't be serious :huh:

Sure, Bay has made some films that look pretty to the eye (until you get motion sickness), however they all lack depth. Usually the plot is paper thin, and the characters are two dimensional. Heck, he prides himself on teh explosions :dry: The reason he gets hate here from some posters is because when we, the old school fans, found out Bay was behind this film we instantly knew he would butcher what we loved about Transformers, we predicted what would happen and we were right, we got a crazy kid running around for a whole movie, a bunch of useless government babble, and an army recruiting advert. Oh yeah and a light sprinkling of robots. They should have called the movie The Humans featuring Transformers. Plus after all that Bay in his condisending way takes a stab at the fans like we are morons. Transformers isn't just about robots smashing the **** out of each other, they all had unique personalities, flaws, and dilemmas what we could relate to, it showed that we were not so different to them. People cried when Optimus Prime died in the animated movie, I can't see people crying if/when Bay decides to kill off Optimus Flame. The only positive that came from the Bay movie was brought on by the fans, and that was the decision of having Peter Cullen reprise his roll of Optimus, ugh imagine if we got someone else. My only hope for TF2 is that Orci, Kurtzman and Kruger give us more depth this time around, they are getting better at writing stories but their character development in screen plays needs much work.

I just can't do it anymore :facepalm
I hate to say it, but maybe its time for you 'old school fans' to step aside for a new generation of fans. Because no director on this planet would have been able to adapt years of transformers episodes into one 2 hour film that is watchable. The way I see it is that the film was a commercial success and has created a lot of fans amongst the ordinary film-goers who make up the bulk of Hollywood income along with the 'old school fans' who can handle change and redesigns to their beloved childhood franchise.

It's pointless to complain about the script for the first film. Let it go. Just sit back and enjoy the films, which let us not forget, was originally based on a toyline(!) or don't watch it and stick to the old animated series. Because clearly the new film has its own established fan base that actually likes Bay's interpretation of the franchise. Anyway cheer up, for those complaining about too much human storylines, Bay has already said that the second film will contain a lot more action.

[CEREBRAL....]

what's shotty about it
i mean ignoring the two possible functions i pointed out...whats so shotty?
the lack of a tripod?

geez i'm starting to get a headache..as it's been said on many occasion...u couldn't see the robots fighting..i had no idea what robot was doing what..me and countless others have stated that , cuz you and a handful of folks think differently that's your view doesnt mean mine is wrong...i dont know what camera he used or didnt use (nor care)..the fact you could barely see what any of the robots were doing told me that's bad camera work..it's my opinion what my eyes told me..


I'm a fan of alot of work
especially work that is visually praised by talented people and garners accliam

as far as popularity, bay also made the property notorious...in only a way he can..contempt from fans and general bay haters

it's not just good visual interpretation, it's powerful, visually it's a step or two under terry malick when it comes to raw photography(many would argue that it's the bay photography that let ILM stand out as much as they did this time)

content of story is another relm

but you wanna hate, i'll not stand in your way
no disrespect

honestly this is where i just stop the debate...why can i not like the film or the directors work?? I have my reasons, for someone to come call it hating is friggin retarded...plz i'm tired of that being excuse coming from others with a difference in opinion..how old are we now..geez i dont like TF part one..M.Bay did a horrible job that's my opinion..so now i'm a hater....:cmad:wtf

u liked it, good..hooray for you!!

[The Lizard]

For all it's faults the one thing TF has really done is leave it's audience in awe, if you watch it with a kid, they're just so mystified...imo it's the best decision bay made...because the material was initially for them...we say it was for us but we were kids when we like it...teens, like bay said himself were interested in other things and other films

and now we teens demand the material be for us?

your right tho, alot of things could be better story wise but anyone who brings up T2 needs to stop being selfish and think of the younger kids, whom we all owe many thanks for making this film possible.



Wait -- if the TF movies are for the "younger kids", then why the masturbation gags, leering shots of Megan Fox and the "Private Ryan" type camera effects you mentioned (which, BTW were much more calculated in "Ryan" and less spastic than what we saw in the TF movie).

Obviously what Bay is trying to do is to appeal to as wide a mass audience as possible. Understandable, since that's what brings in the boxoffice money. BUT - when you bog down a cool robot sci-fi battle movie with infantile bathroom humor, silly African-American sterotypes and throw-away dialog that falls flat, you're going to alienate the people who really like sci-fi movies in an attempt to play to the crowd that loves "Meet the Spartans" and "National Treasure 2".

[Marvin]

geez i'm starting to get a headacheI figured you'd be the first to admit it..as it's been said on many occasion...u couldn't see the robots fighting..i had no idea what robot was doing what..me and countless others have stated that , cuz you and a handful of folks think differently that's your view doesnt mean mine is wrong...i dont know what camera he used or didnt use (nor care)..the fact you could barely see what any of the robots were doing told me that's bad camera work..it's my opinion what my eyes told me..

I respect an opinion, I just hate when an opinion is biased,

yours and many others seem to apply said opinion(camera work) only here, bays work on a film they hastily predicted they would hate the minute they heard bay was signed on and long before they saw any footage.

like i pointed out before(in one of the posts you stated too long to bother reading)

Many films including the acclaimed and loved (by many a poster in and around these very boards) by people everywhere Saving Private Ryan(it is also very reminiscent to jim cameron's aliens) have this type of work and imo an even harsher approach to it with people that all look alike be they "good guys" or "bad"
and never is the term

"Shotty" applied to the camera work

pardon me if i wonder if any bias is present
visavi I ask you personally

what exactly is shotty about it?

myself being very close to people in the industry and take a personal interest in the matter or camera

shotty work at a feature level is very rare, not everything is wonderful but everything is intended, so what you see as bad(ie blair witch is actually a decisive decision)

if you ever get a chance to look at dailies you'll see focusing problems, cropping boom operators and cables, over exposures....etc

this film if anything has aggresive camera work, on the dvd there is behind the scenes where we see various advance methods of capturing the kinetics bay is so known for...

michael man loves doing his hand held doc work with it's rack focusing and odd framing in his features now...
i dare you to find anyone who calls that shotty...course not..but michael man, and not michael bay is an award winning photographer
(:o


honestly this is where i just stop the debate...why can i not like the film or the directors work?? I have my reasons, for someone to come call it hating is friggin retarded...plz i'm tired of that being excuse coming from others with a difference in opinion..how old are we now..geez i dont like TF part one..M.Bay did a horrible job that's my opinion..so now i'm a hater....:cmad:wtf

u liked it, good..hooray for you!!

Honestly this is where i start the debate

you and everyone else can love or hate anything you want

I decide to step in when you(people) **** on other people's work, call it your opinion or whatever you want

you don't like the film
half the people here don't like it
90% of of the people on the Ain't cool site or rather message board hate it

but they never say that
they say it's bad, and that's bull ****

if you look into Kubrick's history in the industry you'll see this **** on almost each and every release; Everyone and their mother hate the product, critics call all his films crap and contrived messes that are at times boring...about a decade later his work is just about the most acclaimed there is..

my point, you may or may not like it but don't call some you don't like bad.
that's what all those people clearly did.

(before people say i'm calling bay kubrick, i'm not)

I'm not saying your(or the world) is going to be calling TF a gem in 10 years, but i am saying people these days obviously aren't as critically objective as they should be...everything is opinion presented as law.

you keep saying this debate isn't going anywhere cause i'm not going to convince u to like it and ur not going to convince me to hate it...
boards don't work that way

it's rhetoric i'm into, why do u say it's bad?
well guess what?
your wrong.(as far as camera work...etc)

in my opinion bay almost always shots films devoid of compelling story or consist of characters that can give an actor an oscar
I'm an art student(check the sig)

I watch the trailer for pearl harbor every know and then and i SEE a photographer telling a visual story about america in a times of war
I see a the painter in Ridley scott when i watch his epic films

when these guys do genre films, they visually knock it out of the park and not everyone likes it fine

but "fans" come on places like here and call it shotty and that kinda sucks if you know what i mean.

geez i dont like TF part one..M.Bay did a horrible job that's my opinion

you and everyone (including myself) should apply this with each "review" and maybe less feet will end up in peoples mouths.

[Marvin]

Zack Snyder(sp)
the 300 guy

has a very unique camera(as far as how it moves)

constant truck ins and outs
with constant over cranking and under
(zooming in and slow motion)

it's new age and it's hip, and old folks people like sidney pollock and woody allen i could easily see calling it new age and amateurish

but do these new age films have an audience?

that's honestly what i see happen to bay every time out, he has an audience and he knows exactly who they are, yet the non audience what him to make movies their way

pass.

[Marvin]

Wait -- if the TF movies are for the "younger kids", then why the masturbation gags, leering shots of Megan Fox and the "Private Ryan" type camera effects you mentioned (which, BTW were much more calculated in "Ryan" and less spastic than what we saw in the TF movie).

Obviously what Bay is trying to do is to appeal to as wide a mass audience as possible. Understandable, since that's what brings in the boxoffice money. BUT - when you bog down a cool robot sci-fi battle movie with infantile bathroom humor, silly African-American sterotypes and throw-away dialog that falls flat, you're going to alienate the people who really like sci-fi movies in an attempt to play to the crowd that loves "Meet the Spartans" and "National Treasure 2".

you answered your own question

you can't please everyone

(unless your Jimmy Cameron)

[The Lizard]

you answered your own question

you can't please everyone


True....I would just like to see a little more effort put into pleasing those who made Iron Man a success, and a little less effort put into pleasing those who made Shrek 3 a success.

[Marvin]

True....I would just like to see a little more effort put into pleasing those who made Iron Man a success, and a little less effort put into pleasing those who made Shrek 3 a success.

In it's early and purest form, Iron man is about a demon in a bottle drunk with the power of a one man army living in a capitalist world...that makes its money off of weapons of war that other countries pay for with their lives...and so on and so fourth...
it was a well staged visual narrative comic book for teens to adults.
Am i surprised that the film is very mature and for the same people...not really
actually i think it could have been way more mature, but every now and then in summer film u need a man flying into a wall at 60mph and surviving...

Transformers was initially made to sell toys to children...yes a narrative was applied but even then it wasn't about socialism and substance abuse like ironman

If we tried really hard(to justify watching a kids show) we can find little things here and there about natural resources and respect for life...

am i surprised that the new TF film is pretty much for kids?
no, i'm actually pleased...anything more would be a disrespect to the "original" material....why alienate the youngsters that give the property it's legs in the first place

funny enough, with new film, if we even care to look as hard for substance as we did in the original cartoon, well find themes of respect for sentient life, and even contemporary foreign policy among others...
but i guess an audience has to like a film before they try to defend it.


and unlike Ironman with it's Adult Angst...TF has Teen Angst

face it, hollywood would be hard pressed to have a film about anything that isnt' anchored by human protagonists..Narnia..
Titanic isn't about a love story, it's about a boat sinking and the social injustice that incured...
Bay did the same with pearl harbour except the love story was contrived and predictably boring...

Nolan, Raimi, Favareau had the advantage to be able to please both hollywood and fans by making their human led properties about...well humans

Bay made a movie about robots and he fit humans in it..or rather a movie about humans and he fit robots in...
another failed attempt at pleasing everyone i guess.
:nono:

[mclay18]

Of course not.

You have the same director and two of the same writers behind the sequel (plus Ehren Kruger, who should've known better).

With Michael Bay, good scripts are pretty much moot. It's a proven track record after all.

[CEREBRAL....]

I respect an opinion, I just hate when an opinion is biased,

yours and many others seem to apply said opinion(camera work) only here, bays work on a film they hastily predicted they would hate the minute they heard bay was signed on and long before they saw any footage.

like i pointed out before(in one of the posts you stated too long to bother reading)

Many films including the acclaimed and loved (by many a poster in and around these very boards) by people everywhere Saving Private Ryan(it is also very reminiscent to jim cameron's aliens) have this type of work and imo an even harsher approach to it with people that all look alike be they "good guys" or "bad"
and never is the term

"Shotty" applied to the camera work

pardon me if i wonder if any bias is present

man, and not michael bay is an award winning photographer
.

DO ME A FAVOR...(I swear you are these most aggravating person i have ever come across....i really didnt think that was possible).....i'm not your test subject...dont set here and over analyze or try to hypotheses what my opinion is or how i should approach my opinion (who the hell are you???)...you've taken this debate way past just one's opinion and turn it into some moronic lab report..

it's pretty simple...i dont like the first movie nor the directors vision of the move, i gave me reasons, you looooove m.bay gave your reasons..u are never gonna convince me other was and i'm sure the hell not trying to convince you..so plz with your novels, i have way to much going on to sit thru any of it..u need to get out more or write a book....and PLZ STOP USING MY POST TO TYPE YOUR OWN WORDS IN BOLD IN THEM...sorry but i think you're crzy seek help......:wow:

that's just my opinon but i'm sure you will refute that as well..i'm done replying to you now....as u were...

[Marvin]

DO ME A FAVOR...(I swear you are these most aggravating person i have ever come across....i really didnt think that was possible).....
yes I like the movie and i objectively defend it against hypocritical "opinions", i can see how that would be annoying

i'm not your test subject...dont set here and over analyze or try to hypotheses what my opinion is or how i should approach my opinion (who the hell are you???)
I'm just curious if your opinion is your own is all
(whenever i ask, you give a regurgitation of the same old popular statements floating around here, you even bring up that it's popular)

who am i?
I'm Marvin:brucebat:

...you've taken this debate way past just one's opinion and turn it into some moronic lab report..
...right
just like your analysis of TF you've managed to twist and blow out of proportion what something is and what you tell yourself(and everyone) it is.


it's pretty simple...i dont like the first movie nor the directors vision of the move
Bingo
Your right it is that simple, and i really hope you and everyone else keep it that simple
I feel the same way about lots of movies, but i never ever call them bad or some of the crap i hear about bays work



i gave me reasons, you looooove m.bay gave your reasons..
I respect and have the ability to see past popular opionion...again more blowing out of proportion...(that's the way it works with bay antagonists)

whats stopping me from saying you haaate bay and all your reasons are tainted by that?
moral high ground my friend

u are never gonna convince me other was and i'm sure the hell not trying to convince you..so plz with your novels, i have way to much going on to sit thru any of it..u need to get out more or write a book....
I'm not trying to convice you to like the movie, i just hope you to
1. use the word opinion more
2. realize that you can call something crap and bad all day long but once in a while someone like myself will come along, provide evidence to the contrary, and then ask you to elaborate...

I get out plenty


and PLZ STOP USING MY POST TO TYPE YOUR OWN WORDS IN BOLD IN THEM...sorry but i think you're crzy seek help......:wow:
the bold is an old habit and i really should stop
as far as your personal attack...
looks like i win the moral high ground as well...:whatever:
-me, a bay "supporter" who have thunk.

but if you insist on the childlike behavior;
I'm rubber your glue, what ever you say bounces off of me...and get get this, it sticks onto you.
:cwink:

that's just my opinon but i'm sure you will refute that as well..i'm done replying to you now....as u were...
Your opinion is your own and ur entitled to it, I will not try to convince your or anyone to like the movie...I will simply

I will simply refute your "facts"

I don't like the fantastic four movie, I used to call it ****
i sat with my family and they really enjoyed it
at that point I stopped calling it bad, and started calling it a movie I don't like

peace.

[LightningFlash]

Don't you think that's enough?

[CEREBRAL....]

i rest my case....:wow:

[S.A.A.D.]

I just recently sat down and watched Transformers again -- albeit this time with the Rifftrax (http://www.rifftrax.com/rifftrax/transformers) audio commentary by the Mystery Science Theater 3000 guys, which is totally hilarious if you haven't heard it, BTW.

Anyway, although I was entertained by the action and FX in the movie theater, I have come to realize that any scene in the movie that doesn't have actual robot battles in it is totally unwatchable. The acting, script and delivery are just that bad.

So... has there been any indication at all that we could possibly get a better script and a less lamebrained storyline in TF2, or is everyone just automatically assuming it will be more of the same? I'll take any kind of improvement at all, whether is be different writers, actors or whatever.

1) How? Explain. I see no constructive criticism regarding those things.

2) Geez,get a grip man,you sound like you saw some of Transformers:Revenge Of The Fallen already.

[Octoberist]

the first movie was fun, but a little...sloppy.

There were little things that I didn't like: the scenes at Sam house (with the Autobots) was played out too long; the way Jazz's death was handled; the disappearance of Barricade; the name mix up of Brawl, and so forth.

[Marvin]

Don't you think that's enough?

depends, if he has anymore wonderful rhetoric about why bay and TF sucks to share with the world

i rest my case....:wow:

Of1Q3O7Fr2E

lol it's all good

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I don't really agree with that. They crammed in to many human storylines. Obviously you needed Sam's story, but the hacker storyline wasn't needed, and the military storyline should've been trimmed down a bit.

I didn't really have a problem with them thinking that the human characters needed to be used as a bridge into the TF's world because I can understand that line of reasoning. But all they really needed was Sam's story and a smaller military story and it would've been fine. And by that same token they would've allowed for more TF development.

I agree with this, taking the hacker storyline out and trimming the military story would have allowed more development of the Transformers themselves. We onyl really got to know Optimus Prime and Bumblebee. The Decepticons especially needed more development, which I hope they get in this movie.

[Octoberist]

that's true; the hacker story was okay but overexposed; the military subplot..man I didn't care about any of them. However, I can see why they were important since it would make sense for the military to work along side with the Autobots in Transformers 2.

[CEREBRAL....]

depends, if he has anymore wonderful rhetoric about why bay and TF sucks to share with the world



Of1Q3O7Fr2E

lol it's all good


again i ask who do you think you are? Cause so far i dont know anyone who has come out and said you were right about anything other then yourself...so again U ARE WHO NOW????

[LightningFlash]

depends, if he has anymore wonderful rhetoric about why bay and TF sucks to share with the world



Of1Q3O7Fr2E

lol it's all good

Bay and Transformers do not suck.

Moving on.



So, the SCRIPT, huh?

Think we'll be getting a voiceover of Optimus when the movie begins?

[Marvin]

probably
I THINK peter cullen has a strong narrators voice

I also doubt sams parents will play a big role second time out
unless his dad is going to by him car insurance or something

[LightningFlash]

Well Cullen was supposed to record some lines in August before he and everyone else records their lines in November, so I hope we get another epic intro.

Sam's parents are supposed to know about the Transformers, so who knows; maybe they will play at least some parts in the beginning before the characters go to Egypt.

[Marvin]

looks like the script calls for battles in the (ghobi?) Egyptian dessert, which should please people that were irked by the "messy" battles in the pointless city

I'm personally looking forward to seeing a 30 foot robot perched atop a pyramid

[LightningFlash]

Or a Transformer breaking through a pyramid.

[The Lizard]

1) How? Explain. I see no constructive criticism regarding those things.

Try reading my other posts in this very thread, and the "how" and "explain" of what I found lacking in the script of the first TF movie should be crystal clear. I've given plenty of examples, do I have to actually quote back the exact dialog of the weak parts to get the point across?

2) Geez,get a grip man,you sound like you saw some of Transformers:Revenge Of The Fallen already.

Hmmm...wasn't aware that I was coming across in an hysterical, illogical or unbalanced way to require "getting a grip". Just making simple observation and hoping for improvements is all.


Is it just me, or are the defenders of this movie seeming a little desperate and overly defensive? :huh:

[S.A.A.D.]

Try reading my other posts in this very thread, and the "how" and "explain" of what I found lacking in the script of the first TF movie should be crystal clear. I've given plenty of examples, do I have to actually quote back the exact dialog of the weak parts to get the point across?



Hmmm...wasn't aware that I was coming across in an hysterical, illogical or unbalanced way to require "getting a grip". Just making simple observation and hoping for improvements is all.


Is it just me, or are the defenders of this movie seeming a little desperate and overly defensive? :huh:

Dude,you're the one who put a freaking sad face near the name of this thread that you concocted. I just think you're blowing the situation out of proportion. I couldn't be bothered to skim through each post to find examples from you about why you think the direction was so bad for Transformers. Here's an idea for you,concentrate on let's say the good thing's this movie has going for it. You're not letting yourself see past the cons,from one Transformers fan to another,I think you owe it to yourself to do what is necessary.

[Vile]

It's a movie about a toy commericial with giant flying robots that change into cars.

Honestly...you were expecting Shakespear? It certainly wasnt the greatest written film of all time but it gave about as much as it could give...I was happy with it.

[CEREBRAL....]

It's a movie about a toy commericial with giant flying robots that change into cars.

Honestly...you were expecting Shakespear? It certainly wasnt the greatest written film of all time but it gave about as much as it could give...I was happy with it.


To me this is just a dumb lazy approach or an excuse about a movie..and "Lord of the Rings" was about some make-believe trolls who knew magic and were chasing a ring that gave them power, "Dark Knight" was about a man in a blk custom crime fighting, spider man as well...like i have said before to someone else...anything could be dumb'd down..it's up to the people who u put these things in their hands to come back and make something worth wild....plain and simple...it wasn't (TF) to alot of us...we expect more in general and for the next coming flick.

[The Lizard]

Dude,you're the one who put a freaking sad face near the name of this thread that you concocted. I just think you're blowing the situation out of proportion. I couldn't be bothered to skim through each post to find examples from you about why you think the direction was so bad for Transformers. Here's an idea for you,concentrate on let's say the good thing's this movie has going for it. You're not letting yourself see past the cons,from one Transformers fan to another,I think you owe it to yourself to do what is necessary.

On the contrary, I think I've done a rather good job at getting past the cons in my general enjoyment of the film. As I said, I WAS entertained overall by the 2007 TF movie in the theater. In fact, after I saw it, I made more than a few Spidey fans around here upset by saying that I was more entertained by TF than I was by Spider-Man 3. And I'm a big Spidey fan too.

But.....while Spider-Man 3 disappointed on many levels, it wasn't nearly as howlingly bad in the script and dialog department as TF. The sheer sloppiness and laziness of the characterizations and human scenes in TF make the film hard to sit through in repeat viewings. There's a reason why such a technically advanced, whiz-bang fun movie still ended up with a "rotten" rating on Rottentomatoes.com.

I'm perfectly capable of turning off my brain and enjoying a silly, light, pointless movie. Hell, I've loved Godzilla movies for years. But, when a blockbuster movie is dumbed-down to a certain point just because the writers and directors obviously think they know what we, the pea-brained masses of moviegoers find funny and engaging, it can get really annoying.

And to respond to the claim that Transformers is off the hook for its stupidity due to being "meant for the kids", I must point out the PG-13 rating as well as the comparative writing in other "kids movies" made by Pixar as a rebuttal. Where is the lazy, broad, infantile dialog in Pixar "kids movies"?

I found about 25% of Transformers awesome, but the remaining 75% eye-rollingly bad. I would just like to close the gap between those two extremes a little bit and I don't think that's unreasonable.

[Marvin]

On the contrary, I think I've done a rather good job at getting past the cons in my general enjoyment of the film. As I said, I WAS entertained overall by the 2007 TF movie in the theater. In fact, after I saw it, I made more than a few Spidey fans around here upset by saying that I was more entertained by TF than I was by Spider-Man 3. And I'm a big Spidey fan too.

But.....while Spider-Man 3 disappointed on many levels, it wasn't nearly as howlingly bad in the script and dialog department as TF. The sheer sloppiness and laziness of the characterizations and human scenes in TF make the film hard to sit through in repeat viewings. There's a reason why such a technically advanced, whiz-bang fun movie still ended up with a "rotten" rating on Rottentomatoes.com.

I agree with most of this except for the "rotten rating" part, reading all of those(and i read a good chunk) reviews, the amount of time's bays name and his movie making sensibilties and the offended-ness the critics said they had experienced in the past from bay films....again show a bias, half those reviews are fair, for in about half of the reviews, only about half of the review is about the film itself..

Moreover

on the subject of rotten tomatoes
go look at the review these critics gave the original "90 minute toy commercial"(not my words)
that fan standby so diligently an then compare it to the 2007 version(which did get a higher review i think)

never stood a chance...in fact...critics. lol


I'm perfectly capable of turning off my brain and enjoying a silly, light, pointless movie.
It's interesting that you say this cause in your next little part u kinda contradict yourself a little bit based on an assumption about the filmmakers intent.


Hell, I've loved Godzilla movies for years. But, when a blockbuster movie is dumbed-down to a certain point just because the writers and directors obviously think they know what we, the pea-brained masses of moviegoers find funny and engaging, it can get really annoying.
don't know about your theater I assume they were booing and mooning and laughing at how dumb the film was, cause where i happened to be, everyone seemed to be enjoying themselves and laughing at the jokes
A friend of mine went with another friend of mine and they were screaming and chanting when the movie was "kicking ass" only to meet back up at school and join in the mass contempt for the movie...
I found it odd at the time...now not so much.

And to respond to the claim that Transformers is off the hook for its stupidity due to being "meant for the kids", I must point out the PG-13 rating as well as the comparative writing in other "kids movies" made by Pixar as a rebuttal. Where is the lazy, broad, infantile dialog in Pixar "kids movies"?
Something about Mary was Restricted where i'm from and it was the dumbest take on a love story ever...(when you know compared to things like Casablanca and the notebook and even let the right one it..)

Disney movies have story time tested source material on their side(same with kubrick who only did movies based on strong books)

its not about what age group the movie is for, its about who the audience is.

I found about 25% of Transformers awesome, but the remaining 75% eye-rollingly bad. I would just like to close the gap between those two extremes a little bit and I don't think that's unreasonable.

well put

[Vile]

To me this is just a dumb lazy approach or an excuse about a movie..and "Lord of the Rings" was about some make-believe trolls who knew magic and were chasing a ring that gave them power, "Dark Knight" was about a man in a blk custom crime fighting, spider man as well...like i have said before to someone else...anything could be dumb'd down..it's up to the people who u put these things in their hands to come back and make something worth wild....plain and simple...it wasn't (TF) to alot of us...we expect more in general and for the next coming flick.

I've heard this argument before and it doesnt hold water. The Batfilms and Spidey films have been around for years with hundreds of 'tones' to choose from. Look at the Batfilms! It essentually covers all the major Batman eras from the craptastic 60's to the NOW.

LOTRs? You're kidding right?

Transformers has ALWAYS been a one dimensional kid television show. Two sides going after the same object almost every episode. Why is Prime a good guy? Because the show says he is. Why is Megatron bad? Because the show says he is.

These characters have no depth. We didnt watch this show to see intense relationships between characters! We wanted to see the robots fly, shoot lasers and transform into trucks.

Anywho who seriously went into Transformers thinking Bay was going revolutionize the characters, story, EVERYTHING and make it some deep, emotional Apocalypse Now/Private Ryan-with-robots tale was deluding themselves.

You want to know what to expect in the sequel? The same as Transformers 1 only more robots, more robots kicking ass and more explosions. Dont get your hopes up on anything else.

[Dotten]

I basicly hope for the same as in the first one. The whiners will whine no matter what, I'm just glad I'm lucky enough to love the first and hope I can love the second.

If anything, give me more Prime-time. But that they have promised, so this is looking good :)

[The Guard]

I don't think it's pointless to hope for a better script. I tend to believe that that's what we'll get on most levels. The whole "natural resources" theme isn't deep. It's part of Transformers lore, but it isn't anything particularly clever. Maybe in the 80's it was insightful, but now...now it's just "been done". Robots that transform into vehicle are cool, but again, not deep. So what's left to add depth to the concept? I think the only thing you can do to add a level of seriousness to the franchise and take it out of "robot soap opera" land is to approach this from a real world perspective. How would the world react if Transformers arrived? How would the Transformers react to humans? And so forth. Those are the elements that made the first movie successful, along with the basics, and those are the elements that need to be handled well in the second film.

While I like the concept of The Transformers as characters in their own rite, I'd rather see them from the human's POV on film, through the eyes of a species that has no experience with these beings, than from their own, as a race for whom this stuff is just normal. It adds an element of "uniqueness" that otherwise wouldn't exist so much. That's not to say we can't visit the Transformers on their own.

In TF2, I'd basically like to see Sam and whatever her name was grow up. I'd like to see The Transformers evolve in their interactions with humans, and evolve their relationship with them, and I'd like a little bit more dramatic weight given to dramatic events (Jazz's death, for example) and a few less random subplots (the Hacker thing, which wasn't awful, but did take up time that could have been used on the Autobots), but I wouldn't mind a film with a similar basic tone. Maybe a few less random jokes. I do understand why the entire movie isn't featuring the Transformers, though. That would be ridiculously expensive. Even moreso than the film already is.

[dark_b]

i think not every movie needs to be serious. of course it doesnt have to be on the same level as an Uwe Boll movie. but its fun to watch a movie like crank,transporter,transformers,.....

[CEREBRAL....]

I've heard this argument before and it doesnt hold water. The Batfilms and Spidey films have been around for years with hundreds of 'tones' to choose from. Look at the Batfilms! It essentually covers all the major Batman eras from the craptastic 60's to the NOW.

LOTRs? You're kidding right?

Transformers has ALWAYS been a one dimensional kid television show. Two sides going after the same object almost every episode. Why is Prime a good guy? Because the show says he is. Why is Megatron bad? Because the show says he is.

These characters have no depth. We didnt watch this show to see intense relationships between characters! We wanted to see the robots fly, shoot lasers and transform into trucks.

Anywho who seriously went into Transformers thinking Bay was going revolutionize the characters, story, EVERYTHING and make it some deep, emotional Apocalypse Now/Private Ryan-with-robots tale was deluding themselves.

You want to know what to expect in the sequel? The same as Transformers 1 only more robots, more robots kicking ass and more explosions. Dont get your hopes up on anything else.

So it's an one dimensional kid show, the characters lack depth??......WHAT WERE THE COMICS ABOUT? ALSO HOW U HAVE A SHOW ON FOR 4 YEARS (OR HOWEVER LONG THE SHOW WAS ON TO) and the animators never develop the characters???????

also if the characters lack depth..then y do most fans know BB is the beloved one, why do they know(the fans)s the constant battles between megs and starscream...how is it possible for fans of the show to have their favorites????

[CEREBRAL....]

On the contrary, I think I've done a rather good job at getting past the cons in my general enjoyment of the film. As I said, I WAS entertained overall by the 2007 TF movie in the theater. In fact, after I saw it, I made more than a few Spidey fans around here upset by saying that I was more entertained by TF than I was by Spider-Man 3. And I'm a big Spidey fan too.

But.....while Spider-Man 3 disappointed on many levels, it wasn't nearly as howlingly bad in the script and dialog department as TF. The sheer sloppiness and laziness of the characterizations and human scenes in TF make the film hard to sit through in repeat viewings. There's a reason why such a technically advanced, whiz-bang fun movie still ended up with a "rotten" rating on Rottentomatoes.com.

I'm perfectly capable of turning off my brain and enjoying a silly, light, pointless movie. Hell, I've loved Godzilla movies for years. But, when a blockbuster movie is dumbed-down to a certain point just because the writers and directors obviously think they know what we, the pea-brained masses of moviegoers find funny and engaging, it can get really annoying.

And to respond to the claim that Transformers is off the hook for its stupidity due to being "meant for the kids", I must point out the PG-13 rating as well as the comparative writing in other "kids movies" made by Pixar as a rebuttal. Where is the lazy, broad, infantile dialog in Pixar "kids movies"?

I found about 25% of Transformers awesome, but the remaining 75% eye-rollingly bad. I would just like to close the gap between those two extremes a little bit and I don't think that's unreasonable.


bravo!! Bravo....well said but yet u type this out...and someone wants to call you a hater or think you are basically asking for to much..i just dont get it..great post thou.

[Marvin]

So it's an one dimensional kid show, the characters lack depth??......WHAT WERE THE COMICS ABOUT? ALSO HOW U HAVE A SHOW ON FOR 4 YEARS (OR HOWEVER LONG THE SHOW WAS ON TO) and the animators never develop the characters???????

also if the characters lack depth..then y do most fans know BB is the beloved one, why do they know(the fans)s the constant battles between megs and starscream...how is it possible for fans of the show to have their favorites????

if you applied the same energy in finding the "depth" and "substance" that you put in the original

into the 2007 movie, you might trip over your own feet.

[terry78]

I think when it comes to comic books, video games, tv shows and what not being turned into "serious" live action movies, you can either go too far trying to take itself serious or too far into parody. You have to strike a balance. I think the first flick was well done, but the makers also knew what they were working with, which is, in fact, regardless of how much canon is behind it, a 1980s cartoon/toyline. Most of our own parents felt the same way when we told them about this movie or if they watched it with us, but I think Bay did a decent job the first time around.

As far as this time around, if they can establish a greater since of urgency and dread due to the Fallen, as well as an uneasy alliance between the two factions, I'm cool with that, but in the same breath, don't forget your roots in the somewhat campy world that TF inhabits. Every single incarnation of the universe has had some humor and in-jokeyness, regardless of it being the comics, a tv show, an anime, fanfic, whatever.

[WeaponXProject]

I don't think that its foolish to think the script will be better than the first movie. As I recall about 30 minutes of the first movie had pointless laughs with Anthony Anderson. Not to mention the hot australian girl who knew that transformers were in fact an alien life form that is robot organism. I think if the focus was more on Sam and not goofy side characters than this film will be alot better than the last. THe way Bay adds corny laughs into his movie is the only complaint I had about the first. If it would focus on what fans want to see, more transformers in action and less humans then it will be fantastic.

[Vile]

if you applied the same energy in finding the "depth" and "substance" that you put in the original

into the 2007 movie, you might trip over your own feet.

Exactly.


So it's an one dimensional kid show, the characters lack depth??......WHAT WERE THE COMICS ABOUT? ALSO HOW U HAVE A SHOW ON FOR 4 YEARS (OR HOWEVER LONG THE SHOW WAS ON TO) and the animators never develop the characters???????

also if the characters lack depth..then y do most fans know BB is the beloved one, why do they know(the fans)s the constant battles between megs and starscream...how is it possible for fans of the show to have their favorites????

Get over it, dude.

[CEREBRAL....]

Exactly.




Get over it, dude.


^^aka...i have nothing to counter point..thnkx

[CEREBRAL....]

if you applied the same energy in finding the "depth" and "substance" that you put in the original

into the 2007 movie, you might trip over your own feet.

u bore me......:sleepy:

[S.A.A.D.]

On the contrary, I think I've done a rather good job at getting past the cons in my general enjoyment of the film. As I said, I WAS entertained overall by the 2007 TF movie in the theater. In fact, after I saw it, I made more than a few Spidey fans around here upset by saying that I was more entertained by TF than I was by Spider-Man 3. And I'm a big Spidey fan too.

But.....while Spider-Man 3 disappointed on many levels, it wasn't nearly as howlingly bad in the script and dialog department as TF. The sheer sloppiness and laziness of the characterizations and human scenes in TF make the film hard to sit through in repeat viewings. There's a reason why such a technically advanced, whiz-bang fun movie still ended up with a "rotten" rating on Rottentomatoes.com.

I'm perfectly capable of turning off my brain and enjoying a silly, light, pointless movie. Hell, I've loved Godzilla movies for years. But, when a blockbuster movie is dumbed-down to a certain point just because the writers and directors obviously think they know what we, the pea-brained masses of moviegoers find funny and engaging, it can get really annoying.

And to respond to the claim that Transformers is off the hook for its stupidity due to being "meant for the kids", I must point out the PG-13 rating as well as the comparative writing in other "kids movies" made by Pixar as a rebuttal. Where is the lazy, broad, infantile dialog in Pixar "kids movies"?

I found about 25% of Transformers awesome, but the remaining 75% eye-rollingly bad. I would just like to close the gap between those two extremes a little bit and I don't think that's unreasonable.

1) Ugh,look at 3).


2) You certainly didn't shut your entire brain down to enjoy Transformers..no one need's to shut their brains off to enjoy a movie. That is a piece of crazy and strong logic there,you're just projecting that belief on the movie.

3) This "I found about 25% of Transformers awesome, but the remaining 75% eye-rollingly bad"=what the fudge? You are contradicting yourself,you seem misguided.
Interesting.

4) Speaking of laziness,most of your post consists of Spiderman 3 movie talk and a sprinkle of Godzilla 1998 talk. As far as I am concerned you are a completist,and guess what? Not every single movie you will watch that you haven't can provide you all you want. You must come to that realization. You want Transformers movies to be Shakespeareish,I am for good storylines and good dialog from Transformers movie,but come on. It would ruin the spirit and tone of the Transformers if it was entirely like that(Shakespeareish). It is necessary and vital that a balance is struck,and quite frankly I think it was nailed and think it will be nailed again and onwards.

[LightningFlash]

u bore me......:sleepy:

If he bores you, STOP arguing!!!!!

But noooo, you just have to keep telling your side of the story.

Damn :cmad:

[terry78]

I'll put it like this...in no way could I see the gritty take of TDK in the TF world. It just wouldn't mesh. Nolan managed to filter out all the garbage that Batman stories have had over the decades and struck pay dirt, but with Transformers, the concept in and of itself is outlandish, which is why we like it.

[LightningFlash]

First people compare TDK to Spidey.

And now Transformers.

Yay.

Thanks Nolan.

[CEREBRAL....]

If he bores you, STOP arguing!!!!!

But noooo, you just have to keep telling your side of the story.

Damn :cmad:

Wait a min. i dont remember calling your name or seeing how u fit into this..i was having a convo with another poster and he decided to drop in his two cents..(just like how u are doing..) sooo... onless i was speaking to you....plz stay out of it..thanks i'm sure he doesn't need a father on these boards....thnkx

[baerrtt]

So it's an one dimensional kid show, the characters lack depth??......WHAT WERE THE COMICS ABOUT? ALSO HOW U HAVE A SHOW ON FOR 4 YEARS (OR HOWEVER LONG THE SHOW WAS ON TO) and the animators never develop the characters???????

also if the characters lack depth..then y do most fans know BB is the beloved one, why do they know(the fans)s the constant battles between megs and starscream...how is it possible for fans of the show to have their favorites????

Just because a bunch of comics tried adding depth to the TF canon doesn't mean that the actual material is worthy. Do you really need 'depth' and 'grittiness' to enjoy something which wasn't created(or adapted when it went to tv) for those purposes?

Your average joe knows that Batman has been portrayed as a darker character since at least Burton's BATMAN over the last 20 years or so whilst LOTR is one of the most acclaimed novels of the 20th Century. You want TF to be something it never has and never can be?

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I'm not about to take sides on this but I will say this.......

With claims like..... "the comic tried to add depth to TF canon" or "Transformers were originally a 30 minute toy ad" or "Transformers has ALWAYS been a one dimensional kid television show" you would think that the G1 cartoon was the "FIRST" medium in which the TF fiction was told.

And the truth of the matter is......... The G1 cartoon didnt come first.

So the comic didnt add depth to TF canon the cartoon stole it.

[Chris B]

I don't really understand the criticism that some people make about critics of TF1 about them wanting some Shakespearian plot. I think those people realize that Transformers has never been that deep of a franchise. I think all they wanted was some thing like Iron Man, Spider-Man 1, the first three Indiana Jones films, etc. A combination of a lighthearted tone and a solid storyline.

For the record, I enjoyed TF1 and will probably enjoy ROTF when all is said and done. But as TF fan, I can't deny that TF film franchise leaves a lot to be desired in its current state.

[The Lizard]

1) Ugh,look at 3).


2) You certainly didn't shut your entire brain down to enjoy Transformers..no one need's to shut their brains off to enjoy a movie. That is a piece of crazy and strong logic there,you're just projecting that belief on the movie.

3) This "I found about 25% of Transformers awesome, but the remaining 75% eye-rollingly bad"=what the fudge? You are contradicting yourself,you seem misguided.
Interesting.

4) Speaking of laziness,most of your post consists of Spiderman 3 movie talk and a sprinkle of Godzilla 1998 talk. As far as I am concerned you are a completist,and guess what? Not every single movie you will watch that you haven't can provide you all you want. You must come to that realization. You want Transformers movies to be Shakespeareish,I am for good storylines and good dialog from Transformers movie,but come on. It would ruin the spirit and tone of the Transformers if it was entirely like that(Shakespeareish). It is necessary and vital that a balance is struck,and quite frankly I think it was nailed and think it will be nailed again and onwards.

Wow, you totally failed to grasp what I was saying.

I didn't mention "Godzilla 1998", I was talking about Godzilla movies in general. But you did bring up an interesting point. The 1998 American Godzilla movie had better special effects than any of the original Japanese Godzilla movies. But today, the US Godzilla movie is dismissed as a dorky attempt at an overhyped blockbuster that ultimately failed to generate enough interest to even justify a sequel, while the low-tech Japanese Godzilla is still a beloved pop icon.

Anyway, back to Transformers....
The TF cartoon was indeed limited in its scope and depth considering that it was a toy-based cartoon. I freely admit that (since I am not a "completist", whatever that means in regard to Transformers). But, I also don't remember the cartoon having dorky dog piss gags or wacky racial stereotypes aimed at the same crowd that thought Eddie Murphy's Meet Dave movie was hilarious.

If you think everything about the first TF movie was "nailed", and there's no room for corrections, well that's fine for you. Despite the fact that I love giant robots beating the crap out of each other, and I realize it's "not Shakespeare" I'm apparently a bit more demanding with regard to how a sci-fi film speaks to my intelligence level.

[CEREBRAL....]

I don't really understand the criticism that some people make about critics of TF1 about them wanting some Shakespearian plot. I think those people realize that Transformers has never been that deep of a franchise. I think all they wanted was some thing like Iron Man, Spider-Man 1, the first three Indiana Jones films, etc. A combination of a lighthearted tone and a solid storyline.



thankx my man..either they dont get it..or tried hard to ignore it...

Wow, you totally failed to grasp what I was saying.




But, I also don't remember the cartoon having dorky dog piss gags or wacky racial stereotypes


If you think everything about the first TF movie was "nailed", and there's no room for corrections, well that's fine for you. Despite the fact that I love giant robots beating the crap out of each other, and I realize it's "not Shakespeare" I'm apparently a bit more demanding with regard to how a sci-fi film speaks to my intelligence level.

^^^

[CFlash]

I don't really understand the criticism that some people make about critics of TF1 about them wanting some Shakespearian plot. I think those people realize that Transformers has never been that deep of a franchise. I think all they wanted was some thing like Iron Man, Spider-Man 1, the first three Indiana Jones films, etc. A combination of a lighthearted tone and a solid storyline.

For the record, I enjoyed TF1 and will probably enjoy ROTF when all is said and done. But as TF fan, I can't deny that TF film franchise leaves a lot to be desired in its current state.

IMO, the problem with Bay's Transformers is that it had very little heart... no gravity... no moral... nothing to say. You watch it simply to watch it. You walk away having not a single thought provoked. Even light-hearted movies can provoke thought and make you think. All good sci-fi does this. Whether it's Terminator or Men In Black. Even the original cartoon/comic/backstory premised itself on things *deeper* than Bay's movie. Like...

1) Yeah, the energy angle... the dying (drained) Cybertron serving as a metaphor for our planet (climate change, draining of natural resources like forests, etc). Whoever thinks this is an "80's" thing does not watch the news. It is more relevant today than even then.
2) The Autobots being an oppressed and technologically inferior class (Decepticons are more advanced, they can fly, etc). Classic Third World or minority class struggle.

There were some good things I loved about Bay's Transformers. Optimus Prime. Sam and BB's relationship. BB. But, you can't defend this movie by saying the cartoon/comic source was this or it was that. Because even on that level, the movie failed... having not captured a single central premise of the cartoon and sometimes even turning the premises upside-down.

[Jake Cassidy]

It had nothing to say? No message? So ****in' what? It's a ****in' movie, for God's sake. Personally, all those 'thought-provoking' movies some people love so much bore the **** out of me.

I prefer movies that are pure entertainment. I don't go to the movies to think. That's what books are for. :woot: :oldrazz:

[S.A.A.D.]

Wow, you totally failed to grasp what I was saying.

I didn't mention "Godzilla 1998", I was talking about Godzilla movies in general. But you did bring up an interesting point. The 1998 American Godzilla movie had better special effects than any of the original Japanese Godzilla movies. But today, the US Godzilla movie is dismissed as a dorky attempt at an overhyped blockbuster that ultimately failed to generate enough interest to even justify a sequel, while the low-tech Japanese Godzilla is still a beloved pop icon.

Anyway, back to Transformers....
The TF cartoon was indeed limited in its scope and depth considering that it was a toy-based cartoon. I freely admit that (since I am not a "completist", whatever that means in regard to Transformers). But, I also don't remember the cartoon having dorky dog piss gags or wacky racial stereotypes aimed at the same crowd that thought Eddie Murphy's Meet Dave movie was hilarious.

If you think everything about the first TF movie was "nailed", and there's no room for corrections, well that's fine for you. Despite the fact that I love giant robots beating the crap out of each other, and I realize it's "not Shakespeare" I'm apparently a bit more demanding with regard to how a sci-fi film speaks to my intelligence level.

1) Again,get off your high horse.

2) Wrong,I enjoyed the movie alot,but I do believe there is more room for improvement which I am confident will be dished out alot in Transformers:Revenge Of The Fallen.

[Jake Cassidy]

^ You forgot:

3) Nobody thinks Meet Dave is funny. :woot:

[S.A.A.D.]

^ You forgot:

3) Nobody thinks Meet Dave is funny. :woot:

^Oooh,good one. Hehehe. :woot:
Thanks for pointing that out dude.

[Fanticon]

i just finished the commentary on transformers blu ray...and after listening to bay talk, i really feel like the success of the movie has made him feel enabled to do anything he wants with part 2. the way he was talking was as if he knew it was going to be good all along...even all his changes and the goofiness...and now, we the audience have enabled him to expand upon this...and that is why i feel like tf2 will be great eye-candy but even more hokey than the first one.

[Marvin]

If he bores you, STOP arguing!!!!!

But noooo, you just have to keep telling your side of the story.

Damn :cmad:

he's obviously itching for a confrontation(especially with the bore comment, and with respect to lizards thread and not letting turn into anything less then productive discussion I've tried to move beyond retorting to his beckons and calls

besides he doesn't even read my posts, so what's the point(if u did you'd realize you were schooled after the first one)

as somewhat of a vet here i figured i'd set an moral high ground example and only respond to the more objective thoughts on the matter.

it's what optimus would do(insert TF smiley)


I didn't mention "Godzilla 1998", I was talking about Godzilla movies in general. But you did bring up an interesting point. The 1998 American Godzilla movie had better special effects than any of the original Japanese Godzilla movies. But today, the US Godzilla movie is dismissed as a dorky attempt at an overhyped blockbuster that ultimately failed to generate enough interest to even justify a sequel, while the low-tech Japanese Godzilla is still a beloved pop icon.

funny enough the fans of godzilla didn't go around telling everyone the movie sucked due to it's lack of elevation of the material
sure the original was charming and beloved but it was just that, nothing more..if anything the Emmerich version tried in vain to make sense out of something that only works when it's camp.

TF fans need to just admit they don't like what bay did and end it there...they instead hide behind the false validation that the original was something more that it was and the new one is only bad because it's about nothing

sorry to break it to "them" but TF has always been this shallow when it comes to legitimate depth.

note;
general audience rarely seem to mention anything about the designs not making sense...just the fans...
Regular people simply accept that this is what cars would look like if they were to unfold and stand to two legs

the same way the bat fans seemed to shut up about the "real world" approach to the suit once film pleased their fanboyiness

fans will be fans

Anyway, back to Transformers....
The TF cartoon was indeed limited in its scope and depth considering that it was a toy-based cartoon. I freely admit that (since I am not a "completist", whatever that means in regard to Transformers). But, I also don't remember the cartoon having dorky dog piss gags or wacky racial stereotypes aimed at the same crowd that thought Eddie Murphy's Meet Dave movie was hilarious.

alot of things are different
material changes with the times...childish gags evolve over 30years

the minute James cameron has the terminator peeing on a gov't agent, then you can cry hail mary.

I don't remember the cartoon making 7 hundred million dollars in it's original "run" either


IMO, the problem with Bay's Transformers is that it had very little heart... no gravity... no moral... nothing to say. You watch it simply to watch it. You walk away having not a single thought provoked. Even light-hearted movies can provoke thought and make you think. All good sci-fi does this. Whether it's Terminator or Men In Black. Even the original cartoon/comic/backstory premised itself on things *deeper* than Bay's movie. Like...

Technically if you watch the scene with Optimus and the crew at Griffith Telescope, they pretty much hits the moral legacy of the material on the head
0ngQsxqXIeM

and he goes on when he fights megatron...

like i said before, it seems to be so obvious in the 80's cartoon but when it shows itself in the new one people seem to cover their ears...

1) Yeah, the energy angle... the dying (drained) Cybertron serving as a metaphor for our planet (climate change, draining of natural resources like forests, etc). Whoever thinks this is an "80's" thing does not watch the news. It is more relevant today than even then.
2) The Autobots being an oppressed and technologically inferior class (Decepticons are more advanced, they can fly, etc). Classic Third World or minority class struggle.

Yea the autobots would represent Humas in that particular angle..:yay:


There were some good things I loved about Bay's Transformers. Optimus Prime. Sam and BB's relationship. BB. But, you can't defend this movie by saying the cartoon/comic source was this or it was that. Because even on that level, the movie failed... having not captured a single central premise of the cartoon and sometimes even turning the premises upside-down.[/QUOTE]


a transformer peeing on a gov't agent could be a childish gag, by a childish director yes
but
it could be seen as some form of political statement
we see what we want to see.

(insert TF smiley)

[Marvin]

Oaai7k-NJWU

with the way fan's work, they would no doubt encourage things like this in the final cut

(insert TF smiley)

[The Lizard]

1) Again,get off your high horse.


:whatever: x 1000

Right, I'll stop offering my opinion in the face of some barely-coherent pseudo-criticism from Michael Bay fans. That'll be the day.

[The Lizard]

funny enough the fans of godzilla didn't go around telling everyone the movie sucked due to it's lack of elevation of the material
sure the original was charming and beloved but it was just that, nothing more..if anything the Emmerich version tried in vain to make sense out of something that only works when it's camp.

TF fans need to just admit they don't like what bay did and end it there...they instead hide behind the false validation that the original was something more that it was and the new one is only bad because it's about nothing

sorry to break it to "them" but TF has always been this shallow when it comes to legitimate depth.

But the relative "shallowness" of the original cartoon concept should have no bearing on whether or not a new script is creative and engaging, or piss-poor, lazy and derivative. That's all the doing of the writers.

[CEREBRAL....]

i can't stand posters who think they are too smart...

[Marvin]

But the relative "shallowness" of the original cartoon concept should have no bearing on whether or not a new script is creative and engaging, or piss-poor, lazy and derivative. That's all the doing of the writers.

Here is where i partially agree

1. the pseudo fans claim that the original material is in the deeper end of the pool whereas this new version barely has it's toe in the shallow end

if the truth was spoken they would just say they want their version but instead, like i said they take the "high road" and act like it was something that it's not

and all their criticism are valid beyond belief because their on the side of substance.

We all are, deep down
but to blame the producers for keeping something the same is hardly fair

like i said

why make a barbie movie sex and the city...
so the kids can't watch it?

it could be more though
but it's no big shame if it isn't

lest we forget Godzilla 1998

[Marvin]

i can't stand posters who think they are too smart...

how do you feel about posters who are smart

(insert TF smiley here)

[LightningFlash]

Wait a min. i dont remember calling your name or seeing how u fit into this..i was having a convo with another poster and he decided to drop in his two cents..(just like how u are doing..) sooo... onless i was speaking to you....plz stay out of it..thanks i'm sure he doesn't need a father on these boards....thnkx

If you wanna argue with me, first learn how to spell correctly. You can spell cerebral right but not unless?

Secondly, there's been nothing but arguments for the last three pages and it's getting annoying. VERY annoying.

[Ace of Knaves]

I think Bay is a great action director, but that's all he is. Some of the lines in TF were actually cringe worthy, I actually felt embarrassed for them at some points. And the whole thing about that cute blonde Aussie being more intelligent than every single other person in the whole film was just typical Bay. Style over substance. And please don't get me started on the blatent stereotypical marines. A heroic white guy, a crazy bad ass black guy and a religious hispanic guy. I bet that took a while for him to think up.

But, I did enjoy TF. It was a fun ride, but completely forgettable. I hope the second one isn't.

[Ace of Knaves]

double

[CEREBRAL....]

If you wanna argue with me, first learn how to spell correctly. You can spell cerebral right but not unless?

Secondly, there's been nothing but arguments for the last three pages and it's getting annoying. VERY annoying.

and yet u wanna continue by adding... That makes sense right??..u asking for it to stop but you continue....and typos and spelling errors are all over these boards..i dont have anything to prove to you about my intelligences so why do i care if i accidentially misspelled anything. End of the day it matters not..like i said..the debate/difference was between him and i..you were not talked about..so you should of stay'd out of it..point blanket...dont complain about it, then add to it..

if u aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem....deal with it...

[Marvin]

I think Bay is a great action director, but that's all he is.

because he's failed at anything and everything else:whatever:

yes that's the point...
you people can't look at a director whose decidedly done nothing but comedy and say they not only can they not do anything else...
but that that's all they can do

the guy has made about 6 films that have all been released around the mega tentpole date of mid july

...I don't get it, he's never pretended to do anything else but that, so why is he called the failure at drama and substance?
is it because he does action so well?

Some of the lines in TF were actually cringe worthy, I actually felt embarrassed for them at some points.

that's like being embarrassed for a spoof for lacking substance

And the whole thing about that cute blonde Aussie being more intelligent than every single other person in the whole film was just typical Bay.

actually it was typical cartoon material, u know saturday morning where in the name of equal rights there will be a super smart scientist lady who is pretty...see power rangers spd..


Style over substance. And please don't get me started on the blatent stereotypical marines. A heroic white guy, a crazy bad ass black guy and a religious hispanic guy. I bet that took a while for him to think up.

GI Joe is coming out this year...I wonder if anyone will have the balls to say something like this to that...

But, I did enjoy TF. It was a fun ride, but completely forgettable. I hope the second one isn't.

storywise it is pretty forgettable...just like G1

visual wise, it's the new Jurassic Park

[terry78]

I think Bay is a great action director, but that's all he is. Some of the lines in TF were actually cringe worthy, I actually felt embarrassed for them at some points. And the whole thing about that cute blonde Aussie being more intelligent than every single other person in the whole film was just typical Bay. Style over substance. And please don't get me started on the blatent stereotypical marines. A heroic white guy, a crazy bad ass black guy and a religious hispanic guy. I bet that took a while for him to think up.

But, I did enjoy TF. It was a fun ride, but completely forgettable. I hope the second one isn't.

Well, it is required by law for every hispanic character in movies to utter the phrase dios mio while crossing their heart at least once.

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

so why is he called the failure at drama and substance?
is it because he does action so well?

No its because he's tried to add "drama and substance" to some of those action films and hasnt always done a great job at it.

Armageddon,The Island,Perl Haber are all lacking in those departments.

GI Joe is coming out this year...I wonder if anyone will have the balls to say something like this to that...

I would....then again I'm not a GI Joe fan.

visual wise, it's the new Jurassic Park

I wouldnt go that far.

[LightningFlash]

if u aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem....deal with it...

And knowing is half the battle.


G.I. JOE!!!!!!!!!



...


I'm just making fun of you now..by the way.

[Marvin]

No its because he's tried to add "drama and substance" to some of those action films and hasnt always done a great job at it.

Armageddon,The Island,Perl Haber are all lacking in those departments.


Armageddon was never intended to be anything but fun, to do anything else with that script would have been a big mistake
(and astroid is coming and they send drillers...bay is such an idiot for not giving that the full apollo thirteen treatment...(not)

it's summer camp drama, intended to read but not actually move

pearl harbor was a bad idea on a scriptual level, it worked for Titanic but that love story didn't take place during a war...
in fact I'm drawing a blank as to the last time someone successfully mixed a love and war film
(the love story sucked either way)

the island actually raises alot of deep questions and is full of substance, for it's as easy as filming a script that asks questions about the human condition and the value of life, to get credit for substance as a director


I would....then again I'm not a GI Joe fan.
you'd be wrong for doing so

...but i won't stop you


I wouldnt go that far.

I would
JP came out and people had never seen CGI applied like that, with that realism...it was half the reason to go

same thing with TF
the reviews at least give the film credit on that end

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Armageddon was never intended to be anything but fun,

Which is irrelevant to my point.

Bay tried to add a "tear jerker" and a "teen love story" to that film, not to mention the love for a father and his child and tried to make them a center peace of the film....

And he failed.

to do anything else with that script would have been a big mistake

Which proves my point.

Thanks:grin:


(and astroid is coming and they send drillers...bay is such an idiot for not giving that the full apollo thirteen treatment...(not)

He would have failed if he tried that too.

it's summer camp drama, intended to read but not actually move

Agreed....and he and the movie failed because he tried to "move" people with the plight of the characters.

The father that cared to much for his daughter, the NASA administrator who always wanted to be the pilot, The true love that may never be, the other father who never knew his son,

All of these concept and characterizations were an attempt to "move" the viewer, to make the viewer identify with the characters and they all failed.

About the only part that rang true was how the Government almost messed everything up.

pearl harbor was a bad idea on a scriptual level, it worked for Titanic but that love story didn't take place during a war...

True enough and I dont know if many other directors could have made a better film useing that script but the concept of love and war may be out dated but its not a failed concept.

At the very least an other director may have called for a re-wrire and we may have gotten a better film.


in fact I'm drawing a blank as to the last time someone successfully mixed a love and war film
(the love story sucked either way)
Gone with the Wind (1939) It was nominated for thirteen Academy Awards and won eight including Best Picture, Best Actress (Vivian Leigh), and Best Screenplay (Sidney Howard).Not to mention it featured two of the most memorable characters in movie history. Casablanca (1942) The film won three Academy Awards including Best Picture.

The Best Years of our lives (1946) won seven Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Director (William Wyler), and Best Screenplay (Robert Sherwood)
From Here to Eternity (1953)Won eight Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Director (Fred Zinnemann) and Supporting Oscars for Frank Sinatra and Donna Reed
Dr. Zhivago (1965) Won five Oscars including Best Screenplay and Best Music.

And More recently The English Patient (1996)Winner of nine Academy Awards including Best Picture

None are exactly my kind of films thou

the island actually raises alot of deep questions and is full of substance, for it's as easy as filming a script that asks questions about the human condition and the value of life, to get credit for substance as a director

The script may have raised questions about the human condition and had substance but the directors job is to make that ring true on film....to make it seem real to the view threw the preformance of the actors.

And Bay failed in that sence.He was more concerned with the action and product placement then he was in creating an atmosphere of realizem and the effect of that world on the characters, and in retrospect, our possible futures.

and "The Island" failed in that department where other films like "Logan's Run" and "Fahrenheit 451" [ which shared the concept theme] did not fail.

Even the film that "The Island" stole its premise from did a far better job at being thought provoking....""Parts: The Clonus Horror".

Children of Men also did a great job of showing the plight of the human condition if things dont change.

Even the 5 Planet of the Apes did a far better job of conveying the general idea that "look at what our society has created".

There were even a few Twilight Zone and Outer limit's episodes that did a far better job with the general concept in question then Bay did.

The Island just doesn't measure up.....at least not in my opinion.

you'd be wrong for doing so

...but i won't stop you

We'll see....after the movie is released.


I would
JP came out and people had never seen CGI applied like that, with that realism...it was half the reason to go

Correct there.

same thing with TF

And thats where I wouldnt go as far in saying.

To begin with the robot designs were lacking in the same areas that the Dino designs fulfilled.[BTW this was also Bays fault]

You looked at the Dino's in J.Park and felt that you may have just seen what they really looked like.On the other hand, Bay took a lot of creative chances with the designs he chose and truth be told it hurt the way some of the characters were viewed [no pun intended]

You really didnt walk out of the TF film an say.... "boy the TF's looked like I always imagined they would look".

Besides that there were a lot of visual flaws in TF that just werent as apparent in JP.

Even the "Bumblebee "leaking" on the agent scene had an apparent flaw.

When Bumble bee let his cap hit the agent in the head the agent rubbed the wrong part of his head afterward.

I can name a few more visual flaws but I dont want to make this a CGI debate.

[Ace of Knaves]

because he's failed at anything and everything else:whatever:

yes that's the point...
you people can't look at a director whose decidedly done nothing but comedy and say they not only can they not do anything else...
but that that's all they can do

the guy has made about 6 films that have all been released around the mega tentpole date of mid july

...I don't get it, he's never pretended to do anything else but that, so why is he called the failure at drama and substance?
is it because he does action so well?

I didn't call him a failure of drama, i simply said he is a good action director, nothing more. So he shouldn't pretend to be more than that. All his films are the same "Woohoo go America!!! We are so awesome!! We are the ones who will save the world!! bad ass!!! woohoo!!"

After a while, that does get quite annoying you know?


that's like being embarrassed for a spoof for lacking substance But this isn't supposed to be a spoof is it? It's supposed to be a fun action flick yea, but the lines shouldn't be soooo bad that it makes me cringe and feel embarrassed for the actor.


actually it was typical cartoon material, u know saturday morning where in the name of equal rights there will be a super smart scientist lady who is pretty...see power rangers spd.. I fail to see how bringing frickin Power Rangers into this can be used as a defense :whatever:


GI Joe is coming out this year...I wonder if anyone will have the balls to say something like this to that... I'm not too familier with G.I Joe but I know the characters in that have interesting and non stereotypical traits. I've seen too many bad ass black soldiers and stereotypically religious hispanic soldiers or people to last me a life time thanks.



storywise it is pretty forgettable...just like G1Errr what's G1?

visual wise, it's the new Jurassic ParkErrrr... no mate, it is not.

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Errr what's G1?

Was that a joke???

G1 is the term used to catagorize the first Transformers line.

Transformers:Generation 1 , G1 for short

The term came into use [retroactively] when Hasbro introduced the Transformers:Generation 2 toyline.

[Ace of Knaves]

Well na it ain't a joke, I'm not too familiar with the ins and outs of the Transformers world. But that doesn't mean I don't know about movies, and that's all that matters in this case.

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Well na it ain't a joke, I'm not too familiar with the ins and outs of the Transformers world. But that doesn't mean I don't know about movies, and that's all that matters in this case.



Ahhhh.

Well now you know:grin:

[baerrtt]

The problem some people have with Bay ultimately(and I'm guessing) is that in the genre of making fun,'traditional' summer blockbusters he's the most successful in this day and age and yet as movie fans I can imagine that some compare him to the past directors who once ruled that season with films that were meant to be nothing more than fun (Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis before his love of technology ran away with him etc) and find him lacking.

Those filmmakers at their best gave us films that weren't exactly meant to be deep yet we got CHARACTERS (not stereotypes) we, the audience, could give a damn about. The original script for PEARL HARBOUR, as an example, was said to be much better than what ended up onscreen because Bay wanted it to be more action-oriented.

Imagine the Michael Bay versions of JAWS, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, BACK TO THE FUTURE, TERMINATOR 2etc and, to an extent, even though I don't think TF has ever really had material worthy of non-fanboys taking it seriously, I do see why his style (memorably spoofed in TEAM AMERICA) grates on some.

Next week we could possibly see not one but two genre based summer blockbusters (THE DARK KNIGHT, WALL-E) nominated for the top prize. I've no problem with a director who doesn't have the lofty intentions a Chris Nolan or Andrew Stanton had but I suppose at times it does put things into perspective.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea that's pretty much how I feel.

Transformers doesn't need to be a lofty, deeply meaningful film, of course not. But it wouldn't hurt to make the characters believable and not just stupid stereotypes.

[dark_b]

Yea that's pretty much how I feel.

Transformers doesn't need to be a lofty, deeply meaningful film, of course not. But it wouldn't hurt to make the characters believable and not just stupid stereotypes.the funny reality is that it looks like people love it hehehehe :hehe:

[Ace of Knaves]

Well I wouldn't say that. Ask anyone what they like about Transformers, I guarantee the majority would say "Ahh man, we got transforming robots beating the crap out of each other!!" I doubt anyone would say anything about any of the humans. Apart from Megan Fox obviously. ;)

[baerrtt]

Yea that's pretty much how I feel.

Transformers doesn't need to be a lofty, deeply meaningful film, of course not. But it wouldn't hurt to make the characters believable and not just stupid stereotypes.

Yeah, the thing is some of the films I mentioned above didn't 'dumb down' their characters for the sake of what they thought a general audience would accept.

For example contrast the love interests/women of some of these aformentioned films and others of summers gone by (Brody's wife in JAWS, Leia in STAR WARS, Margot Kidder's Lois Lane, Karen Allen in RAIDERS, the original and best Sarah Connor in T1/2) or even now on occasion(Maggie G in TDK) and put them beside the glamour models/borderline porn-star lookalikes in Bay's work and there on one crucial level you can see why 'fun' divested of any sense of character reality (the importance of people the WHOLE audience can relate to or project themselves upon) just seems genuinely hollow.

It's not neccesarily a better script people should be hoping/wishing for. It's a successful director/storyteller who doesn't think in cliche when constructing 'meaningless' films.

[Avangarde]

Ahhhh.

Well now you know:grin:

And knowing is half the battle:grin:




/zing

[dark_b]

Well I wouldn't say that. Ask anyone what they like about Transformers, I guarantee the majority would say "Ahh man, we got transforming robots beating the crap out of each other!!" I doubt anyone would say anything about any of the humans. Apart from Megan Fox obviously. ;)the whole theater was full which doesnt where i live. everyone was laughing their ass.
i think a lot of people watched TF for the robots but they got a lot of comedy that they liked.
its like IM on steroids IMO.

[S.A.A.D.]

:whatever: x 1000

Right, I'll stop offering my opinion in the face of some barely-coherent pseudo-criticism from Michael Bay fans. That'll be the day.

FYI,I am pretty much not a fan of Bay even though I enjoyed Transformers and The Rock. Nothing is wrong with the fact of you are just offering your opinion,at times it is the content that makes it up that is the problem IMO.

[Ace of Knaves]

the whole theater was full which doesnt where i live. everyone was laughing their ass.
i think a lot of people watched TF for the robots but they got a lot of comedy that they liked.
its like IM on steroids IMO.

I didn't find it funny atall really. Apart from the scene where Anthony Andersons house got raided. I laughed at some other parts, but for all the wrong reasons.

And IM's characterizations and writing was about, errr, a trillion times better than Transformers.

[DOG LIPS]

http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/944/944836p1.html

It's an extreme [jump] from the first one. The outrageous, crazy humor is more outrageous

Masturbation jokes here we come!

[Ace of Knaves]

http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/944/944836p1.html



Masturbation jokes here we come!

Hmmm, interesting.

I like the sound of this "Pretender". A decepticon mole within the Autobots?

[baerrtt]

I didn't find it funny atall really. Apart from the scene where Anthony Andersons house got raided. I laughed at some other parts, but for all the wrong reasons.

And IM's characterizations and writing was about, errr, a trillion times better than Transformers.

Hence my point when superficially similar movies, to this day, have better characters and not just stereotypical cartoons Bay's abilities as a storyteller/arbiter of taste become more suspect.

[DOG LIPS]

Hmmm, interesting.

I like the sound of this "Pretender". A decepticon mole within the Autobots?

Actually, it's...The hot chick they use to get at Sam.

[Ace of Knaves]

Actually, it's...The hot chick they use to get at Sam.

For real?

[DOG LIPS]

For real?

Word!

[sogun]

You know what would make for a better script if megatron turned into a gun.

[DOG LIPS]

You know what would make for a better script if megatron turned into a gun.

Or a knife!

[The Lizard]

Masturbation jokes here we come!

That about sums up the humor level of the first TF movie. :hehe:

[Avangarde]

You know what would make for a better script if megatron turned into a gun.

Or a knife!

Or a gunknife :eek:

[Marvin]

Which is irrelevant to my point.

Bay tried to add a "tear jerker" and a "teen love story" to that film, not to mention the love for a father and his child and tried to make them a center peace of the film....

And he failed.

he tried to add a teen love story? dads will be dads when it comes to their little girls huh

it's called summer time, what better for the summer audience to relate to..

not sure where you get the he tried to add tho?



He would have failed if he tried that too.
he would have failed if he tried to treat the material seriously...but instead he succeeded in making one of the biggest funnest blockbusters

...ahem again just like something about mary fails in telling a good deep love story but succeeds in...etc



Agreed....and he and the movie failed because he tried to "move" people with the plight of the characters.

The father that cared to much for his daughter, the NASA administrator who always wanted to be the pilot, The true love that may never be, the other father who never knew his son,

All of these concept and characterizations were an attempt to "move" the viewer, to make the viewer identify with the characters and they all failed.

About the only part that rang true was how the Government almost messed everything up.

again
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/a/armageddon-script-screenplay.html

bay take this **** and makes it entertaining

it's all there on paper
1."Bay tried to add a "tear jerker" and a "teen love story""
2."The father that cared to much for his daughter"
3."administrator who always wanted to be the pilot"
4."the other father who never"
5. etc

and unless anyone has seen bay's WGA membership card...(he doesn't have one)

it's time the truth is finally accepted
everything "you" hate is there before bay even pick up a camera

all he does is make it look golden aka...annoying:whatever:

Bruckheimer wants to make a film, he wants it to be told a certain way, and he wants it to make this much money

...
then again Pirates was such a gem of story telling...maybe it is just bay.

it's called a Producer


True enough and I dont know if many other directors could have made a better film useing that script but the concept of love and war may be out dated but its not a failed concept.

I do find myself agreeing with you there

At the very least an other director may have called for a re-wrire and we may have gotten a better film.


may have being the operative word
and with JB producing..I would have loved to see them try.

Gone with the Wind (1939) It was nominated for thirteen Academy Awards and won eight including Best Picture, Best Actress (Vivian Leigh), and Best Screenplay (Sidney Howard).Not to mention it featured two of the most memorable characters in movie history. Casablanca (1942) The film won three Academy Awards including Best Picture.

The Best Years of our lives (1946) won seven Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Director (William Wyler), and Best Screenplay (Robert Sherwood)
From Here to Eternity (1953)Won eight Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Director (Fred Zinnemann) and Supporting Oscars for Frank Sinatra and Donna Reed
Dr. Zhivago (1965) Won five Oscars including Best Screenplay and Best Music.

And More recently The English Patient (1996)Winner of nine Academy Awards including Best Picture

None are exactly my kind of films thou

you and alot of other summer movie season patrons

I've seen most of those and one, unlike say Platoon and Pravite Ryan, and Appoc Now and Lock Stock and others

those are more like the note book, the war is the after thought, the "love" is the draw

secondly, all of those you just mentioned were based on books or plays or whatnot that had so much acclaim the directors would have to be genius's of messing thing up, to mess them up.

honestly I think two of those stories won Pulitzer's, I think gone with the wind the book is a nobel peace prize winner...English patient is the classic book...etc

now go read the pearl harbour script...
(that bay wrote)

people talk of story telling this and that...it kinda starts with a story
and bay never has that on his side.
unlike Lean and Kubrick who always ran to the best novels to literally translate.

Bays made 6 fun movies



The script may have raised questions about the human condition and had substance but the directors job is to make that ring true on film....to make it seem real to the view threw the preformance of the actors.
not if it's not there in the script
then actors can perform till the cows come home...

And Bay failed in that sence.He was more concerned with the action and product placement then he was in creating an atmosphere of realizem and the effect of that world on the characters, and in retrospect, our possible futures.

actually the atmosphere was visually amazing, the realism did fail tho, especially with the giant R sequence

and "The Island" failed in that department where other films like "Logan's Run" and "Fahrenheit 451" [ which shared the concept theme] did not fail.

Even the film that "The Island" stole its premise from did a far better job at being thought provoking....""Parts: The Clonus Horror".

Children of Men also did a great job of showing the plight of the human condition if things dont change.

again comparing a good script or books in these cases, to the summer scripts bay shoots is arguing my case for me

Even the 5 Planet of the Apes did a far better job of conveying the general idea that "look at what our society has created".

There were even a few Twilight Zone and Outer limit's episodes that did a far better job with the general concept in question then Bay did.

The Island just doesn't measure up.....at least not in my opinion.
mine either but it does for other people

it was his first movie away from JB and it had substance through and through
it wasn't about buddy cops and crystal meth
it was about humans growing life to replace their body parts like car parts
and the general concept then of what is a life of value...the clones show us with their experiences

i personally don't fancy the film but, for the hypocrites here who praise the original G1 saturday morning toy commercial for it's "substance" the Island is a diamond in the rough
and thus they veto'd their power to say anything negative about it.



We'll see....after the movie is released.
Anyone who starts talking about GIjoe not being as good as Saving Private Ryan story and depth wise really needs to take a chill pill

even Devin F of chud fame has openly admitted that he doesn't want that film to be more then it is...he wants it to be a fun brain cruise

the kids that allowed for it to be made into a film deserve as much





And thats where I wouldnt go as far in saying.

To begin with the robot designs were lacking in the same areas that the Dino designs fulfilled.[BTW this was also Bays fault]

You looked at the Dino's in J.Park and felt that you may have just seen what they really looked like.On the other hand, Bay took a lot of creative chances with the designs he chose and truth be told it hurt the way some of the characters were viewed [no pun intended]

that's where you and alot of fan boys are getting it wrong
if you really look at optimus(or anyone (apart from megatron)) mathematically it's all there (being a maya student, i know all about how these programs glitch)

it's all there, it's even been stated that the truck design had to be changed to make up for the mass

even when it's drawn it makes sense in ways the blockies don't
http://fc21.deviantart.com/fs18/f/2007/198/3/4/transformers_Movie__Bumblebee_by_Eldelgado.jpg

that beautiful final shot of Optimus on near the tree during magic hour really let the audience take in the fact that all the sprockets and horns, windshield wipers and windows, there all there

sure because unlike the cartoon it's all there it makes for a busy design but the reward is an audience that has no doubts about what their seeing

the originals look funky(blocky) because they were designed for animation
this is designed for (computer animation) real life.

secondly the fact that the audience witness the cars unfolding adds to the illusion

the same way we didn't doubt Jurassic Park(not sure why), the director has planted enough seeds to actually pull robots in disguise off...it pisses the fans off but at some point they'll open their eyes and see that that's what they were really watching as kids

not some 40ft robot that does 4 back flips makes a 56k modem sound and he's a gun

even the sound design pisses fans off cause it's not that stupid modem sound..

if the designs were more in liking to the original
no matter how well it would be rendered, it wouldn't matter...it would look like really nice cgi

http://www.williampolito.com/blog/images/1/20060120-transformers_test.jpg

anyone that wants to hate on the claw feet, need to look at the way the original BB's feet worked, my god
remember that scene with the girl and the feet coming out of her pool?
realism takes sacrifices.

Lastly bay's powerhouse photography just brought it all together
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oWpNcFNTmng/Rl8ce_ZjV6I/AAAAAAAAATE/8VUBTYgtkbE/s1600-h/TFW2005TV529-0026.jpg

http://www.product-reviews.net/wp-content/userimages/2007/07/transformers-movie.jpg

the designs really made this movie and thats the one thing that's the biggest shame off all
cause some dude at ILM really hit the nail on the head with his ideas and work and it's **** on every day.

You really didnt walk out of the TF film an say.... "boy the TF's looked like I always imagined they would look".

Besides that there were a lot of visual flaws in TF that just werent as apparent in JP.

Even the "Bumblebee "leaking" on the agent scene had an apparent flaw.

When Bumble bee let his cap hit the agent in the head the agent rubbed the wrong part of his head afterward.

I can name a few more visual flaws but I dont want to make this a CGI debate.

pointing out the mistakes wouldn't get us anywhere
i mean technically Raptors have feathers...

it's not just wonderfully cgi creatures, it's the functional transforming that really sells it.

http://cache.jalopnik.com/cars/assets/resources/2007/07/Transformers-Movie-Optimus-Prime.jpg

it's late and have stuff to do for school, hopefully there aren't too many mistakes in all of this

peace

[Marvin]

You know what would make for a better script if megatron turned into a gun.

alot of fan boys believe that

half my argument in a nutshell

(insert TF smiley)

[Marvin]

I didn't call him a failure of drama, i simply said he is a good action director, nothing more. So he shouldn't pretend to be more than that. All his films are the same "Woohoo go America!!! We are so awesome!! We are the ones who will save the world!! bad ass!!! woohoo!!"

After a while, that does get quite annoying you know?

It's the summer season
ask yourself if in any of the batman movies nolan("the god":whatever:) has given us, have you heard a line you would that seemed beneath the material(of the film)

cheesy love lines too(very bayish if you ask me)


But this isn't supposed to be a spoof is it? It's supposed to be a fun action flick yea, but the lines shouldn't be soooo bad that it makes me cringe and feel embarrassed for the actor.

not sure i can personally remember any being that bad but i'll give you that

During TF shia's has megan in the car at her house and he says something so cheesy that they almost break the fourth dimension...
(you're more then meets the eye or something like that)

the fact that it was a joke actually lets you see how low the film could have gone, but instead it just takes a moment to remind everyone how weak the source material actually was/is

i would say kudos to bay for that, but hey , he didn't write it

I fail to see how bringing frickin Power Rangers into this can be used as a defense :whatever:

cause if you watch it you notice that the one brilliant tech person in that particular series, is a hot hot lady:cwink:
but it's ok, it's a kids show:o

moreover
what exactly is wrong with "bay"(...the writer:cwink:) making a girl, the girl as smart as she is?

sexism anyone...

it's the one(apart from pearl harbour) where the women aren't just nice pieces of meat
and we look down on it

(insert TF smiley)


I'm not too familier with G.I Joe but I know the characters in that have interesting and non stereotypical traits. I've seen too many bad ass black soldiers and stereotypically religious hispanic soldiers or people to last me a life time thanks.

Stereotypes are archetypes for kids lol
besides, apart from the hispanic religious guy, no one else was anywhere near a stereotype when it comes to the military guy.

ie
chinese guy knowing karate?
Jewish soldier talking about whole sale...

secondly is something wrong with the stereotype in question?
it's not like he had converse and flannal..

even the geek (anderson)
i'm not sure what was so racially offensive about him?
lives with his grandma?
that was actually more about G1 fans lol:hehe:(had to)



Errr what's G1?

Errrr... no mate, it is not.

G1 is pretty much the original toy line

and yes...TF is the CGI event...of course unitil Cameron returns

[Marvin]

The problem some people have with Bay ultimately(and I'm guessing) is that in the genre of making fun,'traditional' summer blockbusters he's the most successful in this day and age and yet as movie fans I can imagine that some compare him to the past directors who once ruled that season with films that were meant to be nothing more than fun (Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis before his love of technology ran away with him etc) and find him lacking.

ur right about Zemeckis
thing is those dudes make movies that were kid friendly
this was bays first(as far as intentions)

so it's at this point that the comparisons can start...

Those filmmakers at their best gave us films that weren't exactly meant to be deep yet we got CHARACTERS (not stereotypes) we, the audience, could give a damn about. The original script for PEARL HARBOUR, as an example, was said to be much better than what ended up onscreen because Bay wanted it to be more action-oriented.

read 80% of the reviews on PH and you'll see a consensus that the action(bombing) is the only good part of the movie

cause the story(that bay wrote:whatever:) was weak and kinda contrived.

my theory tried and tested

lame and bad movie on paper...bay's involvement being it's saving grace.

Imagine the Michael Bay versions of JAWS, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, BACK TO THE FUTURE, TERMINATOR 2etc and, to an extent, even though I don't think TF has ever really had material worthy of non-fanboys taking it seriously, I do see why his style (memorably spoofed in TEAM AMERICA) grates on some.

if those movies were presented to bay with the same scripts, i have to disagree(T2 not so much), they would be just as strong story wise except they would look better.

funny enough berg's new indy just proved how dated that approach to cinema really is.

bay's back to the future might actually be interesting
but only if they used Shia lol

Next week we could possibly see not one but two genre based summer blockbusters (THE DARK KNIGHT, WALL-E) nominated for the top prize. I've no problem with a director who doesn't have the lofty intentions a Chris Nolan or Andrew Stanton had but I suppose at times it does put things into perspective.

Stanton is no bird
and the 3rd act of wall-e undermined all the good the first act did

nolan and bay are very different yes
the script for TF and the script for TDK are very different too:cwink:

[Marvin]

Yeah, the thing is some of the films I mentioned above didn't 'dumb down' their characters for the sake of what they thought a general audience would accept.
they didn't dumb anything down for that intent

in Badboys 1 the actress is a call girl that get's called to the wrong place at the wrong time(lol)
sorry if bay didn't cast Margot Kidder, but some things even bay movies makes sense

in part two the girl was a strong black FBI woman
I don't see anyone knocking Michael Mans miami vice work for it's content inspired bimbos

not sure what you found insulting about the nurse in pear harbour..

The island about about a girl cloned for a model...i believe the clones were supposed to act like kids too?
then again maybe bay is just pretending it makes sense so he can cast hot ppl.

For example contrast the love interests/women of some of these aformentioned films and others of summers gone by (Brody's wife in JAWS, Leia in STAR WARS, Margot Kidder's Lois Lane, Karen Allen in RAIDERS, the original and best Sarah Connor in T1/2) or even now on occasion(Maggie G in TDK) and put them beside the glamour models/borderline porn-star lookalikes in Bay's work and there on one crucial level you can see why 'fun' divested of any sense of character reality (the importance of people the WHOLE audience can relate to or project themselves upon) just seems genuinely hollow.

sorry if the actresses in bays movies are attractive
that's hollywood not bay

look at the films nominated for best pic this year...look at all the films nomiated for anything

even that bot from Walle is sleek

leading ladies(and leading males) work that way, the audience has to desire them too

this is no more evident than in curious case of brad pit, once he is young and the girl desires the hell out of him...it kinda helps the film that he really is good looking

if cinderella walks down the stairs and she looks like judy dench it's just not the same.

to bring it all back to this forum tho, Sam likes the hot girl from school...that's very normal in high school
megan fox being cast serves a purpose.

It's not neccesarily a better script people should be hoping/wishing for. It's a successful director/storyteller who doesn't think in cliche when constructing 'meaningless' films.

nah, it's actually a better script

it all starts there.

just look at the Rock.

I'm sorry but i really don't think Ron howards Transformer would be this buzz worthy or this good!

[Marvin]

Well I wouldn't say that. Ask anyone what they like about Transformers, I guarantee the majority would say "Ahh man, we got transforming robots beating the crap out of each other!!" I doubt anyone would say anything about any of the humans. Apart from Megan Fox obviously. ;)

funny Shia's name seems to come up in a positive light in a lot of reviews
he even seems to have a career now, a bigger career then optimus prime even:cwink:

[Marvin]

Yea that's pretty much how I feel.

Transformers doesn't need to be a lofty, deeply meaningful film, of course not. But it wouldn't hurt to make the characters believable and not just stupid stereotypes.

I take it your not a fan of the G1 characterizations then

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

he tried to add a teen love story? dads will be dads when it comes to their little girls huh

it's called summer time, what better for the summer audience to relate to..

not sure where you get the he tried to add tho?

The point is he failed at making the characters relatable.

Barlly any of the interactions rang true.

he would have failed if he tried to treat the material seriously...but instead he succeeded in making one of the biggest funnest blockbusters

A great blockbuster with no substance or characterization....sounds like his TF film.


And that proves my point....great action and very little to nothing else.

...ahem again just like something about mary fails in telling a good deep love story but succeeds in...etc

But Something about mary also delieverd on the characters.

again
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/a/armageddon-script-screenplay.html

bay take this **** and makes it entertaining

it's all there on paper
1."Bay tried to add a "tear jerker" and a "teen love story""
2."The father that cared to much for his daughter"
3."administrator who always wanted to be the pilot"
4."the other father who never"
5. etc

and unless anyone has seen bay's WGA membership card...(he doesn't have one)

it's time the truth is finally accepted
everything "you" hate is there before bay even pick up a camera

all he does is make it look golden aka...annoying:whatever:

Bruckheimer wants to make a film, he wants it to be told a certain way, and he wants it to make this much money

...
then again Pirates was such a gem of story telling...maybe it is just bay.

it's called a Producer

And what point are you trying to make???

Wether its in the script or not is irrelivent to wether Bay failed to bring it to the film.

I'm not claiming that Bay added any of those aspects to the script....I'm saying that Bay failed to make it work on film.

The parts of the story were fine and a good idea but they were delivered incorrectly.....and thats Bays failure.

I do find myself agreeing with you there
:grin:

may have being the operative word
and with JB producing..I would have loved to see them try.

Thats an other problem.

But truth be told to many bad films are made because of those kinds of problems.

Some directors should just put their foots down already.

now go read the pearl harbour script...
(that bay wrote)

I read some of it once



people talk of story telling this and that...it kinda starts with a story
and bay never has that on his side.

Again his fault.

If you cant right a good script hirer a good writter to do it for you.


unlike Lean and Kubrick who always ran to the best novels to literally translate.

Bays made 6 fun movies

And little else.

His movies are like fun rides at 6 flags.....but you soon forget them.

Now imagin if those fun rides were "Great Rides" that you never forget.

A different director may have been able to make "6 Great Movies" where Bay only made "6 Fun Movies"

not if it's not there in the script
then actors can perform till the cows come home...

If it aint in the script....call for a re-write.Dont work with the crap your handed.

actually the atmosphere was visually amazing,

Not in my eyes.

the realism did fail tho, especially with the giant R sequence

Agreed

again comparing a good script or books in these cases, to the summer scripts bay shoots is arguing my case for me

Actully its not since this was Bays attempt at a "Great Sci Fi film".

He thought the script was great and that shows a error in his judgement if it wasnt.

Now I havent read the script for the Island yet so I cant tell you if it was great or not.

But consiering how good the script the premis was stolen from was [The Clonus Horror"] I would bet it couldnt have been so bad.

mine either but it does for other people

it was his first movie away from JB and it had substance through and through
it wasn't about buddy cops and crystal meth
it was about humans growing life to replace their body parts like car parts
and the general concept then of what is a life of value...the clones show us with their experiences

And I'll say the script had the substance but the films lack of realizem prevented that substance from binging seen on film.

i personally don't fancy the film but, for the hypocrites here who praise the original G1 saturday morning toy commercial for it's "substance" the Island is a diamond in the rough
and thus they veto'd their power to say anything negative about it.

Dont lot me in with that bunch.

I stayed out of that part of the debate for a reason.

I dont feel that G1 cartoon had much substance at all....it had potentional for substance but they never brought it to fruition.

Anyone who starts talking about GIjoe not being as good as Saving Private Ryan story and depth wise really needs to take a chill pill

I can agree with that.

I'm just hopeing that we see some real "character" and "personalty" in the characters.

And truth be told thats all I wanted to see in Bays TF films.

that's where you and alot of fan boys are getting it wrong
if you really look at optimus(or anyone (apart from megatron)) mathematically it's all there (being a maya student, i know all about how these programs glitch)

it's all there, it's even been stated that the truck design had to be changed to make up for the mass

even when it's drawn it makes sense in ways the blockies don't
http://fc21.deviantart.com/fs18/f/2007/198/3/4/transformers_Movie__Bumblebee_by_Eldelgado.jpg

that beautiful final shot of Optimus on near the tree during magic hour really let the audience take in the fact that all the sprockets and horns, windshield wipers and windows, there all there

sure because unlike the cartoon it's all there it makes for a busy design but the reward is an audience that has no doubts about what their seeing the originals look funky(blocky) because they were designed for animation
this is designed for (computer animation) real life.

secondly the fact that the audience witness the cars unfolding adds to the illusion

And your missing my point.

I can understand some changes need to be made but you cant tell me that even with those changes that were necessary that some things couldnt have been done to make the CGI characters a bit more familuar.

Movies like Ironman also had to make changes to the character designs to account for mass and believeability.

But they were determined to still keep it familaur.

even the sound design pisses fans off cause it's not that stupid modem sound..

That didnt piss me off.

I was happy with the few times they used the classic sound.

But I didnt expect him to use it at all nor would it have pissed me off if he hadnt used it at all.

He was trying to make them seem real and that classic transforming sound, as much as I like it, just doent sound realilistic and would have hurt the film if he used it all the time.



if the designs were more in liking to the original

I'll stop you right there because I'm not looking for more of a G1 feel but something down the middle between the the films designs and the designs of G1 would have served the movie much better.

Lastly bay's powerhouse photography just brought it all together

That Bay does do well.



http://www.product-reviews.net/wp-content/userimages/2007/07/transformers-movie.jpg

the designs really made this movie and thats the one thing that's the biggest shame off all
cause some dude at ILM really hit the nail on the head with his ideas and work and it's **** on every day.

With that I disagree.

The designs could have been better.

pointing out the mistakes wouldn't get us anywhere

True enough

i mean technically Raptors have feathers...

Which wasnt proven when the film was made.

The first “Jurassic Park” film was released in 1993 and the last in 2001.

It wasnt till September 2007,that paleontologist found quill knobs on the forearm of a Velociraptor fossil.

These "knobs" show where feathers anchor, and fact that they were found on a Velociraptor fossil indicated it too had feathers.

Granted it was a theroy before then but it was not a fact.

it's not just wonderfully cgi creatures, it's the functional transforming that really sells it.

And again better designs that were a bit more fimiluar would have sold it better.

peace

And long life:oldrazz:

unitil Cameron returns

I would have liked to see him helm the TF movies.

if those movies were presented to bay with the same scripts, i have to disagree(T2 not so much), they would be just as strong story wise except they would look better.

I dont agree.

Particular with Jaws and Back to the future.

They may have looked better under Bay but the movies them selfs would have suffered from the same pit falls that many of Bays films do.

He just doent know how to bring any characterization to his films.

And its not just the scripts,....its his directing style.

[JP]

The script wasn't THAT bad.
It was worse.

[Dotten]

Alongside Into The Wild the script was good enough to give me the two best movies of 2007.

I holde Michael Bay up there with Fellini, Bergman, Kurosawa, Spielberg and Cameron. I don't expect a life-altering experience like those guys have given me, but he is the one who gives med the most fun. He's an expert at that field, although I'm no fan of the Bad Boys flicks. But he nailed it with The Rock, Armageddon and Transformers.

But then again, I'm no cynic. I find it rather pathetic when people go all crazy about someone loving a movie they hate. Some are film enthusiasts, other are film cynics. It's fine to have a different in opinion and discussing that in a civil matter, but those roaming The Internet just trying to find a Bay/Transformers-fan they can "fight" I really do pitty. This is not aimed at anyone in particular, It's just a general observation about The Internet. :)

[Avangarde]

This thread has turned into a real gem, it's good to see some thought provoking posts in the TF Board once again, well at least more thought provoking then the first film.

[Bayless]

Stanton is no bird
and the 3rd act of wall-e undermined all the good the first act did


agreed. i hate to say it but everything in WallE is wonderfully brilliant and hit me harder about how we live than anything. but the later CGIed fat people being attacked by the ship? uh...

still good filming

[baerrtt]

ur right about Zemeckis
thing is those dudes make movies that were kid friendly
this was bays first(as far as intentions)

so it's at this point that the comparisons can start...


read 80% of the reviews on PH and you'll see a consensus that the action(bombing) is the only good part of the movie

cause the story(that bay wrote:whatever:) was weak and kinda contrived.

my theory tried and tested

lame and bad movie on paper...bay's involvement being it's saving grace.



if those movies were presented to bay with the same scripts, i have to disagree(T2 not so much), they would be just as strong story wise except they would look better.

funny enough berg's new indy just proved how dated that approach to cinema really is.

bay's back to the future might actually be interesting
but only if they used Shia lol



Stanton is no bird
and the 3rd act of wall-e undermined all the good the first act did

nolan and bay are very different yes
the script for TF and the script for TDK are very different too:cwink:

I'm curious are you that much of a Bay fan (no problem that you are)that you REALLY believe that JAWS, RAIDERS, BACK TO THE FUTURE etc would have turned out(aside from looking 'better') the exact same ways if Bay was directing any of them?

A good/great director must first and foremost be a good storyteller irrespective of how 'good' or 'bad' an actual script is(James Cameron's abilities as a scriptwriter are, imo, serviceable at best and yet his storytelling is what makes audiences empathise with his characters).

Bay's inability (once again imo) to care for a proper story is why I get the impression that a 'good' script in his hands would be mangled beyond belief.

[Ace of Knaves]

As I've said before, Bay is a GREAT action director IMO. He just has this knack of getting the shots right for these sequences, and of course, he loves his explosions.

But as i've got older, I want more than that. I'm not really amazed by stunning CGI and explosions on there own anymore. It just seems so, I dunno, shallow? I'm not asking for TDK style deep, meaningful characterization. But when the marines were in that helicopter and I saw that hispanic soldier, I knew, I just knew that he would be highly religious and have the ol rosemary beads n that. That may not bother some people, but it really bothers me. It's like Bay actually sat there and thought. "I know, for the marines we'll have a heroic white guy who has a new born daughter he's never seen, a loud mouth black guy and a religious hispanic guy!!" It just stinks of laziness and lack of imagination. If Bay thinks that's characterization then well, he is a idiot.

And Jon Voights character, obviously a important government official. Why the hell would he be left with civilians when all hell is breaking lose? It's like realism was completely sacrificed to make a another action scene. Obviously these films aren't completely realistic, but when a government official is left to fend for himself with civilians I just can't suspend my disbelief.

Saying all that, Turturro's character was brilliant! But that's mainly down to him.

[baerrtt]

As I've said before, Bay is a GREAT action director IMO. He just has this knack of getting the shots right for these sequences, and of course, he loves his explosions.

But as i've got older, I want more than that. I'm not really amazed by stunning CGI and explosions on there own anymore. It just seems so, I dunno, shallow? I'm not asking for TDK style deep, meaningful characterization. But when the marines were in that helicopter and I saw that hispanic soldier, I knew, I just knew that he would be highly religious and have the ol rosemary beads n that. That may not bother some people, but it really bothers me. It's like Bay actually sat there and thought. "I know, for the marines we'll have a heroic white guy who has a new born daughter he's never seen, a loud mouth black guy and a religious hispanic guy!!" It just stinks of laziness and lack of imagination. If Bay thinks that's characterization then well, he is a idiot.

And Jon Voights character, obviously a important government official. Why the hell would he be left with civilians when all hell is breaking lose? It's like realism was completely sacrificed to make a another action scene. Obviously these films aren't completely realistic, but when a government official is left to fend for himself with civilians I just can't suspend my disbelief.

Saying all that, Turturro's character was brilliant! But that's mainly down to him.

Yeah the thing is as I've gotten older when rewatching some of the older modern blockbusters (the best ones I've mentioned in my posts and others) I don't have the luster for the (dated) special effects anymore. But what brings me back, what makes those films endure, are the strong characters and strong, simple plots. Just because you're making nonsense with a big budget doesn't mean your characters have to be nonsensical. Contrast Marty Mcfly with Sam, two young 'everymen' and you have one who acts as realistically as you would expect if all of a sudden you travelled in time whilst the other is constantly cracking out Woody Allen-esque gags when confronted by giant alien robots.

Look at WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT a film where animated characters are running around a live action setting, on paper an absolutely OTT idea for a summer blockbuster as much as TF (giant robots fighting on Earth) is. And yet we have a director (never mind the script which is hardly brilliant) who makes us genuinely feel for the characters despite the bat**** concept.

Explosions, CGI, 'eye candy', stereotypes etc may make for a successful film alone. But they sure won't make for one that will endure in 10/20 years time. Because when all those mentioned ingredients that Bay feels makes a 'fun' blockbuster alone date and jar what is there really left?

[Marvin]

The point is he failed at making the characters relatable.

Barlly any of the interactions rang true.

that's subjective, because as much as it's criticized we'd have to be self centered to think there aren't many that were moved by armageddon...
film of any sort is art and it always moves

it's just a matter of critical thinking that debunks how much or if it was in the right way

my point was the approach wasn't bad...and I'm glad it wasn't apollo 13...so are the many 16 year old chicks lol


A great blockbuster with no substance or characterization....sounds like his TF film.

And that proves my point....great action and very little to nothing else.

But Something about mary also delieverd on the characters.


just like i said above, it's all subjective...Mary had "weak" characters when compared to the romance of the southern bell and her dude in gone with the wind

but it still moved people

shia and his parents and his car have plenty of character...and there are people in the audience that will see that


And what point are you trying to make???

Wether its in the script or not is irrelivent to wether Bay failed to bring it to the film.

I'm not claiming that Bay added any of those aspects to the script....I'm saying that Bay failed to make it work on film.

The parts of the story were fine and a good idea but they were delivered incorrectly.....and thats Bays failure.

well for one i was debunking your allegation that it was bay bringing his typical ish to the film
and supporting my argument that its there on paper usually according what what the producer (jb) wants for his money

and two

bay actually captured those cliche's wonderfully(ergo everyone hates the film cause they're there)

if he did fail it's because they were failures on paper, if he fixed them at some point during shooting then horaay he's great, but he's not a failure for doing what's asked





Thats an other problem.

But truth be told to many bad films are made because of those kinds of problems.

Some directors should just put their foots down already.

doesn't work that way with JB or with bay at the stage he was at in his career at the time most of his 6 films were made

this isn't the wolverine production...it's JB


Again his fault.

If you cant right a good script hirer a good writter to do it for you.

doesn't matter if the producer wants to make a kids film
and funny enough spielberg "the great" produced the TF script and he must have do so for a reason...(apparently he added the suburb stuff)

And little else.

His movies are like fun rides at 6 flags.....but you soon forget them.

Now imagin if those fun rides were "Great Rides" that you never forget.

but rides are supposed to be just that rides...no one gets off a roller and hates it for not having substance

they love it for being a ride...ppl can't do that with bay

and i'm sorry but I don't really agree that ppl forget the bay experience

A different director may have been able to make "6 Great Movies" where Bay only made "6 Fun Movies"


not if their intent was to make them fun movies
the farely bros for example...

spielberg has made like 50 movies(bad guess)
some of the have been shindlers list some just fun for the summer(when compared to that)

how many?
more then 6

when bay makes 50 movies we'll look back at his 6 fun ones and be like...i liked the fun in them

david gordon green has been hailed as the malick protege and has done some brilliant work...(see george washington)
but he also did the pointless pineapple express(i think that was the title)

when he makes 50 films more then 6 will be fun ones

bay is just doing it first
it helps that was doing (jb) films to kick off his career

If it aint in the script....call for a re-write.Dont work with the crap your handed.

again JB
it's not as simple as that
it can be re-worked but it has to be in the same summer and meaningless context

see pirates




Actully its not since this was Bays attempt at a "Great Sci Fi film".

He thought the script was great and that shows a error in his judgement if it wasnt.

Now I havent read the script for the Island yet so I cant tell you if it was great or not.

But consiering how good the script the premis was stolen from was [The Clonus Horror"] I would bet it couldnt have been so bad.



And I'll say the script had the substance but the films lack of realizem prevented that substance from binging seen on film.



Dont lot me in with that bunch.

I stayed out of that part of the debate for a reason.

I dont feel that G1 cartoon had much substance at all....it had potentional for substance but they never brought it to fruition.



And your missing my point.

I can understand some changes need to be made but you cant tell me that even with those changes that were necessary that some things couldnt have been done to make the CGI characters a bit more familuar.

Movies like Ironman also had to make changes to the character designs to account for mass and believeability.

But they were determined to still keep it familaur.

artists sarted drawing ironman functionally at some point

but if all he had were his bendy metal armour of the 60's then a smart director would have changed that too

look at the new cartoon the bots look very different but just enough(usually in the face) to keep them familiar

honestly, looking at optimus's face...anyone can tell you who it is...
especially fans(ironically enough)

it's the same, the designs are updated



That didnt piss me off.

I was happy with the few times they used the classic sound.

But I didnt expect him to use it at all nor would it have pissed me off if he hadnt used it at all.


He was trying to make them seem real and that classic transforming sound, as much as I like it, just doent sound realilistic and would have hurt the film if he used it all the time.


the sound is analogous to the look...it was all non functional...the new designs and sounds are

I'll stop you right there because I'm not looking for more of a G1 feel but something down the middle between the the films designs and the designs of G1 would have served the movie much better.


that could be argued, better with the fans and artists at ilm what worked on it...but the fact is it could be argued and not just pointless brought up by fan boys all the gosh darn time.

That Bay does do well.



With that I disagree.

The designs could have been better.

same goes for everyfilm



True enough
:grin:


And again better designs that were a bit more fimiluar would have sold it better.
perhaps

And long life:oldrazz:



I would have liked to see him helm the TF movies.
i would like to see cameron do every movie


I dont agree.

Particular with Jaws and Back to the future.

They may have looked better under Bay but the movies them selfs would have suffered from the same pit falls that many of Bays films do.

because they weren't gone with the wind but rather summer films intended for summer audiences, back to the future moreso would be a summer hit for bay but thats opinion

He just doent know how to bring any characterization to his films.
he hasn't shot a script with it present

And its not just the scripts,....its his directing style.

starts with scripts

look as t2 and t3
yes camron kicks what ever his name is in the ass
but on a scriptual level

t2 is far superior to 3

[Ace of Knaves]

Yeah the thing is as I've gotten older when rewatching some of the older modern blockbusters (the best ones I've mentioned in my posts and others) I don't have the luster for the (dated) special effects anymore. But what brings me back, what makes those films endure, are the strong characters and strong, simple plots. Just because you're making nonsense with a big budget doesn't mean your characters have to be nonsensical. Contrast Marty Mcfly with Sam, two young 'everymen' and you have one who acts as realistically as you would expect if all of a sudden you travelled in time whilst the other is constantly cracking out Woody Allen-esque gags when confronted by giant alien robots.

Look at WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT a film where animated characters are running around a live action setting, on paper an absolutely OTT idea for a summer blockbuster as much as TF (giant robots fighting on Earth) is. And yet we have a director (never mind the script which is hardly brilliant) who makes us genuinely feel for the characters despite the bat**** concept.

Explosions, CGI, 'eye candy', stereotypes etc may make for a successful film alone. But they sure won't make for one that will endure in 10/20 years time. Because when all those mentioned ingredients that Bay feels makes a 'fun' blockbuster alone date and jar what is there really left?

Great post :up: That pretty much sums up how I feel about Teh Bay in general.

[baerrtt]

that's subjective, because as much as it's criticized we'd have to be self centered to think there aren't many that were moved by armageddon...
film of any sort is art and it always moves

it's just a matter of critical thinking that debunks how much or if it was in the right way

my point was the approach wasn't bad...and I'm glad it wasn't apollo 13...so are the many 16 year old chicks lol




just like i said above, it's all subjective...Mary had "weak" characters when compared to the romance of the southern bell and her dude in gone with the wind

but it still moved people

shia and his parents and his car have plenty of character...and there are people in the audience that will see that



well for one i was debunking your allegation that it was bay bringing his typical ish to the film
and supporting my argument that its there on paper usually according what what the producer (jb) wants for his money

and two

bay actually captured those cliche's wonderfully(ergo everyone hates the film cause they're there)

if he did fail it's because they were failures on paper, if he fixed them at some point during shooting then horaay he's great, but he's not a failure for doing what's asked







doesn't work that way with JB or with bay at the stage he was at in his career at the time most of his 6 films were made

this isn't the wolverine production...it's JB




doesn't matter if the producer wants to make a kids film
and funny enough spielberg "the great" produced the TF script and he must have do so for a reason...(apparently he added the suburb stuff)



but rides are supposed to be just that rides...no one gets off a roller and hates it for not having substance

they love it for being a ride...ppl can't do that with bay

and i'm sorry but I don't really agree that ppl forget the bay experience



not if their intent was to make them fun movies
the farely bros for example...

spielberg has made like 50 movies(bad guess)
some of the have been shindlers list some just fun for the summer(when compared to that)

how many?
more then 6

when bay makes 50 movies we'll look back at his 6 fun ones and be like...i liked the fun in them

david gordon green has been hailed as the malick protege and has done some brilliant work...(see george washington)
but he also did the pointless pineapple express(i think that was the title)

when he makes 50 films more then 6 will be fun ones

bay is just doing it first
it helps that was doing (jb) films to kick off his career



again JB
it's not as simple as that
it can be re-worked but it has to be in the same summer and meaningless context

see pirates




Actully its not since this was Bays attempt at a "Great Sci Fi film".

He thought the script was great and that shows a error in his judgement if it wasnt.

Now I havent read the script for the Island yet so I cant tell you if it was great or not.

But consiering how good the script the premis was stolen from was [The Clonus Horror"] I would bet it couldnt have been so bad.



And I'll say the script had the substance but the films lack of realizem prevented that substance from binging seen on film.



Dont lot me in with that bunch.

I stayed out of that part of the debate for a reason.

I dont feel that G1 cartoon had much substance at all....it had potentional for substance but they never brought it to fruition.




artists sarted drawing ironman functionally at some point

but if all he had were his bendy metal armour of the 60's then a smart director would have changed that too

look at the new cartoon the bots look very different but just enough(usually in the face) to keep them familiar

honestly, looking at optimus's face...anyone can tell you who it is...
especially fans(ironically enough)

it's the same, the designs are updated




the sound is analogous to the look...it was all non functional...the new designs and sounds are



that could be argued, better with the fans and artists at ilm what worked on it...but the fact is it could be argued and not just pointless brought up by fan boys all the gosh darn time.

That Bay does do well.




same goes for everyfilm



:grin:



perhaps

And long life:oldrazz:



i would like to see cameron do every movie



because they weren't gone with the wind but rather summer films intended for summer audiences, back to the future moreso would be a summer hit for bay but thats opinion


he hasn't shot a script with it present



starts with scripts

look as t2 and t3
yes camron kicks what ever his name is in the ass
but on a scriptual level

t2 is far superior to 3

Bay hired script doctors on PEARL HARBOUR to retool it with more action sequences leading to it's original screenwriter Randal Wallace quitting the production(even though he's the only writer with a credit).

Irrespective of whether or not Wallace's characterisation was good(and I'll admit I don't rate him as a writer) attempting to 'fix' a script by chucking in more action sequences is the kind of stuff that gets deservedly parodied in films/tv shows because it shows a complete lack of creativity. You're telling me that, conceptually at least, THE ISLAND comes without any opportunities for characterisation?

Bay has an idea of what a summer blockbuster should be and 'characters' need not apply.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea I think Bay's real problem is that he takes the word "blockbuster" too literally. :hehe:

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

that's subjective,

Not nearly as much as movie makers would like to think.

it's just a matter of critical thinking that debunks how much or if it was in the right way

Again not as much as the movie maker would like to think.These movie depend far to much on the fact that the viewers arent expecting the best.

And thats a shame.

my point was the approach wasn't bad

The approach wasn't....but the execution was.

And again that falls to Bay not the script.

just like i said above, it's all subjective

And I can repeat what I said above as well.

...Mary had "weak" characters when compared to the romance of the southern bell and her dude in gone with the wind

Not really.

The characters in "Mary" had as much presence and personalty to suit the films purpose then the characters of "Gone with the wind" did.

shia and his parents and his car have plenty of character...and there are people in the audience that will see that

Well to be honest I was complaining on how the TF's had no character.

well for one i was debunking your allegation that it was bay bringing his typical ish to the film

ish???


and supporting my argument that its there on paper usually according what what the producer (jb) wants for his money

And again how are you debunking my allegation that Bay failed to deliver????

As stated my complaint isint that Bay created those elements or wrote them in....its that Bay cant bring them to life with a sence of realizem in his films.

and two

bay actually captured those cliche's wonderfully(ergo everyone hates the film cause they're there)

Wonderfully???

You got to be kidding me??

Almost None of it rang true in Armageddon.

And it wasnt the concept it was Bays execution of those scenes.

if he did fail it's because they were failures on paper,

Thats BS and you know it.

If the failures on paper its his job to have it re-written to suit his vision.

And the fact is, in this case, most of the failur was not in the script but in how it was filmed.It was Bays job to coax the right preformance from the actors.

Granted thats not always possible with the cast of some films but the actors in Armagedon are perfectlly capable of delievering in those roles.

Even Ben, who I only like in supporting roles, was ideal for his part...and Bay failed to make him seem real, to make you feel like you were in his shoes.

if he fixed them at some point during shooting then horaay he's great, but he's not a failure for doing what's asked

Again BS.

If he cant fix the issues durring shooting it only proves that he's incabable of dooing so.

doesn't work that way with JB or with bay at the stage he was at in his career at the time most of his 6 films were made

this isn't the wolverine production...it's JB

I'm not sure what "JB" stands for but I see your tring to say that at the stage of his career he couldnt just put his foot down....well by the time he was working on TF he could have.And yet he didnt.

The film fails in the same ways his other films fail.

doesn't matter if the producer wants to make a kids film
and funny enough spielberg "the great" produced the TF script and he must have do so for a reason...(apparently he added the suburb stuff)

I dont see the point your trying to make here.

I have no problem with films that are written for kids.

but rides are supposed to be just that rides...no one gets off a roller and hates it for not having substance

They do hate them if they dont have enough high's and lows or doent go fast enough....and thats the eqivelent of substance in a roler coster ride.

and i'm sorry but I don't really agree that ppl forget the bay experience

I know many that do.

not if their intent was to make them fun movies

Which is the problem

With all the money we spend going to see these films they all should at least have the intent to make a "Great movie".

That way if they fail, like Bay tends to do, it can be said that "at least they tried to make a "Great film"

david gordon green has been hailed as the malick protege and has done some brilliant work...(see george washington)
but he also did the pointless pineapple express(i think that was the title)

I liked that film


bay is just doing it first
it helps that was doing (jb) films to kick off his career

I will be shocked if he ever is capable of making a "Great" film.

The Island was ,in his own words, his attempt at making a great,thought provoking Sci-fi film......and he faild to deliever on his task.

If he progresses as a director then fine I'll give him the credit due.

But for now all he deserves is credit for making good action shots.

again JB
it's not as simple as that
it can be re-worked but it has to be in the same summer and meaningless context

see pirates

It doesnt have to be.




You quoted me but didnt reply to any of it here

honestly, looking at optimus's face...anyone can tell you who it is...
especially fans(ironically enough)

it's the same, the designs are updated

You picked out the Only one to have a fimlur design.

None of the rest did, not even Bumblebee.

the sound is analogous to the look...it was all non functional...the new designs and sounds are

I'm not sure why your still on the sound since I agree.

that could be argued,

Not as effective as you might think.

I can site a great many way that a "inbetween look" could have served the move far better then the "look" bay chose.

same goes for everyfilm

Thats true enough.

i would like to see cameron do every movie

I dont know about that.

I dont think his style would take on films like Super bad or Borrat:oldrazz:

because they weren't gone with the wind but rather summer films intended for summer audiences, back to the future moreso would be a summer hit for bay but thats opinion

They would have suffered under Bay because he has issues making he characters likeable.

I'll admit he's getting a bit better at it [compareing Armagedon to TF character wise] but he's still failing in that department.

he hasn't shot a script with it present

Most scripts are 2 dimensional and the characters have to be coaxed out of the script.

Bay doesnt know how to do that.

Yet.

starts with scripts

And ends with director.

Its the directors job to make lemons into lemon-aid.


look as t2 and t3
yes camron kicks what ever his name is in the ass
but on a scriptual level

t2 is far superior to 3

And Camron could have done better even with that script.

Again lemons into lemon-aid.

[baerrtt]

Not nearly as much as movie makers would like to think.



Again not as much as the movie maker would like to think.These movie depend far to much on the fact that the viewers arent expecting the best.

And thats a shame.



The approach wasn't....but the execution was.

And again that falls to Bay not the script.



And I can repeat what I said above as well.



Not really.

The characters in "Mary" had as much presence and personalty to suit the films purpose then the characters of "Gone with the wind" did.



Well to be honest I was complaining on how the TF's had no character.



ish???



And again how are you debunking my allegation that Bay failed to deliver????

As stated my complaint isint that Bay created those elements or wrote them in....its that Bay cant bring them to life with a sence of realizem in his films.



Wonderfully???

You got to be kidding me??

Almost None of it rang true in Armageddon.

And it wasnt the concept it was Bays execution of those scenes.



Thats BS and you know it.

If the failures on paper its his job to have it re-written to suit his vision.

And the fact is, in this case, most of the failur was not in the script but in how it was filmed.It was Bays job to coax the right preformance from the actors.

Granted thats not always possible with the cast of some films but the actors in Armagedon are perfectlly capable of delievering in those roles.

Even Ben, who I only like in supporting roles, was ideal for his part...and Bay failed to make him seem real, to make you feel like you were in his shoes.



Again BS.

If he cant fix the issues durring shooting it only proves that he's incabable of dooing so.



I'm not sure what "JB" stands for but I see your tring to say that at the stage of his career he couldnt just put his foot down....well by the time he was working on TF he could have.And yet he didnt.

The film fails in the same ways his other films fail.



I dont see the point your trying to make here.

I have no problem with films that are written for kids.



They do hate them if they dont have enough high's and lows or doent go fast enough....and thats the eqivelent of substance in a roler coster ride.



I know many that do.



Which is the problem

With all the money we spend going to see these films they all should at least have the intent to make a "Great movie".

That way if they fail, like Bay tends to do, it can be said that "at least they tried to make a "Great film"



I liked that film



I will be shocked if he ever is capable of making a "Great" film.

The Island was ,in his own words, his attempt at making a great,thought provoking Sci-fi film......and he faild to deliever on his task.

If he progresses as a director then fine I'll give him the credit due.

But for now all he deserves is credit for making good action shots.



It doesnt have to be.




You quoted me but didnt reply to any of it here



You picked out the Only one to have a fimlur design.

None of the rest did, not even Bumblebee.



I'm not sure why your still on the sound since I agree.



Not as effective as you might think.

I can site a great many way that a "inbetween look" could have served the move far better then the "look" bay chose.



Thats true enough.



I dont know about that.

I dont think his style would take on films like Super bad or Borrat:oldrazz:



They would have suffered under Bay because he has issues making he characters likeable.

I'll admit he's getting a bit better at it [compareing Armagedon to TF character wise] but he's still failing in that department.



Most scripts are 2 dimensional and the characters have to be coaxed out of the script.

Bay doesnt know how to do that.

Yet.



And ends with director.

Its the directors job to make lemons into lemon-aid.




And Camron could have done better even with that script.

Again lemons into lemon-aid.

You're right as we've had summer blockbusters (and i'm not talking about TDK, WALL-E, FORREST GUMP, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN etc which all were concerned with far more than delivering a 'fun' ride) who had no other mission statement to deliver just that. And these were films that turned out to be genuinely great(JAWS, STAR WARS, RAIDERS, ET et al were all nominated for Best Picture) despite being (on paper) 'inconsequential'.

'Fun' doesn't and shouldn't mean hollow.

Oh btw I think he's referring to Jerry Bruckenheimer when he says JB which doesn't matter anymore as Bay's no longer his glorified director for hire. And yet he's still the same filmmaker he was under JB's so called 'restrictions'. Says a lot.

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

You're right as we've had summer blockbusters (and i'm not talking about TDK, WALL-E, FORREST GUMP, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN etc which all were concerned with far more than delivering a 'fun' ride) who had no other mission statement to deliver just that. And these were films that turned out to be genuinely great(JAWS, STAR WARS, RAIDERS, ET et al were all nominated for Best Picture) despite being (on paper) 'inconsequential'.

'Fun' doesn't and shouldn't mean hollow.

Domo arigato:trans:

Oh btw I think he's referring to Jerry Bruckenheimer when he says JB which doesn't matter anymore as Bay's no longer his glorified director for hire. And yet he's still the same filmmaker he was under JB's so called 'restrictions'. Says a lot.

Thanks

[The Lizard]

I holde Michael Bay up there with Fellini, Bergman, Kurosawa, Spielberg and Cameron.


I'm still waiting for the ancient Gods of Cinema to open up the clouds and smite you with holy lightning for this blasphemy. :cwink:

[Ace of Knaves]

^:hehe:

[Avangarde]

I hold Michael Bay up there with Fellini, Bergman, Kurosawa, Spielberg and Cameron. I don't expect a life-altering experience like those guys have given me, but he is the one who gives me the most fun. He's an expert at that field, although I'm no fan of the Bad Boys flicks. But he nailed it with The Rock, Armageddon and Transformers.



If you're not going to take this seriously then what good are you for?

[Marvin]

I'm curious are you that much of a Bay fan (no problem that you are)that you REALLY believe that JAWS, RAIDERS, BACK TO THE FUTURE etc would have turned out(aside from looking 'better') the exact same ways if Bay was directing any of them?

nope, but they would have the exact same substance, for directors shoot scripts..

the lack of substance in bay flims is the lack of substance in bay scripts

as for the experience i'd say they would have a lot more energy(which said films tried to have at times)

like i said Raiders not included

A good/great director must first and foremost be a good storyteller irrespective of how 'good' or 'bad' an actual script is(James Cameron's abilities as a scriptwriter are, imo, serviceable at best and yet his storytelling is what makes audiences empathise with his characters).

Bay's inability (once again imo) to care for a proper story is why I get the impression that a 'good' script in his hands would be mangled beyond belief.

so you assume the director who's shot (his own) scripts with alot to them is good(and is good at bringing the good out of....the good)

and the director who's shot scripts with a little to them is bad(at pulling substance out of thin air)

seems like an obvious disadvantage

an no I "that much" of a bay fan, i appreciate his work...
in any discussion I really am bothered by some or anyone being mis represented

and plus i have a soft spot for music vid directors.

[Dotten]

I'm still waiting for the ancient Gods of Cinema to open up the clouds and smite you with holy lightning for this blasphemy. :cwink:

Hehe, maybe. Like I said, Bay will never give me a life altering experience like the maestros I mentioned (I also love Chaplin, Eastwood, Hitchcock, Lynch and Nolan), but no one gives me more fun at the big screen then Bay. Maybe except for Spielberg.

And I'm often stamped as the "film elitist" because of my love for film auteur. I watch more black and white these days then color. I doubt there are many at my age (29) or younger who have seen more films.

The Bay-hate seems more based on political bias then anything else, but that's just my opinion. I have no problem with what people look upon as bad directing from Bay, but from my point of view those things make the film better not worse. Bays stile is not good for drama or "action grounden in reality" (god I hate that worn out "grounded in reality"), but he's the best at what he does. Transformers was great, I absolutely loved it. And I was one who read the script before and complained (I think I did it on these boards come to think of it).

But Bay prooved me wrong. I felt like an 8-year old again and I thank him for that. I hope I can take a trip back to that in the sequel.

If you're not going to take this seriously then what good are you for?

I am taking this seriously. Excuse me for having another opinion then you, I'm not fond of the sheep-mentality.

This is a normative discussion, not a descriptive. There is no right or wrong, just different opinions. So please show some tolerance and peace out ;)

[Marvin]

Yeah the thing is as I've gotten older when rewatching some of the older modern blockbusters (the best ones I've mentioned in my posts and others) I don't have the luster for the (dated) special effects anymore. But what brings me back, what makes those films endure, are the strong characters and strong, simple plots. Just because you're making nonsense with a big budget doesn't mean your characters have to be nonsensical. Contrast Marty Mcfly with Sam, two young 'everymen' and you have one who acts as realistically as you would expect if all of a sudden you travelled in time whilst the other is constantly cracking out Woody Allen-esque gags when confronted by giant alien robots.

apart from antz i've avoided woody allen movies so i'm in the dark, you'd have to point me out something has said when confronted by giant alien robots(the ones threatening his life..or the ones that swear to protect him and be his pals)
that was wooden-esque

the human character within logic, is not only completely unpredictable, but can respond to any situation any different way

bruce wayne responds one way, john conner another

it's how you respond to your environment that = characterization

marty mc fly acted realistically?
i'm sorry but if i found out i was back in time I would crawl in fetal position
if i learnt i was trapped i would craw into fetal position
playing the rock song infront of everyone...i'd probably lay low
the list goes on

but for some marty was just doing the normal thing, I found his actions to be outlandish
then again, i'm a brother:whatever:

Sam and his response to his car, leaving by it's self
his response to be being captured
his response to it losing it's legs

if you think they were or weren't realistic, it's subjective and i won't fault you for that, but for everyone else to fault the people who do think it realistic...
I find odd..but common place

Look at WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT a film where animated characters are running around a live action setting, on paper an absolutely OTT idea for a summer blockbuster as much as TF (giant robots fighting on Earth) is. And yet we have a director (never mind the script which is hardly brilliant) who makes us genuinely feel for the characters despite the bat**** concept.

Ironically enough it's often said that the robots had the 2 dimensionality of cartoon characters
and i tend to agree, apart from the lead bots, they were very 2D

like pretty much all the characters in the roger rabbit film

it's the human characterization and the bots that had focus that i champion.

sorry but as an adult I don't feel for any of the Roger Rabbit characters in that movie...(compare any of those characters to the work of brad birds characters in The Incredibles or disney's lion king)

sams affection for his car and his cars protectiveness of him delves way deeper then bob hopkins and that rabbit.
sorry but it's true

bay actually trumps bob this time.

Explosions, CGI, 'eye candy', stereotypes etc may make for a successful film alone. But they sure won't make for one that will endure in 10/20 years time. Because when all those mentioned ingredients that Bay feels makes a 'fun' blockbuster alone date and jar what is there really left?

the story of a boy and his car

when compared to the ilk of the transporter three...that's plenty.

[Marvin]

You're right as we've had summer blockbusters (and i'm not talking about TDK, WALL-E, FORREST GUMP, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN etc which all were concerned with far more than delivering a 'fun' ride) who had no other mission statement to deliver just that. And these were films that turned out to be genuinely great(JAWS, STAR WARS, RAIDERS, ET et al were all nominated for Best Picture) despite being (on paper) 'inconsequential'.

'Fun' doesn't and shouldn't mean hollow.

Oh btw I think he's referring to Jerry Bruckenheimer when he says JB which doesn't matter anymore as Bay's no longer his glorified director for hire. And yet he's still the same filmmaker he was under JB's so called 'restrictions'. Says a lot.

critical acclaim is great and all, but it really doesn't speak for an audience
and that's who films are for

I find the fact that the mtv audience voted for it for best film, kinda says something about the way the audience it was intended for recieved it

fun doesn't mean hollow and none of bay's films have been hollow
any of bays films weather they're about a family crisis in the middle of an asteriod threat, or about a failed love during a significant moment of american history or harvesting clones with souls for body parts...or a boy and his first car...

again go watch transporter three, write down what it's about in a sentence and then we can compare levels of hollowness

JBs restrictions are present in all of his non bay movies...

he's not the same filmmaker without JB, sure he shots with just as much impact, but go read a review of the island and you'll find someone surprised at that "bay is actually telling a story that asks questions"
TF is a movie based on a toy line

[Marvin]

Hehe, maybe. Like I said, Bay will never give me a life altering experience like the maestros I mentioned (I also love Chaplin, Eastwood, Hitchcock, Lynch and Nolan), but no one gives me more fun at the big screen then Bay. Maybe except for Spielberg.

And I'm often stamped as the "film elitist" because of my love for film auteur. I watch more black and white these days then color. I doubt there are many at my age (29) or younger who have seen more films.

The Bay-hate seems more based on political bias then anything else, but that's just my opinion. I have no problem with what people look upon as bad directing from Bay, but from my point of view those things make the film better not worse. Bays stile is not good for drama or "action grounden in reality" (god I hate that worn out "grounded in reality"), but he's the best at what he does. Transformers was great, I absolutely loved it. And I was one who read the script before and complained (I think I did it on these boards come to think of it).

But Bay prooved me wrong. I felt like an 8-year old again and I thank him for that. I hope I can take a trip back to that in the sequel.



I am taking this seriously. Excuse me for having another opinion then you, I'm not fond of the sheep-mentality.

This is a normative discussion, not a descriptive. There is no right or wrong, just different opinions. So please show some tolerance and peace out ;)

good for you dotten
at least your honest about why your in line for the movie

a hypocrite you are not:yay:

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

nope, but they would have the exact same substance, for directors shoot scripts..

But I doubt that bay would have been able to show case that same substance.

the lack of substance in bay flims is the lack of substance in bay scripts

I doubt thats always true.




so you assume the director who's shot (his own) scripts with alot to them is good(and is good at bringing the good out of....the good)

and the director who's shot scripts with a little to them is bad(at pulling substance out of thin air)

seems like an obvious disadvantage

an no I "that much" of a bay fan, i appreciate his work...
in any discussion I really am bothered by some or anyone being mis represented

and plus i have a soft spot for music vid directors.



marty mc fly acted realistically?

I think so....his actions seemed to fit naturally with his personality.

i'm sorry but if i found out i was back in time I would crawl in fetal position

I wouldnt.

if i learnt i was trapped i would craw into fetal position

I might.....if I ended up in the hippie era:cwink:


playing the rock song infront of everyone...i'd probably lay low
the list goes on

All you proved is what you would do.

And its no more or less realistic then what Marty did.

Me I would seek out collectible items that I knew would be worth something and find a place to hide then for when I get back to my own time.

but for some marty was just doing the normal thing, I found his actions to be outlandish
then again, i'm a brother:whatever:

I'm a cuzin:grin:

[Marvin]

Not nearly as much as movie makers would like to think...

Again not as much as the movie maker would like to think.These movie depend far to much on the fact that the viewers arent expecting the best.

And thats a shame.
The viewers expect the film to be entertaining...and box office and viewers choice structured awards attest to that

The approach wasn't....but the execution was.

And again that falls to Bay not the script.



whatever your personal gripes are with the way the director fertilized the characterization from script full of weak characters, no matter the obvious disadvantage to a many directors adapting word for word screenplays from books that are decades old and celebrated for their story and character achievements is your observation as to why bay movies "fail"

my observation as to why people come say they don't like them is because the stories are over the top tent poles with cheesy subject matter and, racial sterotypes, and objectification of women.

we'll discuss in ciricles but really that's what it comes to,

maybe bay should work harder at making lemons out of lemonade...but at some point ppl should acknowlegde that he's working with lemons
and that the audience that has has generated figures in the billions, might actually be into what he's selling...

could it be better?
TDK could be better.

in a script there is a character that is a stereotype of say hispanic origins and this buddy cop ACTION COMDEY is a production costing somewhere north of 100 mill

now bay the director slash acting coach should say
"ok hernado, i want you read the lines with so much conviction you break the stereo type...:whatever:"

sorry but it's just not so cut and dry

i appreciate that that example wasn't a fair take on what you've argued fairly graciously, but even within the last 3 pages of this very thread
someone has brought up that bay did his usual stereo typical approach to characterization and racial satire...

you say call for a re-write, i say go do some research on wolverines production

JB, unlike wb's batman producers, has his nose clean of **** stains. (that was pretty grimey lol )





Not really.

The characters in "Mary" had as much presence and personalty to suit the films purpose then the characters of "Gone with the wind" did.

I really don't think so, but if YOU think so i won't tell you how to absorb performances
funny enough i found a good chunk of the characters in not only TF but in other bay films to have just as much and more character and conviction to character then Camron Diaz (when she used to be pretty) in that film

Pretty much the whole cast of armageddon had personality and presense, and if not all of them(as i'm sure you'll attest to) then more than one
(buschmi)

Beckinsale Will Smith and Martin Lawrence the clones, Alec Baldwin, jon voight as Rosvelt etc...

if you're going to akin you definition of character to what she did in that film, then it's a little more then subjective now, it's almost biased.


Well to be honest I was complaining on how the TF's had no character.

I see, well I honestly don't think bay tired to give them any...they were like the fodder character in Roger Rabbit

the Robots he did focus on did resonate tho
enough for you and everyone else on these boards to remember who and what optimus was to this day...

ish???

****


And again how are you debunking my allegation that Bay failed to deliver????

As stated my complaint isint that Bay created those elements or wrote them in....its that Bay cant bring them to life with a sence of realizem in his films.

they didn't work on paper

its the same as reading a book and it getting a bad review.
now that book that got a bad review because they simply said dumb, unreasonable crap and found themselves in fun but ridiculous situation, is made into a movie...

I won't look at David leans work on Bridge of a River and say compared to that, bay really can't direct good characters.

I agree acting an bring another dimension to simple dialogue, in fact it can make or break the simple phrase "I love you"
but an entire script with a poorly written character will not be saved by a directors coaching of an actor

i don't think we'll convince each other on this

perhaps instead of giving me an example of directors harvesting good character work out of good actors with good scripts to read from...you try giving someone that has made lemonade of of the lemons bay makes money out of...


Wonderfully???

You got to be kidding me??

Almost None of it rang true in Armageddon.

wonderfully meaning a lot of fun
harry and his blue collar contemporary's at nasa for instance...
wonderful stuff
I assume the audience you seen it with was booing the whole time...

Thats BS and you know it.

If the failures on paper its his job to have it re-written to suit his vision.

And the fact is, in this case, most of the failur was not in the script but in how it was filmed.It was Bays job to coax the right preformance from the actors.

Granted thats not always possible with the cast of some films but the actors in Armagedon are perfectlly capable of delievering in those roles.

Even Ben, who I only like in supporting roles, was ideal for his part...and Bay failed to make him seem real, to make you feel like you were in his shoes.


Bay brought the right "vision" to armageddon...the fact that it did as well as it did and it's now a criterion(i think)
attests to that...on paper it's a laughable movie.

if you want me to work within your realm of fairness, and director responsibilities fine...

over a year ago, when the TF script was leaked...many a fan boy and non fan boy alike said it was a complete failure..not just to capture the spirit of the g1 ilk but as an entertaining movie or even a coherent one...pointless human characters, and not one robot that has any ties to the spirit of the original series..

Spielberg hires bay and somehow it's a world success in the 3 quarters of billion mark(that's alot of people who must want their money back)

Robots in disguise in a way live action cinema has never done(another original concept from bay)

best movie from the award show voted on by it's audience

and shia praised for his work...by the "dumb audience" and critics alike
plus his career lunched

bay succeeded...the script was weak...he made the movie an event

David lean is my favorite director and all his films were critical hits long before he touched them

Again BS.

If he cant fix the issues durring shooting it only proves that he's incabable of dooing so.

not if the issues stem deeper then just line delivery

go to three people you hate bay(should be too hard)
ask them for 3 exact reasons they hate his films

u'll get stuff like
over the top action
weak stories
pretty actors
i don't like men
i like the dark knight
his movies don't make you think
i miss you more then bay missed the point when he made pearl...
flames on optimus
lips on optimus

you might get some about acting, or characters not being convincing

but of that list(the serious ones), not that much concern how a director coaches a performance out of an actor..

between Shia/Burce Willis/Will Smith/Martin lawrence/Joe pantanliano(sp)/Bernie mac...

there is plenty of conviction to character...plenty

as far as your idea of a "free" re-write...what makes you think another writer, re writing something that's been written by 5 people and pleases the powerful producer who himself has made billions on films of the same ilk (including part one), will fix the inherent problems?

why didn't berg fix TF's script..he's one of those filmmakers you claimed bay will never be as good as...

berg technically paid for the script..


I'm not sure what "JB" stands for but I see your tring to say that at the stage of his career he couldnt just put his foot down....well by the time he was working on TF he could have.And yet he didnt.

The film fails in the same ways his other films fail.

you said why not just change the movie from bad boys into something good, like the wire..
well be cause JB is a powerhouse producer and he wanted bad boys(bays first movie)

later on, i'm sure there were confrontations(bay has split from him)...but i'm not afraid to say bay sold out to a formula that garners profit...

its like asking yourself why will smith did the bad boys movies...and why he'll do a third...

if i could i would...

that's what that camp was all about...and the first thing he did when he broke free was shoot a script with plenty of substance...you say he failed at realising it, i say look what happened after he left JB.

six huge fun movies, out of the 40 films some directors make,
bay is taking a different approach to success

one can't believe he's going to make the same kinda fun movie for his whole career
then again, business wise maybe he's the most successful in the biz...



I have no problem with films that are written for kids.
then go watch a cartoon this saturday and see if you don't find any characters that act and talk like the secondary robots in TF

They do hate them if they dont have enough high's and lows or doent go fast enough....and thats the eqivelent of substance in a roler coster ride.

well anyone that's been on a movie ride(or ride film) will notice that the "ride film" has speed and it has high and lows...and it has something bay films don't "story"

compared to straight forward roller coaster "rides"...."ride films" are rides with story and substance

now why do you gotta go and hate the ppl that just want the roller coaster that's traditional pointless fun

i find that analogy more relevant in that you'll often hear ppl say they just want a film that's a simple fun time...

brain off high energy summer fun...that's they the parks open in the summer


I know many that do.
well everyone here seems to remember 13 years of bay films
weather they liked or hated them the experience which you claim is forgettable apparently is not

unless you mean it's so forgettable that it's unforgettable

anyone here forget TF let alone why they hate it?
:huh:

Which is the problem

With all the money we spend going to see these films they all should at least have the intent to make a "Great movie".

That way if they fail, like Bay tends to do, it can be said that "at least they tried to make a "Great film"

nope

with all the money we spend on films they should at least try to give us our money's worth

who are you to tell ppl what satisfies them...
you mean all those ppl that voted 46% best film 2007 don't know what their money's worth

I like my twix bar thank you very much
don't offer me fine chocolate and tell me it's worth my money

lets say your right, and pp didn't get their money's worth last time
i guess that means no one will actually go see the direct sequel now will they.

it's self centered to think that way.


I liked that film
I can write 3 pages of banter as to why you shouldn't... as to why it's not worth your money:o

but a hypocrite I am not

(insert TF smiley)


I will be shocked if he ever is capable of making a "Great" film.

The Island was ,in his own words, his attempt at making a great,thought provoking Sci-fi film......and he faild to deliever on his task.

by dictionary definition your already wrong:cwink:

he'll do it at some point...
as far as the island, it was thought provoking and it was sci-fi
was it successful, to some..
but then again war of the worlds wasn't and it wasn't the bergs first attempt at the genre

he made a decent sci fi action flick...many good directors have..


If he progresses as a director then fine I'll give him the credit due.

But for now all he deserves is credit for making good action shots.

a director by your definition of the term
he's already renown in the world of technical directing and photography...

and I wouldn't make the composition of good action sound easy to do...it's probably hardest

consider for a good drama all i need to do is place a tripod infront of daniel day lewis and have him talk about what oil means to him.


You picked out the Only one to have a fimlur design.

None of the rest did, not even Bumblebee.

considering they have alternate modes that are recognizable liberties can be taken in the name of functionality..
and honesty

if you line up the original cast of cartoons
with their movie counterparts in random order, it would be pretty easy to figure out whose who...

personally bale really doesn't look the way such and such artist draw batman...but that's what happens when things switch into live action

as far as i'm concerned bay's TF's are real, and they may or may not look exactly the same as the artist who drew them for animation...


I'm not sure why your still on the sound since I agree.
because it's in relation to the mentality of G1 fans

adherence to source material is all it takes to please them...they hear the sound in the movie, it's score point no matter how stupid it is

same goes for the designs

but i see you agree:o

Not as effective as you might think.

I can site a great many way that a "inbetween look" could have served the move far better then the "look" bay chose.

same with TDK, but we don't care in that instance

some would say because the story was soooooo good...
i would say, bucause bay is hated...

i agree that face plates for instance could have been modeled closer to their cartoon counter parts...and if that's where all the design hate was coming from it would have ended along time ago

people talk of business, people talk of claw feet and bird legs...

honestly like i said the new cartoon has taken liberties, toy lines over the years have...

hasbro the makers of the toys worked very closely with the film and they approved the NEW designs

I don't see why these designs can't just be accepted as the 2007 versions

(bay)


I dont know about that.

I dont think his style would take on films like Super bad or Borrat:oldrazz:

sorry
I mean camron on genre filmaking

They would have suffered under Bay because he has issues making he characters likeable.

I'll admit he's getting a bit better at it [compareing Armagedon to TF character wise] but he's still failing in that department.

not sure about everyone else but smith and lawrence are the draws for me in bad boys...i "like" them haha

i was charmed by the clones

and i honestly enjoyed the time spent with the drillers in armageddon...

i don't think likable is the word

as far as robot character direction in TF, i think the pointless and fan boy hated lawn scene in tf was a testament to shia and bay with it comes to conviction of character.

Most scripts are 2 dimensional and the characters have to be coaxed out of the script.

Bay doesnt know how to do that.

Yet.

go read the script for Gladiator...the character is already fleshed out there
American beauty is script with wonderful character work

armageddon...is not.


And Camron could have done better even with that script.
he'd write his own



with all this talk of awards and how TDK is a summer film that is earning oscar buzz

where is Spiderman 2's oscar?
it did the opposite of bay for a summer film
X2 even

the academy and it's friends voting for friends and politics is so not relevant here
the fact that TF didn't win sound editing or mixing(from scratch by the way) and bourne did... golden compass and the coca cola polar bears took best cgi...
politics

i wonder who will win best supporting actor..hmm:whatever:

[Marvin]

I think so....his actions seemed to fit naturally with his personality.


I wouldnt.


I might.....if I ended up in the hippie era:cwink:


All you proved is what you would do.

And its no more or less realistic then what Marty did.

Me I would seek out collectible items that I knew would be worth something and find a place to hide then for when I get back to my own time.

I'm a cuzin:grin:

my point being whose to say mcfly has more or less realistic reactions then Sam

not you or me...seeing as how we can't agree on how to act ourselves

(insert TF smiley)

anyways it's been fun going back and fourth with someone that's can back up their OPINION in a respectable way

i haven't had the chance to do so in a long time
i may have learned more about this retarded hate bay seems to generate(lol)

but i have way too much school work to do now..holidays are over...it's been a fun waste of time

i'll read your response but don't wait up

perhaps someone else of some sense will champion the cause of sensibility

peace

(go watch Revenge of the Fallen, make bay and myself happy so he makes more lol)

[Marvin]

my point for living

_fehzXhH4g4

grown men and summer movies about toys
i love it

[The Guard]

Fanboys are bastions of hyperbole. When I hear things like "TRANSFORMERS has no story", I want to laugh. TRANSFORMERS has as much story as most movies do. It has the relevant "connections", twists, etc, that one associates with "story". Could it have more depth? Sure. The issue should be that TRANSFORMERS does not have the KIND of story that people wanted. They didn't want a story about glasses, robots searching for glasses, a sexy hacker, and the mechanics of these story elements that resolved this issue, taking up rather a lot of the screentime from what actually mattered. However, in the context of the story of TRANSFORMERS, you don't just have glasses, you've got a whole bunch of "We have encountered robot organisms, here's how we're going to respond as a country" angle, the stuff with Sam and Mikaela, the budding friendship between Sam and Bumblee, and the Transformers. That's not "no story" on any level. It is a bit haphazard here and there, but then, it all fits together fairly well.

*****ing about cliche or stereotypical characters in Hollywood is understandable, but also downright silly. Stereotypes exist in real life, and so that's often what Hollywood presents.

As for how the characters are portrayed in the context of realism...80's characters are just as "annoying teen" as Sam was. Just in an 80's way, not a 2006/2007 way.

To say that there's no "character" to the characters in TRANSFORMERS is absurd. Do they have deep, far reaching backstories? No, but why should they? Sam's not a man who had his parents killed and went around the world training, but he has a family legacy, a relevant teenage issue, and an epic adventure, as well as a love story and a story about finding himself. Is it deep?

No.

Neither is "It's not who I am underneath...but what I DO...that defines me".

And PEARL HARBOR isn't a great movie on any level, but the events at Pearl Harbor involved war, did they not? So having relevant war action in the movie makes sense, doesn't it? That said, if you look at it, you can find emotional depth in Pearl Harbor. It's just very melodramatic and overdone. Like most truly epic in scale war/romances have been. There was a time when people wanted that.

When you look at films that are considered adventure classics, like GHOSTBUSTERS, INDIANA JONES, JURASSIC PARK etc, you can see that while the scripts are intelligently written, they aren't exactly depth laden. It leaves me wondering why people expect that from TRANSFORMERS.

[baerrtt]

Fanboys are bastions of hyperbole. When I hear things like "TRANSFORMERS has no story", I want to laugh. TRANSFORMERS has as much story as most movies do. It has the relevant "connections", twists, etc, that one associates with "story". Could it have more depth? Sure. The issue should be that TRANSFORMERS does not have the KIND of story that people wanted. They didn't want a story about glasses, robots searching for glasses, a sexy hacker, and the mechanics of these story elements that resolved this issue, taking up rather a lot of the screentime from what actually mattered. However, in the context of the story of TRANSFORMERS, you don't just have glasses, you've got a whole bunch of "We have encountered robot organisms, here's how we're going to respond as a country" angle, the stuff with Sam and Mikaela, the budding friendship between Sam and Bumblee, and the Transformers. That's not "no story" on any level. It is a bit haphazard here and there, but then, it all fits together fairly well.

*****ing about cliche or stereotypical characters in Hollywood is understandable, but also downright silly. Stereotypes exist in real life, and so that's often what Hollywood presents.

As for how the characters are portrayed in the context of realism...80's characters are just as "annoying teen" as Sam was. Just in an 80's way, not a 2006/2007 way.

To say that there's no "character" to the characters in TRANSFORMERS is absurd. Do they have deep, far reaching backstories? No, but why should they? Sam's not a man who had his parents killed and went around the world training, but he has a family legacy, a relevant teenage issue, and an epic adventure, as well as a love story and a story about finding himself. Is it deep?

No.

Neither is "It's not who I am underneath...but what I DO...that defines me".

And PEARL HARBOR isn't a great movie on any level, but the events at Pearl Harbor involved war, did they not? So having relevant war action in the movie makes sense, doesn't it? That said, if you look at it, you can find emotional depth in Pearl Harbor. It's just very melodramatic and overdone. Like most truly epic in scale war/romances have been. There was a time when people wanted that.

When you look at films that are considered adventure classics, like GHOSTBUSTERS, INDIANA JONES, JURASSIC PARK etc, you can see that while the scripts are intelligently written, they aren't exactly depth laden. It leaves me wondering why people expect that from TRANSFORMERS.

Which is what some people are asking for. Not depth (as to reiterate to me the source material didn't have depth) but a story intelligently written that doesn't rely on overblown melodrama or easy stereotypes because of the 'setting'.

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

The viewers expect the film to be entertaining...and box office and viewers choice structured awards attest to that

The viewers hope for a "Great Movie"...we settle for what we get.

Thats what the box office and the awards really attest too.

maybe bay should work harder at making lemons out of lemonade...

Thats the other way around:oldrazz:

but at some point ppl should acknowlegde that he's working with lemons

Maybe they would....if he did his best to make lemon-aid out of those lemons insted of just covering it up with flashy scenes and explosions.


and that the audience that has has generated figures in the billions, might actually be into what he's selling...

Thats true enough.

could it be better?

Bays films need to be


TDK could be better.

But it didnt "NEED" to be

in a script there is a character that is a stereotype of say hispanic origins and this buddy cop ACTION COMDEY is a production costing somewhere north of 100 mill

now bay the director slash acting coach should say
"ok hernado, i want you read the lines with so much conviction you break the stereo type...:whatever:"

sorry but it's just not so cut and dry

Well I dont take issue with sterotypes.....I find them to be a reflection of our world today.

you've argued fairly graciously

Thank you very much.:grin:

,you say call for a re-write, i say go do some research on wolverines production

Can you give me a reason for the comparison???

Camron Diaz (when she used to be pretty)

She's still pretty.....just not as much:csad:

Pretty much the whole cast of armageddon had personality and presense, and if not all of them(as i'm sure you'll attest to) then more than one
(buschmi)

Yes they did....but it was all "1 dimensional".Every character was predictable.

Even Buschimi's character....and he [the actor] most of all is capable of far much more in his roles.

Shame on Bay for not utilizing that talent.

if you're going to akin you definition of character to what she did in that film, then it's a little more then subjective now, it's almost biased.

Actually what I'm saying is that it suited the film in question.I tend to hold comedies to a different standard.

I see, well I honestly don't think bay tired to give them any...they were like the fodder character in Roger Rabbit

Which is a shame.

the Robots he did focus on did resonate tho

Barely


enough for you and everyone else on these boards to remember who and what optimus was to this day...

And thats due to Peter Cullen reprizing his role as Optimus Prime.

If "lets say" Liam Neeson had voiced Optimus Prime I highly doubt that his character would have resonated with any of the fans.

And keep in mind that the choise of useing Peter Cullen was forced on Bay....if he had his way Peter wouldnt have been Prime.

So Bay cant take credit for Primes "characterazation" in the film.



they didn't work on paper

I doubt thats always the case and again its his job to improve whats on paper [on his own or by calling for a re-write] and bring it to life.

but an entire script with a poorly written character will not be saved by a directors coaching of an actor

True but a directors coaching can save a film when the script has a minium of "likeable" characters.

And I've read a few of the script of Bays films....and at the very least some of the characters were likeable on paper but not so much on film.

i don't think we'll convince each other on this

Your right

perhaps instead of giving me an example of directors harvesting good character work out of good actors with good scripts to read from...you try giving someone that has made lemonade of of the lemons bay makes money out of...

To be honest I dont tend to read the scripts of every "Great" film I see just to find out if the script was as good.

But.....look at the movie "Traitor".

Bad script
Bat casting
Not the best director/screanwritter [Jeffrey Nachmanoff]

But a wonder actiong preformance from Don Cheadle.

Despite all the flaws, Cheadle does a great job at providing the right degree doubt and personal tragedy for his character. His preformance was believable and understandable, even if everything else aboutthe film wasnt.

And I credit the actor for that because Cheadle wasnt right for the role.


wonderfully meaning a lot of fun

I see...but like I've said.

Funs not enough.

I assume the audience you seen it with was booing the whole time...

No not at all....

But people are to willing to settle......

Bay brought the right "vision" to armageddon...the fact that it did as well as it did and it's now a criterion(i think)
attests to that

As I said way above it only attest to the fact that people are willing to settle for what they can get.

bay succeeded...the script was weak...he made the movie an event

That he did.

But that has no bearing on my argument.

go to three people you hate bay(should be too hard)
ask them for 3 exact reasons they hate his films

u'll get stuff like
over the top action
weak stories
pretty actors
i don't like men
i like the dark knight
his movies don't make you think
i miss you more then bay missed the point when he made pearl...
flames on optimus
lips on optimus

Them not me.

you might get some about acting, or characters not being convincing

Thats my complaint.

but of that list(the serious ones), not that much concern how a director coaches a performance out of an actor..

Well I feel that the bad acting and poor characterazations are a result of not coaching a better preformance out of the actors.

between Shia/Burce Willis/Will Smith/Martin lawrence/Joe pantanliano(sp)/Bernie mac...

there is plenty of conviction to character...plenty

On the strengthens of the actors not Bay.

With the exception of Shia [because I havent seen him in much yet] it would be close to impossible to get a bad preformance from any of those actors these days.

Even when the films arent great those actors still deliver a great preformance.

as far as your idea of a "free" re-write...what makes you think another writer, re writing something that's been written by 5 people and pleases the powerful producer who himself has made billions on films of the same ilk (including part one), will fix the inherent problems?

There has to be someone with enough talent how can.But I cant suggest anyone right now.

why didn't berg fix TF's script..he's one of those filmmakers you claimed bay will never be as good as...

I never said that.

And I cant tell you why Berg didnt fix the script.

Could be he didnt know enough about the scource material to see the inherant flaws.

you said why not just change the movie from bad boys into something good, like the wire..

When did I say that????

then again, business wise maybe he's the most successful in the biz...

Who knows.......you may be right there

then go watch a cartoon this saturday and see if you don't find any characters that act and talk like the secondary robots in TF

How does that pretain to my argument???

I know there's not much of a difference between cartoon characters and Bays characters....thats my complaint.

I was hopping for better from the TF films robots and I didnt get it.

I waited almost 25 years to see TF's brought to life and all I got was a CGI "Lifelike" looking cartoon character

now why do you gotta go and hate the ppl that just want the roller coaster that's traditional pointless fun

I dont hate on the people that "want" that...I hate on the people [movie makers] that only cator to that demographic.

unless you mean it's so forgettable that it's unforgettable

Maybe thats it

nope

with all the money we spend on films they should at least try to give us our money's worth

Not in my opinion.

They should try their best to make lemon-aid.

lets say your right, and pp didn't get their money's worth last time

I'm not really saying that....I'm saying they could have gotten a little more for their money.....like some character from the robots.

by dictionary definition your already wrong:cwink:

How is that???

he'll do it at some point...

We can hope

a director by your definition of the term

Not just mine

But its is subjective


he's already renown in the world of technical directing and photography...

True....and its the extent of his "renowness" at this time

and I wouldn't make the composition of good action sound easy to do...it's probably hardest

I wouldnt agree....I'm not saying its eazy but........

consider for a good drama all i need to do is place a tripod infront of daniel day lewis and have him talk about what oil means to him.

Haha

considering they have alternate modes that are recognizable

I was talking about the robot modes.....and even their altmodes werent that reconizable, but I wasnt expecting them to be sine with every serries they get new altmodes

liberties can be taken in the name of functionality..

Too many were taken....at the risk of not reconizing the characters.

It was almost the equivalent of putting Batman in a pink suit.


and honesty

if you line up the original cast of cartoons
with their movie counterparts in random order, it would be pretty easy to figure out whose who...

No way.

You need your eyes fixed buddy:grin:

Movie Jazz, Ratchet, Ironhide, Starscream, Frenzzy,Baricade, Blackout,Megatron and most of all Devestator looked nothing like their Gi Counterparts.


i agree that face plates for instance could have been modeled closer to their cartoon counter parts...and if that's where all the design hate was coming from it would have ended along time ago

Actually the faces and a bit on the bodies would have been enought for me to stop complaining.



people talk of business, people talk of claw feet and bird legs...

That didnt bother me as much.

I've been a fan of all the toy lines and thats not un-heard of.

hasbro the makers of the toys worked very closely with the film and they approved the NEW designs

I hate to say this but they would of anything to make them money.

I don't see why these designs can't just be accepted as the 2007 versions

Because they suck:grin:

not sure about everyone else but smith and lawrence are the draws for me in bad boys...i "like" them haha

Because of their acting skills.

fan boy hated lawn scene in tf

I liked that scene

he'd write his own

Not the point.

Even if he didnt he would have done far better.

with all this talk of awards and how TDK is a summer film that is earning oscar buzz

where is Spiderman 2's oscar?
it did the opposite of bay for a summer film
X2 even

the academy and it's friends voting for friends and politics is so not relevant here
the fact that TF didn't win sound editing or mixing(from scratch by the way) and bourne did... golden compass and the coca cola polar bears took best cgi...
politics

i wonder who will win best supporting actor..hmm

Award shows suck.....for the most part anyway.
anyways it's been fun going back and fourth with someone that's can back up their OPINION in a respectable way

Again thank you very much....and if I havent said so its been a pleasure debating with you.



i haven't had the chance to do so in a long time

Same here....many would rather insult and flame then debate in a civil manner.

but i have way too much school work to do now..holidays are over...it's been a fun waste of time

Good luck with the school work.

peace

of pie?????

(go watch Revenge of the Fallen, make bay and myself happy so he makes more lol)

I'll watch it....I just hope its better then the first film.

my point for living

_fehzXhH4g4

grown men and summer movies about toys
i love it


Ha!!!!

[The Lizard]

When you look at films that are considered adventure classics, like GHOSTBUSTERS, INDIANA JONES, JURASSIC PARK etc, you can see that while the scripts are intelligently written, they aren't exactly depth laden. It leaves me wondering why people expect that from TRANSFORMERS.

Not looking for "depth", just something remotely resembling the (relatively) intelligently written scripts present in those other movies. It certainly wasn't in the 2007 TF movie.


It's really not that complicated -- I don't know why people seem so puzzled by what I'm hoping improves in the sequel.

[The Guard]

Which is what some people are asking for. Not depth (as to reiterate to me the source material didn't have depth) but a story intelligently written that doesn't rely on overblown melodrama or easy stereotypes because of the 'setting'.

In my mind, it's kind of silly to whine about the drama in a movie where the Earth is attacked by giant robots being "overblown". Overblown melodrama...such as...

Most of the key emotional elements of TRANSFORMERS were fairly "real".

Not looking for "depth", just something remotely resembling the (relatively) intelligently written scripts present in those other movies. It certainly wasn't in the 2007 TF movie.

Like anything else, TRANSFORMERS had intelligent elements. I've never found any of the "classic" movies to be particularly amazingly well written (INDIANA JONES, STAR WARS, etc). They're decently structured, and fresh, but mostly just fun and well executed. I mean, you'll find very similar "melodrama" in those films as well. You'll also find quite a bit of cheese and yes, cliche.

[The Lizard]

Like anything else, TRANSFORMERS had intelligent elements. I've never found any of the "classic" movies to be particularly amazingly well written (INDIANA JONES, STAR WARS, etc). They're decently structured, and fresh, but mostly just fun and well executed. I mean, you'll find very similar "melodrama" in those films as well. You'll also find quite a bit of cheese and yes, cliche.

Sorry, but I'm having a really hard time recalling any intelligent or witty dialog from Transformers. I maintain that those other films featured much better scripts.

[AnorexicBatman]

The problem is that Micheal Bay never ever aims high in terms of depth of plot
He's a wonderful action director, maybe as good in action as Zack Snyder (Le Gasp!)
but he could put a little more effort in...

I mean this is a movie that Steven freaking Spielberg wanted to do himself
If you can make a movie about a man in a rubber bat suit serious you sure as hell can make a movie about alien transforming robots serious

In fact, I think he dislikes the Transformers franchise (He once said he found the concept stupid) and is just in it for the money...
That's why we have talentless eye-candy like Megan Fox next to genuinely talented and having potential for greater things like Shia LaBeouf

Also bad dialogue...
Sam: I think it's Japanese!
really? not alien? not military? japanese?

Biggest victim of the first film was my man Starscream who got horribly shafted
At least he kicked ass. I think Blackout and Mr. Screams role's should have been switched. Movie starts with a Starscream attack on a military base complete with maniacal electronic laughter? ORGASM!

[Ace of Knaves]

Sorry, but I'm having a really hard time recalling any intelligent or witty dialog from Transformers. I maintain that those other films featured much better scripts.

Agreed. Even the supposedly intelligent people in TF were dumb as ****.

[Overman27pj]

Holy long posts batman.

[Jake Cassidy]

The 'Japanese' line was a joke. The TFs were originally created in Japan. How could you not know that? :)

[Jake Cassidy]

edit

[Doctor Jones]

They can cut down on some of the bad too much Bay like jokes. But other than that it was fine.

You people who think this needs a script with somber seriousness and intelligence and complexity is on pot. This is a film based on a TOY LINE of giant robots beating the crap out of other giant robots. Which is what the main thing that was in the show and the film. I see nothing wrong with that.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Fanboys are bastions of hyperbole. When I hear things like "TRANSFORMERS has no story", I want to laugh. TRANSFORMERS has as much story as most movies do. It has the relevant "connections", twists, etc, that one associates with "story". Could it have more depth? Sure. The issue should be that TRANSFORMERS does not have the KIND of story that people wanted. They didn't want a story about glasses, robots searching for glasses, a sexy hacker, and the mechanics of these story elements that resolved this issue, taking up rather a lot of the screentime from what actually mattered. However, in the context of the story of TRANSFORMERS, you don't just have glasses, you've got a whole bunch of "We have encountered robot organisms, here's how we're going to respond as a country" angle, the stuff with Sam and Mikaela, the budding friendship between Sam and Bumblee, and the Transformers. That's not "no story" on any level. It is a bit haphazard here and there, but then, it all fits together fairly well.

*****ing about cliche or stereotypical characters in Hollywood is understandable, but also downright silly. Stereotypes exist in real life, and so that's often what Hollywood presents.

As for how the characters are portrayed in the context of realism...80's characters are just as "annoying teen" as Sam was. Just in an 80's way, not a 2006/2007 way.

To say that there's no "character" to the characters in TRANSFORMERS is absurd. Do they have deep, far reaching backstories? No, but why should they? Sam's not a man who had his parents killed and went around the world training, but he has a family legacy, a relevant teenage issue, and an epic adventure, as well as a love story and a story about finding himself. Is it deep?

No.

Neither is "It's not who I am underneath...but what I DO...that defines me".

And PEARL HARBOR isn't a great movie on any level, but the events at Pearl Harbor involved war, did they not? So having relevant war action in the movie makes sense, doesn't it? That said, if you look at it, you can find emotional depth in Pearl Harbor. It's just very melodramatic and overdone. Like most truly epic in scale war/romances have been. There was a time when people wanted that.

When you look at films that are considered adventure classics, like GHOSTBUSTERS, INDIANA JONES, JURASSIC PARK etc, you can see that while the scripts are intelligently written, they aren't exactly depth laden. It leaves me wondering why people expect that from TRANSFORMERS.

Great post The Guard, you put my thoughts into words perfectly, I was actually surprised by how much character and emotion we got the in the movie, the stuff between Sam and Mikaela, Sam and Bumblebee, Sam and Prime and even Mikaela and Bumblbee was all great stuff.

[Travesty]

Shia pretty much sums up my thoughts of the script.

8IXCK1EyP4s
HAHA, I never noticed that. This is just as funny as the Schwarzenegger "freeze" video that was made on college humor.:grin:

[terry78]

I give Bay a pass on Pearl Harbor because I think he was honestly trying to capture that 1940s style with the acting, the three extremely pretty leads, etc.

[Travesty]

I mean this is a movie that Steven freaking Spielberg wanted to do himself
If you can make a movie about a man in a rubber bat suit serious you sure as hell can make a movie about alien transforming robots seriousWhen I think of Transformers, I don't think, "damn, I need an air-tight script, with amazing actors, and a sense of realism".

NO! When I think of Transformers, I think of me being 5-7 years old, and wanting to see vehicles transform and have fights. I don't care to much about plot, cause all I want to do is sit there, see action, and go "weeeeeeee", just like I did when I was young. Micheal Bay did this, with a bit of an update to the settings, but I'm still there having a good time.

Batman can be taken seriously, cause he is a serious character. He has seen a few campy moments, sure, and some of them may have been fun, but for the most part, his roots are set in a serious tone. The Transformer roots are set in a campy, "lets have fun" kind of mentality. Just because most of you were fans when you were 5-7 years old, doesn't mean a new movie needs to conform(become serious) to the age group it once started at. Get popcorn, have fun, and slip into a time machine for a second, and become 5 again. Is it really that hard to ask for?

[The Lizard]

NO! When I think of Transformers, I think of me being 5-7 years old, and wanting to see vehicles transform and have fights. I don't care to much about plot, cause all I want to do is sit there, see action, and go "weeeeeeee", just like I did when I was young.

But here's the thing -- there's a LOT of the first TF movie that didn't have vehicles transforming and robot fights.

Why should all the non-robot parts be so lame and stupidly written? being based on a cartoon about robot toys has no bearing on crappy dialog and lame jokes. It's OK to expect a movie, even a movie based on a toy line, to treat you like you have a triple-digit IQ.

[Travesty]

But here's the thing -- there's a LOT of the first TF movie that didn't have vehicles transforming and robot fights.

Why should all the non-robot parts be so lame and stupidly written? being based on a cartoon about robot toys has no bearing on crappy dialog and lame jokes. It's OK to expect a movie, even a movie based on a toy line, to treat you like you have a triple-digit IQ.
Good god, bro. Think in perspective for a second. The animated series was 30 minutes long, maybe 18-20 without commercials. Even in the animated series you saw loads of "crappy dialog and lame jokes" WITHOUT transforming robots. Thats the way it has always been presented, yet, all of the sudden, now that you're 20-30 something years of age, it has to conform to your deep "understanding" or "intelligence" of a movie?

Take it for what it is, and what it was setup to be: ie. robots, with crappy/easy storylines, that have loads of action.

I swear, you guys complain about the hotties in this movie, as if you masturbate to the old cartoons more then you do seeing Megan Fox in a short skirt. Get over yourselves, its a friggin children concept! What do you expect?:huh:

[GregComicFan]

The only thing I didn't like about the Transformer's script was all the goofy humor. I hated John Turturro's entire character. Every time he was on screen, he reminded me I was watching a movie intended for little kids....

Greg

[The Lizard]

I swear, you guys complain about the hotties in this movie, as if you masturbate to the old cartoons more then you do seeing Megan Fox in a short skirt. Get over yourselves, its a friggin children concept! What do you expect?:huh:

I'm not quite sure what that last part means, but you do realize you just contradicted yourself, right? If TF is a "friggin children concept", then why was the movie PG-13 with sexy Megan Fox, cursing Bernie Mac and masturbation/dog piss jokes added? I don't remember any of those in the kids cartoons.

It's like the writers tried to make Transformers more "mature" than the cartoon, but they just brought the maturity level up to that of the target audience of Meet the Spartans instead of the maturity level of the target audience of Spider-Man.

I guess some people can't tell the difference, or just don't care.

[Jake Cassidy]

^ Or maybe you should just lighten the hell up.

[AnorexicBatman]

^Why? Is it wrong to expect professionalism from a movie crew just because it is based of on toys? Look at Pixar! None of their movies (Save "Up!") feature human characters but all of them are so lovable and endearing. Is it so much to ask for character development of a few robots that TRANSFORM into cars?

[dark_b]

^Why? Is it wrong to expect professionalism from a movie crew just because it is based of on toys? Look at Pixar! None of their movies (Save "Up!") feature human characters but all of them are so lovable and endearing. Is it so much to ask for character development of a few robots that TRANSFORM into cars?when rendering 80% raytraced cars that need to fit in the real word will be cheap then i will give you character development.
on the other hand the house scenes used a lot of robots hat could be used for character development.

hhhhhhhhhi need some sleep.

[Travesty]

I'm not quite sure what that last part means, but you do realize you just contradicted yourself, right? If TF is a "friggin children concept", then why was the movie PG-13 with sexy Megan Fox, cursing Bernie Mac and masturbation/dog piss jokes added? I don't remember any of those in the kids cartoons.

It's like the writers tried to make Transformers more "mature" than the cartoon, but they just brought the maturity level up to that of the target audience of Meet the Spartans instead of the maturity level of the target audience of Spider-Man.

I guess some people can't tell the difference, or just don't care.LOL

I'm sure they didn't have to many sexy girls in skirts in the cartoons, because it was......a CARTOON. And yes, the old '86 Movie and old shows had PLENTY of stupid jokes and one liners. They didn't make anything more "mature", it was just a live action movie, with jokes thrown in. If you didn't like it, then don't buy the DVD or watch it again. If you didn't like it, then don't go see the sequel. The movie is dumb, with hot girls and action. If you're expecting a "masterpiece" about transforming robots, then maybe you need to think twice about how silly that sounds.

And the "maturity level" was on par with Spider-Man. That movie had just as many "what the fu<k" lines and lame jokes as Transformers. Comparing it to a comedy spoof, with random scenes, and slapstick jokes is wayyyyyy off base.

But in the end, I am truly glad you hated it, and I'm just as happy that you wont enjoy the sequel. You sound like the 5 year old at Toy 'R Us who isn't getting the toy he "needs". Have fun not getting what you want.:hoboj:

[Travesty]

^Why? Is it wrong to expect professionalism from a movie crew just because it is based of on toys? Look at Pixar! None of their movies (Save "Up!") feature human characters but all of them are so lovable and endearing. Is it so much to ask for character development of a few robots that TRANSFORM into cars?But you already know the characters backstorys. Its just like when Burton made Batman89, you just saw Batman kicking ass, and we didn't have to know that he trained to get to where he is. He just was, and the majority of the audience already knew this. If this was a standalone film, with no other ties to the movie, then yeah, you would probably need some backstory and stronger character development. But we have YEARS of backstory from a variety of different mediums to understand who/where these robots came from.

And just like you said, you know what to expect from this film crew. If its not your cup of tea, then don't pay to go see it.

[The Lizard]

^ Or maybe you should just lighten the hell up.

Hey, if you disagree, fine. No one's making you read this thread.


This seems to be the basic crux of any pro-TF 2007 argument I'm hearing -- "lighten up!" "turn off your brain!" "it's based on toys, just enjoy the FX!". I'm quite capable of doing all these things...to a point. Forgive me if I expect a certain minimal level of writing professionalism from a PG-13 sci-fi blockbuster movie.

What makes Pixar's The Incredibles better than The Fantastic Four movies? Am I being unfair in noticing all the weaknesses of the F4 movie scripts when I should just "lighten up" and "turn off my brain" because they're silly comicbook superhero movies?

[The Lizard]

And the "maturity level" was on par with Spider-Man. That movie had just as many "what the fu<k" lines and lame jokes as Transformers.

If you really think that, then I don't think we have too much more to discuss.
Really, you need to go back and watch both movies again if you honestly believe what you just said.


But in the end, I am truly glad you hated it, and I'm just as happy that you wont enjoy the sequel. You sound like the 5 year old at Toy 'R Us who isn't getting the toy he "needs". Have fun not getting what you want.:hoboj:

Now you're just trolling. I already said that I didn't "hate" TF 2007. I even said that it was more entertaining overall than Spider-Man 3. Geez, if you're going to try to pick a forum-fight at least read all my posts in this thread first. Speaking of 5-year-olds....
Fail.

[Travesty]

Now you're just trolling. I already said that I didn't "hate" TF 2007. I even said that it was more entertaining overall than Spider-Man 3. Geez, if you're going to try to pick a forum-fight at least read all my posts in this thread first. Speaking of 5-year-olds....
Fail.Trolling? I answered your initial question that you asked in this thread, ie. expect the same in TF2, If you don't like it, then don't go see it.

No, I didn't read all 10 pages of this thread, I just looked at pg1, then the last, and I posted my reply. Afterwords, you jumped on me, even though I answered exactly what you were asking for, which is again, it will be a similar movie. I haven't read that you liked TF1, only you saying how "unwatchable" it is, which would be an indication to me that you do, in fact, hate TF.

I don't care about you, or your opinion over TF. I liked it, and I thought it was goofy popcorn fun. So I truly am happy you didn't enjoy it, cause I don't care about your opinion. All you're doing is setting yourself up for disaster. I'm sorry you didn't like the answers that MANY have given you here, but once again, since you keep missing the answer, it will be the same kind of acting/writing that you saw in TF1. Dont go see it if it bugs you that much.

[chosen1]

The first movie didnt even have three clear acts. The most basic story level. Bay is Killing Transformers.

[The Lizard]

I don't care about you, or your opinion over TF. I liked it, and I thought it was goofy popcorn fun. So I truly am happy you didn't enjoy it, cause I don't care about your opinion.

LOL - you don't care, but you keep coming back to attempt to tell me how I'm wrong in my observations of the TF movie. Way to not care, there, kid.

All you're doing is setting yourself up for disaster. I'm sorry you didn't like the answers that MANY have given you here, but once again, since you keep missing the answer, it will be the same kind of acting/writing that you saw in TF1. Dont go see it if it bugs you that much.

The "answers" I keep "missing" from those who disagree with me aren't answering anything, just repeating the same old positions over and over again. Are you "missing" the comments from the MANY who agree with me?

As I've said before, anyone who thinks that the script and dialog from the first TF movie were perfect and in no need of improvement probably isn't going to get what I'm saying anyway. But there's nothing wrong in hoping that a movie that didn't live up to its full potential in EITHER the action direction OR the script doesn't improve some in the sequel.

I'm not predicting that TF2 will be a disaster at all. I would just like to enjoy it on more levels than I did the first movie. Improvements are quite possible.

[Travesty]

LOL - you don't care, but you keep coming back to attempt to tell me how I'm wrong in my observations of the TF movie. Way to not care, there, kid.
:facepalm

No, I was explaining to you that I was just answering your initial question, and not trolling. I just reworded everything, so hopefully you would understand what I was saying. Obviously not, now you're just taking things out of context.

And again, I haven't read every post in here, I'm not acting like I have, so I don't know what everybody said that is in agreement with you. I'm glad to see you're hopeful about the new movie, so I'll just leave it at that.:cwink:

[The Lizard]

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/4151/facepalmmontagesu3.jpg

Indeed..

Well, my initial response (http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=16355105&postcount=223) to your post was not intended to "jump on you" in any way -- just to point out that the action FX parts that made Transformers entertaining made up a small part of the movie compared to all the other stuff that I saw as being weak.

Your following responses of "good god!", "I swear", and ultimately calling me a 5-year old shows that you seem to be more passionate about about defending TF 2007 than I am about criticizing it. That's totally fine of course.
As we both can agree, we'll just have to wait and see what we get this July.

[CEREBRAL....]

Hey, if you disagree, fine. No one's making you read this thread.


This seems to be the basic crux of any pro-TF 2007 argument I'm hearing -- "lighten up!" "turn off your brain!" "it's based on toys, just enjoy the FX!". I'm quite capable of doing all these things...to a point. Forgive me if I expect a certain minimal level of writing professionalism from a PG-13 sci-fi blockbuster movie.

Am I being unfair in noticing all the weaknesses of the F4 movie scripts when I should just "lighten up" and "turn off my brain" because they're silly comicbook superhero movies?


Hey Lizard..i've agreed with you since day one, and this post is basically hitting the nail right on the head again. Honestly man just give up, you're gonna get the same response no matter what. Those who loved the movie will never see our points and think way beyond what we are trying to say..it's a big waste of our time..

"never argue with fools...from a distance you can't tell who is who..."

^^^oh yeah..ha ha great pic....prefect!!!

[Adrian89]

Bay is Killing Transformers.
I highly doubt that. :rolleyes:

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/4151/facepalmmontagesu3.jpg

Indeed..
lol!

[LightningFlash]

The first movie didnt even have three clear acts. The most basic story level. Bay is Killing Transformers.

The most ignorant post in the Transformers forum to date.

[Jake Cassidy]

edit

[Jake Cassidy]

Hey, if you disagree, fine. No one's making you read this thread.


This seems to be the basic crux of any pro-TF 2007 argument I'm hearing -- &quot;lighten up!&quot; &quot;turn off your brain!&quot; &quot;it's based on toys, just enjoy the FX!&quot;. I'm quite capable of doing all these things...to a point. Forgive me if I expect a certain minimal level of writing professionalism from a PG-13 sci-fi blockbuster movie.

What makes Pixar's The Incredibles better than The Fantastic Four movies? Am I being unfair in noticing all the weaknesses of the F4 movie scripts when I should just &quot;lighten up&quot; and &quot;turn off my brain&quot; because they're silly comicbook superhero movies?

I never said, or meant, any of that. I just said it because it seems that you take things a little too seriously. If I'm wrong, than I'm wrong and I apologise. No big deal.

I'm pro TF because I love the movie. I, honestly, don't see anything wrong with it. If you do, fine. We all like (and expect) different things.


Besides, with Ehren Kruger involved the second movie will, hopefully, be better anyway. :yay:

Also, I hated 'The Incredibles' and liked FF. I guess that makes me a little strange. :woot:

[Jake Cassidy]

edit

[chosen1]

The most ignorant post in the Transformers forum to date.


Ignorant!? so I'm wrong?

[Jake Cassidy]

^ I'm gonna let LightningFlash take that one. I'm sick of arguing. :)

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Ignorant!? so I'm wrong?

Well you weren't very clear.

[mclay18]

^Why? Is it wrong to expect professionalism from a movie crew just because it is based of on toys? Look at Pixar! None of their movies (Save "Up!") feature human characters but all of them are so lovable and endearing. Is it so much to ask for character development of a few robots that TRANSFORM into cars?

Thank you so much.

Putting Bay and a decent-to-good script together is like mixing water and oil -- it can't happen. I wouldn't loathe TF if the action scenes were actually exciting and the characters were likeable or had a bit of dimension to them. Shia's Sam Witwicky was a bit of a schmuck and the only reason he was the main character was because he had a clunky plot device.

The more I think about TF, the more I hate it. Again, I say that Spielberg would've done a much better movie even with the same script and cast attached -- that's how good he is.

[Jake Cassidy]

^ Maybe you should stop thinking about it, if it fills you with so much hatred. Go watch something you like and you can be happier. :)

[Doctor Jones]

People want an brainy Transformers film that improves from what the original was in terms of intelligence?

:lmao: