Transformers: ROTF User Review Thread

[dark_b]

all movies should be made for ''oscars''?
the oscars that are not fair?

[Godman]

Everyone knows that The Fresh Prince of Bel Air made Will Smith the huge star he is today. :grin:

who denied that?

[BlackLantern]

all movies should be made for ''oscars''?
the oscars that are not fair?

oh you mean the "it's not how good your film is but who runs your studio" Oscars??

Im looking at you Harvey:cmad:

[Sarge 2.0]

which ones didn't he make?
Nicolas Cage, Will Smith, Shia LaBeouf, and Martin Lawrence. So...all of the careers he claimed to have "made". :huh:

[Sarge 2.0]

all movies should be made for ''oscars''?
the oscars that are not fair?I guess you think Revenge of the Fallen is Oscar material.

[dark_b]

I guess you think Revenge of the Fallen is Oscar material.
i dont understand? why would i think that ROTF is oscar material ?

[Sarge 2.0]

i dont understand? why would i think that ROTF is oscar material ?Well, you said that the Oscars are not "fair". I guess they're not "fair" to the movie that you've called the best movie of the year on multiple occassions.

[dark_b]

Well, you said that the Oscars are not "fair". I guess they're not "fair" to the movie that you've called the best movie of the year on multiple occassions.

1. they are not fair because for example the wrestler was not nominated.
2. they are not fair because the guy who played a gay character won. as always :o
3. they were also not fair in the category that TF should win in 2007. special effects.

but at the end i still need to ask: what movie did i call the best of the year?

[BlackLantern]

Nicolas Cage, Will Smith, Shia LaBeouf, and Martin Lawrence. So...all of the careers he claimed to have "made". :huh:

as for Cage, I think him doing 'The Rock' made people see him as an action film guy when they didn't previous....with Will Smith...Independence Day made people notice him, Bad Boys made him an action star...Enemy of the State is still my favorite Will Smith movie (his first grown up role IMO)

I wouldn't call Transformers the best movie of the year in any discussion....but its not a disaster on the level of Showgirls as some would like to believe

[dark_b]

as for Cage, I think him doing 'The Rock' made people see him as an action film guy when they didn't previous....with Will Smith...Independence Day made people notice him, Bad Boys made him an action star...Enemy of the State is still my favorite Will Smith movie (his first grown up role IMO)

I wouldn't call Transformers the best movie of the year in any discussion....but its not a disaster on the level of Showgirls as some would like to believebut wouldnt they already know him in 1996 since you said that he was already an action star from Bad Boys?

[BlackLantern]

**** I stand corrected....sorry....Im all reversed....Independece Day was after Bad Boys....sorry everyone

[nintendo nerd]

as for Cage, I think him doing 'The Rock' made people see him as an action film guy when they didn't previous....with Will Smith...Independence Day made people notice him, Bad Boys made him an action star...Enemy of the State is still my favorite Will Smith movie (his first grown up role IMO)

I wouldn't call Transformers the best movie of the year in any discussion....but its not a disaster on the level of Showgirls as some would like to believe

It is not a disaster because of the gazillion of dollars it is making.

[BlackLantern]

its fair to say both films contributed to Will Smiths stardom

[Darth Elektra]

The film in my opinion was so so. I would give 'Revenge of the Fallen' a 6.5 and I gave the original Transformers film a 7.

[BlackLantern]

It is not a disaster because of the gazillion of dollars it is making.

ahh but didn't you get the memo...the new cynicism says that money doesn't equal quality nor is it an indicator of what people look for in a film:hehe:

Ill accede to the money doesn't equal quality, but Michael Bay has never claimed to change the world or have deep feelings in his films, he makes them because they are pure escapist marshmallow fluff and bacon sandwiches and the world needs that sometime....some here on the Hype would have you believe that Transformers is the Catch 22 of our time and its source material is sacred text that should be crafted by only a literary master of the highest order

[dark_b]

BO doesnt mean quality. with this is i agree because its opinion. but i always said that if a movie makes a lot of money that then it is popular and its what people wanted to see. if it has a huge drop then some people didnt come back.

i think superman returns and speed racer had a better story and a more mature story then TF2. but TF2 is more for the masses and they liked it more in the summer.

[BlackLantern]

I liked Speed Racer a lot

[dark_b]

I liked Speed Racer a lotspeed racer had IMO a very good family story. i was suprised how good it was written. but why would anyone think that it would make a lot of money since it looked like it looked? i am looking at WB :huh:

[BlackLantern]

speed racer had IMO a very good family story. i was suprised how good it was written. but why would anyone think that it would make a lot of money since it looked like it looked? i am looking at WB :huh:

well, I think it was a matter of contrasts....you have this bright, colorful movie and you throw in a rather adult plot about stock prices and race fixing and I think that threw some people....I enjoy the film, it looks great...has one of the best scores I have ever heard in a movie

[dark_b]

well, I think it was a matter of contrasts....you have this bright, colorful movie and you throw in a rather adult plot about stock prices and race fixing and I think that threw some people....I enjoy the film, it looks great...has one of the best scores I have ever heard in a moviei dont think people had problems with colors.
its teh fact that they were not driving in action cars but in toys.

i liked the style and it was interesting to see. but a lot of people were saying that it would not make a lot of money.

[BlackLantern]

it made money, it just didn't make enough to cover the budget...it was estimated 120 Mil budget and between BO and DVD it made about 117 back

[GhostPoet]

I liked Speed Racer a lot

I knew I liked you for a reason!

[Sarge 2.0]

1. they are not fair because for example the wrestler was not nominated.
2. they are not fair because the guy who played a gay character won. as always :o
3. they were also not fair in the category that TF should win in 2007. special effects.Do I think the Wrestler should have been nominated? Yes. But just because Sean Penn played a gay character doesn't mean he didn't deserve it. His performance was fantastic. If that dictum were true then everyone in "To Wong Foo Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar" would have nabbed an Oscar.

This flick. I don't feel like going through your posts but your constant, gushing praise starts to blend together. And why should TF have won for special effects in 2007? Because its effects were the most expensive? There's a difference between most extravagant special effects and the best special effects. But Michael Bay fans always confuse extravagance and large amounts of money with quality.

[BlackLantern]

Do I think the Wrestler should have been nominated? Yes. But just because Sean Penn played a gay character doesn't mean he didn't deserve it. His performance was fantastic. If that dictum were true then everyone in "To Wong Foo Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar" would have nabbed an Oscar.

This flick. I don't feel like going through your posts but your constant, gushing praise starts to blend together. And why should TF have won for special effects in 2007? Because its effects were the most expensive? There's a difference between most extravagant special effects and the best special effects. But Michael Bay fans always confuse extravagance and large amounts of money with quality.

I don't...but it's kind of hard to ignore the writing on the wall when TF2 has made obscene amounts of money so far....is the movie the best of the year, hardly...but it is successful and apparently people seem to like it

[nintendo nerd]

ahh but didn't you get the memo...the new cynicism says that money doesn't equal quality nor is it an indicator of what people look for in a film:hehe:

Ill accede to the money doesn't equal quality, but Michael Bay has never claimed to change the world or have deep feelings in his films, he makes them because they are pure escapist marshmallow fluff and bacon sandwiches and the world needs that sometime....some here on the Hype would have you believe that Transformers is the Catch 22 of our time and its source material is sacred text that should be crafted by only a literary master of the highest order

Star Trek and the first Transformers made me feel that way, and they were great action movies with a good story. Not this crap of ROTF, this movie is an insult to mankind and his intelligence. IMO. I'm sorry but this movie is a joke.

[nintendo nerd]

I don't...but it's kind of hard to ignore the writing on the wall when TF2 has made obscene amounts of money so far....is the movie the best of the year, hardly...but it is successful and apparently people seem to like it

- Britney Spears is successful.

- Jonas Brothers are succesful



Successful does not mean good. The movie had great marketing campaigns plus the first one left a good taste on most of the people. I guarantee you that the third one won't make as much as the first two, because of how bad ROFT is.

[BlackLantern]

I really don't expect a third one

[knowsbleed]

Michael Bay movies that contain humor and action will do well at the BO. Your guarantee doesn't hold that much weight.

[dark_b]

Do I think the Wrestler should have been nominated? Yes. But just because Sean Penn played a gay character doesn't mean he didn't deserve it. His performance was fantastic. If that dictum were true then everyone in "To Wong Foo Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar" would have nabbed an Oscar.

This flick. I don't feel like going through your posts but your constant, gushing praise starts to blend together. And why should TF have won for special effects in 2007? Because its effects were the most expensive? There's a difference between most extravagant special effects and the best special effects. But Michael Bay fans always confuse extravagance and large amounts of money with quality.
but everyone knew that Penn would win. and we know why he did.


people on the CGI industry think that TF should win the oscar. its not just on SHH forum.

[CelticPredator]

LOL.....I still loved this movie. I this *****ing is hilarious. But not unjustifyed.

[CelticPredator]

Oh yeah, and aside from Davy Jones from POTC, Transformers has the best CGI ever created. And so does ROTF. (throw in King Kong too)

[terry78]

Oh yeah, and aside from Davy Jones from POTC, Transformers has the best CGI ever created. And so does ROTF. (throw in King Kong too)

Yeah, but people will argue because they're robots it wasn't as hard. Inorganic stuff will always be easier to do, but they managed to give some weight to the characters, they didn't feel like they were just in the background or moved stiffly or floaty. Bumblebee literally could be right next to you.

[knowsbleed]

Exactly... Optimus was a heavy handed mother****er.





His pimp hand was strong.

[danoyse]

but everyone knew that Penn would win. and we know why he did.

Politics aside, Sean Penn was phenonmenal in that movie. I was rooting for Mickey too, but if he had to lose to anyone, I'm glad it was Sean Penn.

Back on topic...I finally saw ROTF this morning. It was good, but I liked the first movie better. Thought the action sequences were fantastic, but it seemed like the rest of the script was written by a group of 13-year-old boys, which is probably an insult to 13-year-old boys everywhere.

It's like the story they had was shorter than the runtime, and they just filled the rest of it in with a lot of dopey unnecessary stuff (like the goofy roommate, the annoying twins, and Sam's parents have wayyyy to much screentime).

But again, I loved the action sequences. That definitely made up for the rest of it, especially the last half-hour or so.

[Sarge 2.0]

Yeah, I was rooting for Mickey Rourke as much as anyone, but I'm not going to deny Sean Penn credit for his incredible acting. Would I have preferred that Mickey won? Definitely. But both men truly deserved it.

[Chris B]

I saw it for the second time today and I still enjoyed it. Though I did notice the plot holes and them reusing CGI models more than I did first time around.

[BlackLantern]

Exactly... Optimus was a heavy handed mother****er.

His pimp hand was strong.

Indeed

[The Guard]

Which would amount to one thing: in the six seconds that serve as the film's denouement, Sam would be standing alone instead of standing with Optimus. The promise of change to come is worth something, sure, but you've been trying to sell me on the relevance of Sam's story in the body of the film--but besides that six seconds, it isn't there. That conflict does not drive the film, and it probably should have.

That's like me saying that if Batman didn't kill Dent and take the blame for his crimes, nothing would have changed in THE DARK KNIGHT, except that he wouldn't have been running from the cops. I think the promise of things to come is fairly important in context, though.

Yes, they probably could have had him "struggle" a bit more with his potential paths.

If I expected any level of competent follow through, that might be enough for me. But I don't.
Competent follow through in terms of...the resolution of the arc?
not sure I follow you entirely.
I'm saying...he starts the movie as someone who obviously doesn't want to be involved in the kind of danger and risk the autobots war involves.
Now let's say he did what he did, but not for the autobots.
Wouldn't he still have essentially changed and developed as a character, based on where he began the film?
But not necessarily as a matter of principle. It could have easily been a matter of practicality. He already new he had information that was important somehow, and he knew that if the Decepticon's wanted it, it was probably to do something that wouldn't be good for him in the long run.
I just said he has a choice. I said nothing about principle VS practicaility.
I meant exactly what I said: if you show someone a tree, and you show someone paper, you haven't shown that person that paper is made from trees. You've shown them something, but not enough to actually qualify as showing them that paper comes from trees. You've only told them that. That's how the film feels to me.
I see.

[Episode29]

people on the CGI industry think that TF should win the oscar. its not just on SHH forum.

They do? Who exactly are these industry people making their opinions so audibly known?

I'd wait and see how Avatar turns out before crying over RotF's Oscar worthiness.

[BlackLantern]

I think, as far as the first films VFX nomination, Hollywood just didn't want to give the Oscar to a movie about giant robots directed by Michael Bay

[Episode29]

I think, as far as the first films VFX nomination, Hollywood just didn't want to give the Oscar to a movie about giant robots directed by Michael Bay

Yeah, it's especially odd considering the category is voted on solely by artists working within the special effects field...

[protocida]

Was the Fallen draining Energon from the Hatchlings on Mars/Saturn?

[BlackLantern]

elitist attitudes exist, no matter the field....personal feelings and the like always get in the way....and Im fairly sure those voters in the tech categories are advised on how to vote by those higher on the totem pole

[Episode29]

elitist attitudes exist, no matter the field....personal feelings and the like always get in the way....and Im fairly sure those voters in the tech categories are advised on how to vote by those higher on the totem pole

Let's remember that Michael Bay isn't known for his jovial temperment. Who knows how many people he's pissed off... Old wounds tend to stay open in Hollywood. Just ask Elia Kazan.

[roach]

While money does not equal quality I dont think anyone at Paramount is thinking about retooling the franchise.Money however equals that people not only went to see this movie but they enjoyed it enough to see it again.

[terry78]

Saw it on Imax again today....the forest battle was very well done shot in that fashion. You felt like you were right there looking up at Optimus and the 'Cons battling it out in the forest, as the screen is about 8 stories tall and they take up the whole of it.

[Episode29]

While money does not equal quality I dont think anyone at Paramount is thinking about retooling the franchise.Money however equals that people not only went to see this movie but they enjoyed it enough to see it again.

[shameless plug/]I agree, and said as much on the new episode of the Hype! Cast in which we reviewed Revenge of the Fallen. Check it out![\shameless plug].

[gtkilla]

Awesome

Best movie I've seen all year. :up: :up:

btw, I still haven't seen Star Trek before someone jumps at me. :p

[Iron_Stark]

I saw it for a third time today.

Next time, Imax.

[BlackLantern]

yes roach, but according to some, those of us that liked it are horrible people with no class or morals and are contributing to the downfall of cinema......and we also eat kittens

[roach]

yes roach, but according to some, those of us that liked it are horrible people with no class or morals and are contributing to the downfall of cinema......and we also eat kittens

i know and I dont understand it. I realize that e all arent supposed to like the same things but to call this movie the downfall of cinema....lol????

[SsM]

yes roach, but according to some, those of us that liked it are horrible people with no class or morals and are contributing to the downfall of cinema......and we also eat kittens


Wow, did someone really tell you that?

[knowsbleed]

You aren't a real man unless you eat kittens.

[BlackLantern]

Wow, did someone really tell you that?

kind of...the comic store my friend manages, he has this regular that comes in...lets call him Scott, and he's spirited about his opinions and essentially called me a bad person for liking the film....that "real" fans should know better, so on and so forth

[knowsbleed]

Did you eat his kitten afterwards?

[BlackLantern]

Did you eat his kitten afterwards?

took the head off that ****er with one bite:cmad:

[knowsbleed]

Ha... that reminds me... my friend told me his dog did that to one of their cats one time. He said his german shepherd did it so fast that all he saw was the headless body of the cat with blood spurting out and his dog sitting there like nothing happened.




... but I digress... Optimus Prime is my father.

[Marvin]

Nicolas Cage, Will Smith, Shia LaBeouf, and Martin Lawrence. So...all of the careers he claimed to have "made". :huh:

"Nick Cage wasn't a big actor when I cast him, nor was Ben Affleck before I put him in 'Armageddon.' Shia LaBeouf wasn't a big movie star before he did 'Transformers' -- and then he exploded. Not to mention Will Smith and Martin Lawrence, from 'Bad Boys'," he points out.

having found a minute to read the actual article I'm not sure where the word "made" came from. He never claimed to literally make careers, he takes responsibility for the burst in momentum their careers received after their appearance his movies and thus making them "big" stars in the industry.(but i'm sure you knew that)

also briefly looking at the imdb charts for each of those actors mention I have to agree with him

Will Smith for example, Bad boys was his first big (dumb) summer film and after that he STARTED to receive more and more big hollywood rolls ALONG THE SAME LINES(likable action hero)
To claim he had a "big" career before that with his fresh prince television show is fallace, TV and Film are very different when it comes to the concept of big careers
just ask Patrick Dempsey, sure he's big on TV, but he can't sell a film for beans.

whats funny is how much bigger a show Fresh Prince became in post Smith's film career boom.

(in case you missed it, there were two points there; having a (tv) career and being a hot hollywood commodity are two very different things and he didn't literally say he started their careers)

I used to watch "Even stevens" all the time, but do you think shia's all over GQ and other magazines and at all the events due to his "pre bay" career?
I'm sure if the only film he had made was disturbia, that Perez hilton would be oh so curious about who he's eating pie with every sunday morning

(point being, Shia has a really big career right now, and those so so films and tv shows he was on can't be given as much credit as Transformers in doing so)

Yes he did make the new indy movie! However, one that was a dud, and two just like ID4 for smith, it came after his first huge door opening hit.

Martin Lawrence?
that's a joke right? ask anyone to name 2 "big" movies he was in and if they both aren't bad boys movies one might be big moma, but again and I keep coming back to it, chronology is a huge factor.

Nic cage had a career no doubt, but he didn't have a "box office" hits before bay.

should I even speak on megan fox?

If bay claimed to make Sean Connery's career, then perhaps he's be full of sh#t.

[CEREBRAL....]

double post

[CEREBRAL....]

"Nick Cage wasn't a big actor when I cast him, nor was Ben Affleck before I put him in 'Armageddon.' Shia LaBeouf wasn't a big movie star before he did 'Transformers' -- and then he exploded. Not to mention Will Smith and Martin Lawrence, from 'Bad Boys'," he points out.

having found a minute to read the actual article I'm not sure where the word "made" came from. He never claimed to literally make careers, he takes responsibility for the burst in momentum their careers received after their appearance his movies and thus making them "big" stars in the industry.(but i'm sure you knew that)




:wow:wow u should be bay's P/R person...u really spun that one around...

[The Guard]

He doesn't need to spin it. The inference is clear. And Bay's right, to some extent.

[Marvin]

:wow:wow u should be bay's P/R person...u really spun that one around...

oh Cerebral, you're too kind

I simply read the quote and exercised my basic comprehension skills

hint; the use of the word "big"

[CEREBRAL....]

oh Cerebral, you're too kind

I simply read the quote and exercised my basic comprehension skills

hint; the use of the word "big"


ha ha

aka...they weren't much til AFTER they starred in my movies....

please M.Bay that is coming off pompus at best..you movies weren't that good...

[Sam Fisher]

2/5. This movie was pretty terrible. Too long and drawn out. I literally had to keep myself from falling asleep, and that doesn't happen often.

[Marvin]

ha ha

aka...they weren't much til AFTER they starred in my movies....

please M.Bay that is coming off pompus at best..you movies weren't that good...

movies don't have to be "good" to do that

they just have to really entertain the audience so much so that the audience will want to see more of said actor

just ask Jim Carey!

[The Lizard]

[B]
Nic cage had a career no doubt, but he didn't have a "box office" hits before bay.

Actually, Moonstruck made $80 mil US in 1987. A very decent BO for that time and that genre.

And of course there's that little Best Actor Oscar that Cage got for Leaving Las Vegas in '95. So while Bay opened the door for Cage's blockbuster action movie career (which many would consider a dubious honor), Cage was already big-name before Bay came along.

[Saint]

That's like me saying that if Batman didn't kill Dent and take the blame for his crimes, nothing would have changed in THE DARK KNIGHT, except that he wouldn't have been running from the cops. I think the promise of things to come is fairly important in context, though.
Right. Does it feel important to you in Transformers, though? Because it doesn't to me.

Competent follow through in terms of...the resolution of the arc?
Follow through in terms of where this will go in the sequel. Since the exploration of the story thus far has not satisfied me by any degree, I don't expect the place they take this plot thread to be satisfactory, either.


Wouldn't he still have essentially changed and developed as a character, based on where he began the film?
Sure. Somewhere in our conversation I've lost track of the point you're driving at in this particular instance, though.

[Marvin]

Actually, Moonstruck made $80 mil US in 1987. A very decent BO for that time and that genre.

And of course there's that little Best Actor Oscar that Cage got for Leaving Las Vegas in '95. So while Bay opened the door for Cage's blockbuster action movie career (which many would consider a dubious honor), Cage was already big-name before Bay came along.

compared to the rocks 140ish million, also good for the times and a restricted film,

moonstruck is to cage what eagle eye is for Shia, a decent film.

as far as oscar win
well that definitely depends on a few things

I mean Philip seymour hoffmans capote win doesn't really go that far in terms of him opening a big movie and the studio relying on him to put bodies in seats.

but I agree, with cage it was more about making him an action draw, bays actual words.

[El_Citrus]

Just got back from the movie. Someone summed it up best by saying that "If you liked the first, you'll enjoy this one". This movie was definitely not as good as the first, but it still wasn't a bad or terrible movie. Here's a quick list of what I liked and disliked:

Pros:
Optimus badassness
Slight tweaking of voicework for Megs and Starscream
Megs/Starscream relationship
TONS of action
Majority of the humor
Soundwave
Most of the Fallen's backstory


Cons:
Pretender
The Twins...
Devastator and Fallen's easy defeats
Too many robots/lack of character depth
Spliced together/jumbled plot
Fart/humping/frat boy humor
Leo

Initial score: 3/5

[CelticPredator]

There is a difference between action stars, and dramatic stars. More people know action stars.

[Marvin]

There is a difference between action stars, and dramatic stars. More people know action stars.

gotta disagree with you there pal...it all depends on the star

for example, there are plenty of b movie action stars B+ even

more people know Forest Whitaker.

that being said, Chris Pine probably has a better career ahead of him then he ever would as a drama star

and who doesn't know van damme

you're half right I suppose.

[Ipodman]

When Optimus double blades popped up, i suddenly thought of deadpool

[Jager X]

So I saw the movie yesterday, and here is what I thought. Transformers: ROTF was all action and crap story.

Now, I have been following this argument for the past 25+ pages or so. I looked at both the positive and negative reviews and took them at face value until I saw the film. I walked into the movie telling myself not to expect much from the plot and just enjoy film for what it is. Hey, it worked for the movie quite well. Let me just address some of the prenotions I had of the film from reviewers.

The twins: I did not find them racist. People exxagerated these characters to high hell. With that being said, these were two of the most annoying and worthless mofos in the entire film. I definately prefer Jar Jar Binks. Everytime they said ***** or pussy ass, I felt compelled to look at the faces of an entire row of 6-8 year olds next to me.

The giant testicles: I did not look half as bad as I thought. But then again, by this time I was so numb by the asinine inneundos the preceded this.

The plot: Not difficult to follow at all. The events that took place were really easy to comprehend, but exceptionally hard to swallow.

IMHO, after the Shanghai scene this movie went downhill. I felt so embarrassed at times watching this film. ROTF slowly turned into a film of bad porn jokes and unnecessarily wasted potential of the plot.

What I did not need to see:

The constant humping. Once was good enough, but to interrupt the flow of the action to show it again and once more with a robot made me cringe.

The propaganda-esque marijuana scene: What. The. ****? This entire scene just got under my skin. Nobody acts like that on weed, NOBODY. I felt like I was watching Reefer Madness. And I would hate to be the parent who has to explain to their kid what "poppin cherries" is.

Man ass in thong: Give me the BLUE PENIS a thousand times!!!!! This was rediculously unnecessary. I can almost understand the rage Ben Stiller's character felt in Heavyweights.

Sex jokes: No, no, no, no. This was such a downgrade from the first film. The original movie had its fair share of sex jokes but they were subtle and intelligent. There you had, "Happy time" and "The boy's pheremone levels suggests...." Here, you had robot penises shooting their load. I was fine with the ass slap and dirty talk from the mom and dad, but Bay's inner virgin came out after.

(There's more but I want to get done with this as quickly as possible.)

I hated the fact that the autobot were practically nonexistant, aside from Optimus and BB. Sideswipe was so awesome but pushed aside after the first five minutes. I took Jolt presence as an insult, because he did nothing yet he looked badass and carried friggin whips. Ironhide is a favorite and was given the shaft. Ratchet should have just died in the first film since he was hardly featured in this one.

I will say this though, Bay definately knows how to direct action. But this film fails for me. At least I still have TF1, I guess.

[El_Citrus]

After a night of sleep, I can elaborate further on my initial review.

Once again, I quite enjoyed this movie, but I could see many more flaws in this movie than TF1.

The plot wasn't hard to follow at first: Decepticons are looking for something, Autobots are hunting them down, US Government is unsure about keeping them here. Then we get a second Allspark shard after nearly all of it melted into Megs; okaaay. This could have been done with Sam melting down from touching the cube so much in the first one, but Bay needed Bumblebee to blow the house up for some reason. Then we get the Decepticons wanting to rip info out of Sam's head to find the Matrix of Leadership, which was hidden by the original primes, on Earth, right next to the massive sun-destroying weapon that the fallen wanted to use. Ugh. You can see the plot rolling downhill fast due to the writer's strike, and it was so jumbled and entangled that it just hurt to try and think logically about the plot, but great plot is not what this movie's about.

Most of the new robots that Bay introduced were awesome, but there were just way too many and too many duplicates for us to care much about them. And then they gave us the twins, which I seriously hope are killed quickly in the next movie by Megatron (I want to see him squeeze/crush one's head with a single hand and blow the other away with a cannon blast at point blank range). Introducing just Sideswipe and Arcee would have been enough for the Autobots so that everyone could have some DIALOGUE and something to DO rather than show up for five minutes. Soundwave was supremely awesome as well, as he and the constructicons made a great addition to the Decepticons. I would have liked to have seen Sideways and Barricade make it to the end of the movie so that we didn't have extra constructicons running around and a Terminator rip off with the Pretender who didn't reallly need to be in this film.

Because of all the robots and the rushed plot, we weren't given time to fully take everything in. Megatron's resurrection should have been a huge "oh *****" moment, but it wasn't given time to soak in with the audience, as well as the other major event involving Optimus. Both happened in the first hour rather than later in the movie. The same thing happens at the end, with the Fallen and Devastator being destroyed so easily in about five minutes. This all ties into the plot being too jumbled and rushed, but even with all of these problems, it was still a great spectacle to watch all of them in action.

The acting was sub par again, but the dialogue wasn't completely as bad as most of TF1, I don't think, even though Megan Fox was more wooden than a 2x4 in this movie. Much of the dialogue was funny, along with the first, although Bay did go overboard with sex jokes that were unnecessary. Simmons wasn't as annoying, although I didn't need to see his thong. Everything annoying got passed to Leo, who could have died at some point and I would have been happy.

The action, as usual, was outstanding, and huge, and, well, Bay, although it could have worked a lot better if Bay could have held still for a while.

In the end though, I found this movie to be quite enjoyable despite the glaring flaws, since the relationship between Megs and Starscream was a LOT better and Optimus got to show off his fighting skills a lot more. This film had tons of potential, but it lost it's way many times on various aspects and became a mess of explosions and beautiful cgi work. It's worth at least a second viewing and dvd purchase.

3/5

[Avangarde]

Exactly... Optimus was a heavy handed mother****er.





His pimp hand was strong.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p122/Avangarde/ThepimpnameSlickback1.jpg

[The Guard]

Right. Does it feel important to you in Transformers, though? Because it doesn't to me.

Important in what sense?

I mean, the autobots are going to be working with humans in the future. That's relatively important to the future of their world. And Sam realized he had a place beside the autobots, and after all the **** he'd gone through, ended up triumphant. That also strikes me as fairly important.

Did it have some grand emotional impact on me? No. Should it have?

Follow through in terms of where this will go in the sequel. Since the exploration of the story thus far has not satisfied me by any degree, I don't expect the place they take this plot thread to be satisfactory, either.
Then you're not satisfied by it, I guess. I don't know what you wanted to see, what would satisfy you, etc. I don't know what to tell you.
Sure. Somewhere in our conversation I've lost track of the point you're driving at in this particular instance, though.
Something about whether or not he changes, or if his actions change anything.

[DX]

So, I finally saw ROTF today and, well...

Good:

- More screentime for the Autobots and Decepticons (which includes a GREAT fight scene with Optimus Prime and 3 Decepticons in the forest)
- Better SFX
- Conflict between Starscream and Megatron, where Megatron says the best line in the whole movie: "Even in death, there is no command but mine!"
- More action and BETTER action.

Bad:

- THE TWINS!!! Good God, these were the most annoying things I've seen at the movies in a long time. These two retard characters single-handedly ruined this movie for me.
- The acting and dialogue is worse this time around. All Sam mostly does is spaz out, all Leo does is scream and cry and while Megan Fox is hot, she was wooden as hell.
- The humour just failed for me. Robot testicles? Are you ****ing me?
- Going back to Megatron, that line he says earlier is ruined when he turns to The Fallen and kneels before him. Sorry, but since when does Megatron kneel to ANYONE?!
- The plot was just all over the place.

Overall, ROTF takes everything good about the first Transformers and makes it better, yet takes everything BAD about it and makes it worse.

4/10 (I would have given it about 7 if it wasn't for those ****ing twins.)

[The Lizard]

but I agree, with cage it was more about making him an action draw, bays actual words.

Um...no, Bay's actual words were "Nick Cage wasn't a big actor when I cast him" (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/us-magazine-megan-fox-bay.html) -- and I call BS on that.

[BlackLantern]

well the only 2 films he had been in prior to that that were big hits were Moonstruck and Leaving Las Vegas....Raising Arizona is more of a cult hit....I think its extremely subjective either way

[Jake Cassidy]

It Bay meant 'big movie star', than he's absolutely right. Yes, he won an oscar and was well known but it wasn't until 'The Rock' that Cage became a huge star.

[Marvin]

Um...no, Bay's actual words were "Nick Cage wasn't a big actor when I cast him" (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/us-magazine-megan-fox-bay.html) -- and I call BS on that.

wasn't referring to that

when bay accepted such and such award on the MTV awards a few years back, Nic Cage was the presenter and when bay got onto the mike he said something along the lines of

"I turned you into an action star"

nick didn't seem to disagree

as for what you just said, I don't think cage was as big an actor before his bay movie that's for sure
as to weather he was simply a "big" actor, what's the measure?

[webhead731]

I'll give my 2 cents now, a week or so late.

I liked the first one, but I thought the story line was really dry for a movie like that. The things that saved it were the comedy scenes, and the action/CGI.

I thought this one looked kind of dumb, so I wasn't too hyped. I was surprised that it was actually really good. I also can't believe how much flack it's getting. The storyline was a bit stronger this time around, and the action and comedy were taken to a higher level. Though the CGI in the final, final fight was bad. Still, the acting was better and there was no "I'm glad I got in that car with you" garbage pukey crap. And no rock and roll music cutting into the action scenes randomly.

I give it about an 8/10.

[Saint]

Important in what sense?
I don't know, in the sense that one gives a damn?

Did it have some grand emotional impact on me? No. Should it have?
If it wanted to entertain, I should think so. Or at least something compelling, if not necessarily "emotional impact." That doesn't seem like a fun bonus for a movie; it seems pretty integral.

[Marvin]

I'll give my 2 cents now, a week or so late.

I liked the first one, but I thought the story line was really dry for a movie like that. The things that saved it were the comedy scenes, and the action/CGI.

I thought this one looked kind of dumb, so I wasn't too hyped. I was surprised that it was actually really good. I also can't believe how much flack it's getting. The storyline was a bit stronger this time around, and the action and comedy were taken to a higher level. Though the CGI in the final, final fight was bad. Still, the acting was better and there was no "I'm glad I got in that car with you" garbage pukey crap. And no rock and roll music cutting into the action scenes randomly.

I give it about an 8/10.

"i love you sam":cwink:

[BlackLantern]

well as far as Hypesters are concerned, two people expressing their feelings towards each other migh seem a foreign concept

[Mr. Earle]

well as far as Hypesters are concerned, two people expressing their feelings towards each other migh seem a foreign concept
:pal: :lmao:

[nintendo nerd]

I'll give my 2 cents now, a week or so late.

I liked the first one, but I thought the story line was really dry for a movie like that. The things that saved it were the comedy scenes, and the action/CGI.

I thought this one looked kind of dumb, so I wasn't too hyped. I was surprised that it was actually really good. I also can't believe how much flack it's getting. The storyline was a bit stronger this time around, and the action and comedy were taken to a higher level. Though the CGI in the final, final fight was bad. Still, the acting was better and there was no "I'm glad I got in that car with you" garbage pukey crap. And no rock and roll music cutting into the action scenes randomly.

I give it about an 8/10.

Well you liked SM3 and the F4 movies. So giving this abomination an 8 is no surprise. :o

[Episode29]

Well you liked SM3 and the F4 movies. So giving this abomination an 8 is no surprise. :o

Why Mr. Beauregarde, I do declare that a burn has taken place.

[Marvin]

Well you liked SM3 and the F4 movies. So giving this abomination an 8 is no surprise. :o

given your sig, one can see that you dedicate too much time judging other people and their opinions

:csad:

[BlackLantern]

ouch...one of my questions is how seriously should Transformers be taken?? its beloved by many, 20+ years of history......but to read some of the posts in here, you'd think its something the level of 'A Few Good Men' or 'The Green Berets'....at the end of the day, this is about giant robots that turn into cars

[Still A ThorFan]

I'll give my 2 cents now, a week or so late.

I liked the first one, but I thought the story line was really dry for a movie like that. The things that saved it were the comedy scenes, and the action/CGI.

I thought this one looked kind of dumb, so I wasn't too hyped. I was surprised that it was actually really good. I also can't believe how much flack it's getting. The storyline was a bit stronger this time around, and the action and comedy were taken to a higher level. Though the CGI in the final, final fight was bad. Still, the acting was better and there was no "I'm glad I got in that car with you" garbage pukey crap. And no rock and roll music cutting into the action scenes randomly.

I give it about an 8/10.


An 8? You're out of your mind. A -8 is more like it. I knew I shouldn't have waisted my money on this damn movie, but I was pressured.

[Still A ThorFan]

ouch...one of my questions is how seriously should Transformers be taken?? its beloved by many, 20+ years of history......but to read some of the posts in here, you'd think its something the level of 'A Few Good Men' or 'The Green Berets'....at the end of the day, this is about giant robots that turn into cars

You're right, but we don't really get that really? We get a bunch of mindless comedy which has no place in the film, and Megan Fox, who is super hot yes, but I didn't come to the movie to see her. I came to see my giant robots. Which were potrayed poorly.

[BlackLantern]

You're right, but we don't really get that really? We get a bunch of mindless comedy which has no place in the film, and Megan Fox, who is super hot yes, but I didn't come to the movie to see her. I came to see my giant robots. Which were potrayed poorly.

according to what standard?? a good portion of the animated series had "silly humor"

the question still stands...How serious should 'Transformers' be taken??

[roach]

or lest we forget that Bumblebee was merely comic relief in the series and only served to drive Spike and Sparkclub from place to place. That Jazz and Blaster were strerotypical to almost minstrel levels. Or the biggest plothole in the cartoon...why would Teletran One revive the Decepticans first and give them the ability to transform????
More than half of the original toyline was killed off in favor of new characters.
Remember Jazz breakdancing???
None existant character development...who grew and changed thruout the series????

[Marvin]

I think if it hadn't been for beast wars(lots of humor still)
and the new comic book series
showing a more advanced take on the material

then alot of fans would be feeling a lot different

[BlackLantern]

but do the comics have that much exposure or even that popular?? I always figured, since the buzz for the first film generated interest, Hasbro put the license back out there to make some extra change on the side...the 2 comic shops I go to, barely carry them because they don't sell

[dark_b]

2/5. This movie was pretty terrible. Too long and drawn out. I literally had to keep myself from falling asleep, and that doesn't happen often.i understand how some people think that this movie is bad. but how can someoen fall asleep in the middle of a TF movie? :huh:

[DarknessOfDeath]

Hey Dark_B.

I understand too but for me the only few movies I nearly fell asleep to was The Happening and The Brave One. I am sure there were more but I can't remember.

[roach]

as loud and flashy as it was even if you hated this movie the explosions should have kept you awake

[Sarge 2.0]

i understand how some people think that this movie is bad. but how can someoen fall asleep in the middle of a TF movie? :huh:
'Cause it was boring. :huh:

[LegendaryCaleb]

I put Bad because there we're some moments I actually enjoyed....but most of the movie was just...straight up...Bad

[CEREBRAL....]

movies don't have to be "good" to do that

they just have to really entertain the audience so much so that the audience will want to see more of said actor

just ask Jim Carey!


let me say it this way...Bay's movies only help those actors pockets...they were receiving movies roles before and during Bay's movies..

[BlackLantern]

a little lining of the pockets isn't a bad thing

[CEREBRAL....]

a little lining of the pockets isn't a bad thing


si!!!:woot:

[terry78]

You can't go through life doing indie flicks and working for scale....actors got bills to pay.

[Marvin]

let me say it this way...Bay's movies only help those actors pockets...they were receiving movies roles before and during Bay's movies..

not big ones

which I believe is what was the point of that little discussion:o

[CEREBRAL....]

not big ones

which I believe is what was the point of that little discussion:o


man..i will respectively say this...you are a michael bay apologist.....u will say whatever in favor of him, obivously you will disagree, but you're staying faithful to him at ever turn...

these actors didn't need bay...Will Smith for instance, hit it big with independence day....bay boys was an after thought compared to that movie....

[dark_b]

'Cause it was boring. :huh:the movie is loud and has fast action scenes. because of that you can not fall asleep. plus around you people are laughing every 40 seconds.

[Sarge 2.0]

not big ones

which I believe is what was the point of that little discussion:o
Yeah, Nicolas Cage's Oscar winning performance in Leaving Las Vegas totally wasn't a big role.

[Sarge 2.0]

the movie is loud and has fast action scenes. because of that you can not fall asleep. plus around you people are laughing every 40 seconds.
Yeah just because stuff is blowing up loud and fast doesn't mean people cant fall asleep. And people around me were not laughing every 40 seconds because nothing in the movie was funny.

[BlackLantern]

the theater I was in, people were pretty jovial....I guess we're all just common folk and not proper film fans then

Im a fan of Transformers, but asking me to have a "deep respect" for it is like asking me to respect a stripper....yes I appreciate what you do, but just get up on that stage and shake your ass...

[CEREBRAL....]

ouch...one of my questions is how seriously should Transformers be taken?? its beloved by many, 20+ years of history......but to read some of the posts in here, you'd think its something the level of 'A Few Good Men' or 'The Green Berets'....at the end of the day, this is about giant robots that turn into cars


With this on going battle between posters/users/fans who like the film compared to posters/users/fans who didn't like the film....this is a point that shouldn't need to be made anymore...AGAIN..it's been said 1,000 times...nobody is looking for a oscar nominated film here , and those who do like the film should stop using this point of view (or the orgin "JUST BEING A CARTOON" as an argument for those of us who didn't care for the film. Just asked for quality; a good balance between action, acting and comedy. Point blank, and to some...this wasn't achieved..plain n simple to me. Nothing more, and nothing less.

[BlackLantern]

Yeah, Nicolas Cage's Oscar winning performance in Leaving Las Vegas totally wasn't a big role.

critical acclaim yes...but not a widely known film until it got nominated...I hadn't even heard of it until just before nominations came down..

my point was that 'The Rock' opened some doors in the action genre that might not have been open to Cage before

[dark_b]

Yeah just because stuff is blowing up loud and fast doesn't mean people cant fall asleep. And people around me were not laughing every 40 seconds because nothing in the movie was funny.
ok maybe every 5 minutes :yay:

[CEREBRAL....]

critical acclaim yes...but not a widely known film until it got nominated...I hadn't even heard of it until just before nominations came down..

my point was that 'The Rock' opened some doors in the action genre that might not have been open to Cage before


I don't mean to disrepect anyone by jumping into the convo. and if anyone of you feel that way, just tell me to mind my business.:woot:

I think this is more of a hypothetical. Cause onless N.Cage came out and said it's because of M.Bay. I have been able to taken my career and explore a new genre of movies. Then none of us , and even bay can say that. There could of been another director wanting to do the samething, or even Cage telling his agent he wanted to do action films. I mean we just dont know.

I mean, and i can't remember what came first ("speed" or "point break" for keanu Reeves), but we dont hear the director for "speed" basically applying that he put Keanu Reeves on the map as far as action movies go.

[Sarge 2.0]

the theater I was in, people were pretty jovial....I guess we're all just common folk and not proper film fans then

Im a fan of Transformers, but asking me to have a "deep respect" for it is like asking me to respect a stripper....yes I appreciate what you do, but just get up on that stage and shake your ass...
And what if the stripper was fat, one legged and totally uncoordinated?

[BlackLantern]

With this on going battle between posters/users/fans who like the film compared to posters/users/fans who didn't like the film....this is a point that shouldn't need to be made anymore...AGAIN..it's been said 1,000 times...nobody is looking for a oscar nominated film here , and those who do like the film should stop using this point of view (or the orgin "JUST BEING A CARTOON" as an argument for those of us who didn't care for the film. Just asked for quality; a good balance between action, acting and comedy. Point blank, and to some...this wasn't achieved..plain n simple to me. Nothing more, and nothing less.

and those who didn't like the film need to stop acting as if they are above the tastes of the "common folk" who actually did enjoy the movie...or that fans who liked it aren't real fans...just because YOU didn't like it, doesn't make it a bad movie

in any case, stop trying to sound like your side has more weight to it and end the discussion....you sound like MovieFan 2k4 when he used to go on his religion benders...spouting his views as "facts"

[CEREBRAL....]

and those who didn't like the film need to stop acting as if they are above the tastes of the "common folk" who actually did enjoy the movie...or that fans who liked it aren't real fans...just because YOU didn't like it, doesn't make it a bad movie

in any case, stop trying to sound like your side has more weight to it and end the discussion....you sound like MovieFan 2k4 when he used to go on his religion benders...spouting his views as "facts"


See this is where your emotions are getting the best of you. Please find me where i have "attacked" or "implied" that those of use who didnt care for the film have more "weight" then those who did like the film. I haven't made one comment about anyone who like the film in a negative way. I have made comments on their point of views towards the ones who didnt like the film. But never once said anything about those who like the film. I don't make money of this either way....It's like rap music.."just entertainmen

[nintendo nerd]

i understand how some people think that this movie is bad. but how can someoen fall asleep in the middle of a TF movie? :huh:

I did too. Watch it a second time to judge it fairly, hated it. Liked the first one though.

[Jager X]

I did not fall asleep, but I did find my attention drifting off somewhere else - mainly the ceiling.

[Marvin]

I did not fall asleep, but I did find my attention drifting off somewhere else - mainly the ceiling.

too many military montages

gasp, Marvin who is no doubt on bays pay roll, finding faults?

[Marvin]

man..i will respectively say this...you are a michael bay apologist.....u will say whatever in favor of him, obivously you will disagree, but you're staying faithful to him at ever turn...

these actors didn't need bay...Will Smith for instance, hit it big with independence day....bay boys was an after thought compared to that movie....

never thought I'd hear that from you

the dude that took such offense to having his point of view diminished to that of a "hater"

well put:whatever:

as for that second "point"

whatever smith got after Bad boys works in conjunction with bays argument
after thought or not

allow me to illustrate;
if shia were to land the biggest role in history in the next two years(tf 3:hehe:)
it could be attributed to his "big break" through role

duh

[Aethea]

Crap. Utter Crap.

I guess in order for one to enjoy this "crap" they have to go into the theater with no expectations or preconceptions. The Matrix of Leadership was a slap on the face. I cannot believe it was reduced to a mere energy collecting key.

[Marvin]

energy collecting key

...you don't say

[StylishHokie21]

I found this to be worse than the first movie. The first hour is pretty good, but then it starts to go downhill from there. The effects were great as usual, but that's about it really.

[Nathan]

I thought the first hour was really strong, but after Optimus's death the movie went downhill. Because you follow Sam and his group, consisting mostly of complete idiots (Simmons, Leo, the Twins), for pretty much the rest of the Movie.

[Rock Sexton]

I thought the first hour was really strong, but after Optimus's death the movie went downhill. Because you follow Sam and his group, consisting mostly of complete idiots (Simmons, Leo, the Twins), for pretty much the rest of the Movie.

I really started to lose interest once Sam got to school and when we were introduced to that government official who was meddling in the affairs of NEST.

[CEREBRAL....]

never thought I'd hear that from you

the dude that took such offense to having his point of view diminished to that of a "hater"





well if you wanna look at it like that. I took the time to actually view everything you write and came up with my assumpation. You on the other hand just used the "quick and dirty" term overly used on message boards now a days.

and honestly dawg anyone looking me and my views a being "hater" really doesn't bother me one bit..... I look at it as a weak attempt to not agree/ or see another posters point of view ..and your other point about Will Smith. Like i said, your a M.Bay apologist so i wouldn't expect anything diff. from what you post. :whatever:

what classic rolleye deserves another...:yay:

one more thing...so shia landing a part in indiana jones was because of his "big break" and TF1?

[LinDuh]

Hmm, I'm speaking strictly from a personal perspective here, as a random moviegoer.

For me, Will Smith was really awesome after in Independence Day. Bad Boys was cool, but I think Independence Day was his true fuel to the flame. Definitely couldn't credit Bay's choice to include him in the movie as his huge breakout role. However, I never really knew about Ben Affleck before Armageddon, so in that sense, Bay is totally right. Armageddon was his fuel, I think. Same with Nicholas Cage. In fact, I highly doubt I've seen him in ANYTHING before The Rock. I honestly think that was the first movie I saw him in, the one that told me he exists. Of course I'm aware that the actors were around and winning awards and stuff pre-Bay movies, but personally speaking, if it wasn't for THESE type of movies, I myself wouldn't have really known about some of the actors that starred in them. Not for awhile anyway. That goes for Shia and Megan for me too. I had no idea who Megan was until Transformers, and Shia, well...I just knew he was that one kid from that movie Holes. But as far as a name for his face? Yeah, I had nothing. Transformers totally put him on the map for me. It was then and only THEN was I interested in seeing his other work, like Disturbia.

So all in all, I don't think Bay was implying that he "made" these actors. I don't even think he was claiming that he "made" their careers. He seems, to me anyway, to be taking credit for being a part of a boost in their careers by his movies. I do think that his big films, no matter how great or crappy or boring or awesome or whatever else they can be to everyone, were definitely a burst of fuel to the already kindled fires of certain actors careers. They've lured in a big audience compiled of people like myself who are looking for that mindless action, and then wonder who it was in the movie that helped bring that action to life. We "suckers for explosive action movies" swarmed in huge numbers that in turn made the movies successful, and hence, allow all the actors involved to have a huge boost in recognition.

Did it always work that way? Nah. Many of Bay's movies didn't really seem to help in really boosting the careers of the actors that starred in them. So it's not like a guarantee or anything. But he's defiitely right about Megan, though. I'm guessing that's why he kinda lashed out at her. Hmm, then again, when it comes to Megan it seems like she was talking about acting in general and not actors themselves. Perhaps it was just luck that he happened to be tied to movies that people just wanted to see at the time that coincidentally helped the careers of the aforementioned actors. *shrug*

Oh I don't know and probably don't even really care. I'm just bored...:o

[terry78]

Though you have to be honest, if you ever have a role in a Bay movie, and you ain't that well known as an actor, you will get some recognition, whether good or bad.

[LinDuh]

Though you have to be honest, if you ever have a role in a Bay movie, and you ain't that well known as an actor, you will get some recognition, whether good or bad.Quoted for truth. I totally agree.

[The Lizard]

Speaking of Will Smith and Independence Day, I re-watched that movie over the July 4th weekend.
While there are a lot of plot-holes and silly crap in ID4, I took note of the fact that the main destruction scenes where NYC, LA and DC are destroyed were much, MUCH better filmed than the destruction scenes in ROTF when the Decepticons come crashing down.

[Marvin]

Speaking of Will Smith and Independence Day, I re-watched that movie over the July 4th weekend.
While there are a lot of plot-holes and silly crap in ID4, I took note of the fact that the main destruction scenes where NYC, LA and DC are destroyed were much, MUCH better filmed than the destruction scenes in ROTF when the Decepticons come crashing down.

wow, thank you,
the final nail in the coffin, ID4 the movie about cities being blown up by aliens has better "filmed" destruction scenes

funny enough, bay would probably hate hearing that.

beyond the inept subjectivity of such a comparison

TF had other things to think about.

besides that film is filled with miniatures, which have alot of benefits but at the same time

always lack in lighting and can always been spotted when looked for.

still to compare id4 and TF2:whatever:
you guys are grasping

try Armageddon.:cmad:

[roach]

Really people if you dont like the movie then dont like it but dont come up with off the wall reasons

[Jake Cassidy]

Independence Day rocked. So did Armageddon.

I don't care what anyone says, I love that stuff. :woot:

[Jake Cassidy]

edit

[Marvin]

well if you wanna look at it like that. I took the time to actually view everything you write and came up with my assumpation. You on the other hand just used the "quick and dirty" term overly used on message boards now a days.

you took the time to read all my writings?
I'm honored :yay:

weather your stupid assumption is right or wrong, for you do the same thing that you spoke out so vehemently against is..

hypocritical and ridiculous

and reading all my writings as i'm sure you did, you know how I feel about hypocrisy.

and honestly dawg anyone looking me and my views a being "hater" really doesn't bother me one bit..... I look at it as a weak attempt to not agree/ or see another posters point of view ..and your other point about Will Smith. Like i said, your a M.Bay apologist so i wouldn't expect anything diff. from what you post. :whatever:

wow 5 lines of self contradiction...

what classic rolleye deserves another...:yay:

I should stop using them, they probably come off as snobby.

one more thing...so shia landing a part in indiana jones was because of his "big break" and TF1?

if it came after his big break then sure

moreover, i'm sure no one went into india jones and saw shia and asked, "do I know that kid from somewhere...nah"

as far as him landing the part, I'm sure the auditions were tense what with him being that kid from the huge transformers movie from the previous year produced by the same company.

insert eye roll smiley here

[terry78]

Shia is Spielberg's golden boy currently. His last few flicks have been exec produced or directed by him, so he's got the ties in the industry.

[Jake Cassidy]

edit

[Episode29]

Shia is Spielberg's golden boy currently. His last few flicks have been exec produced or directed by him, so he's got the ties in the industry.

It's true. That dude was being groomed for stardom by many for a while. I remember hearing how he had grabbed Spielberg's attention around the time of Holes. I'd say Disturbia put him on the map, while TF launched into the mainstream consciousness.

[dodgers2213]

i'll keep this simple....this movie SUCKED. It really pissed me off

[Jake Cassidy]

It's kinda funny how a MOVIE can piss people off.

That happened to me after I watched Spider-Man 3. I was so angry that I walked out of the cinema kicking the walls, ripping apart posters, throwing bins and randomly punching people in the face. I also kicked this fat bastard in the balls. I was so PISSED OFF!!! :cmad:

Oh wait, no I didn't. I just said to myself, "That was a piece of ****." Than I went home, watched X-Men and forgot about it. :woot:

[Marvin]

I was pissed off after blade 3

I vowed never to pay my taxes again
:cmad:

[Jake Cassidy]

I like Blade 3.

Yeah. That's right. I said it.

[terry78]

Speak of the devil, ID4 is on TNT at this very moment.

[The Lizard]

wow, thank you,
the final nail in the coffin, ID4 the movie about cities being blown up by aliens has better "filmed" destruction scenes

funny enough, bay would probably hate hearing that.

beyond the inept subjectivity of such a comparison

TF had other things to think about.

besides that film is filled with miniatures, which have alot of benefits but at the same time

always lack in lighting and can always been spotted when looked for.

still to compare id4 and TF2:whatever:
you guys are grasping

try Armageddon.:cmad:
Wow -- another widely spaced, snotty post that manages not to say very much -- thanks once again for that.

"TF had other things to think about" ? LOL... Whatever that means.
Bay obviously tried to insert a violent, shocking devastation scene into ROTF as an homage to his own earlier disaster films (funny how Bay only includes "homages" to himself, but that's another issue).
Overlooking the fact that the devastating disaster scenes in ROTF actually have the gall to reference 9/11 while being shoehorned inbetween lame extended comedy segments involving Sam's parents and humping robots, they also fail on a visceral level when compared to those seen in ID4.
The editing of the main alien attack in ID4 gives us scenes that actually linger on the expanding devastation and aftermath of the aliens' death-rays, unlike Bay's 3-seconds-is-too-much school of editing.

Despite the many silly parts in ID4, these main destruction scenes delivered an effective punch to the movie audiences, and I recall very well the stunned silence in the theater when those particular scenes ended in ID4. In ROTF, the audience response after the big "Armageddon" scenes seemed to be merely impatience to get back to the robot action. Despite the jarring and out-of-place imagery of thousands of sailors and civilians dying in the midst of the comedy that was ROTF, those scenes didn't even take the time to deliver their punch in the most effective way.

BTW -- just for fun I'll mention that I also watched Bad Boys 2 this weekend -- and even it is more coherent and better-edited than ROTF. Simply put -- Bay could have done a lot better than he did with this film - even in comparison with his own work.

But by all means -- please continue with your own grasping.

[CelticPredator]

It's kinda funny how a MOVIE can piss people off.

That happened to me after I watched Spider-Man 3. I was so angry that I walked out of the cinema kicking the walls, ripping apart posters, throwing bins and randomly punching people in the face. I also kicked this fat bastard in the balls. I was so PISSED OFF!!! :cmad:

Oh wait, no I didn't. I just said to myself, "That was a piece of ****." Than I went home, watched X-Men and forgot about it. :woot:

Movies that PISSED me off.

Saw 3
AvP
AvP-R
Spider-Man 3
Fantastic Four 2
Epic Movie
Meet the Spartans
Wolverine
AvP-R
Everyone of those PG-13 Japanese Horror remakes. (kmaybe exluding The Ring)

[dodgers2213]

You know why this movie really pisses me off?

the fact that the 250 million or so dollars was WASTED on this hunk of junk. The movie could have went to feeding starving children or heck...GIVE IT ME and i'll direct a better picture...fix the potholes here in Los Angeles, goddamn do something else. What a truly waste of money for a godawful movie by a hack director who should be waiting in the unemployment line like the rest of us

Michael bay is laughing at everyone in America...he got a huge pay day for doing nothing. He doesn't give a s*** do i dont give a s***

[Asr]

It ticks me off that Bay put so little effort into this movie, raked in megabucks from unsuspecting moviegoers, and is now laughing all the way to the bank.

I don't think the movie is "terrible" per se, but it isn't hard to imagine that Bay didn't really do much and tons of suckers paid for this and now Bay will just go on to make more hollow explosion-filled action movies summer after summer, while better directors who'll make better movies reap fewer rewards. The whole system reeks of injustice.... :(

I wish Bay would just stop making movies and filling the theaters with mindless popcorn flicks.

[craigdbfan]

You know why this movie really pisses me off?

the fact that the 250 million or so dollars was WASTED on this hunk of junk. The movie could have went to feeding starving children or heck...GIVE IT ME and i'll direct a better picture...fix the potholes here in Los Angeles, goddamn do something else. What a truly waste of money for a godawful movie by a hack director who should be waiting in the unemployment line like the rest of us

Michael bay is laughing at everyone in America...he got a huge pay day for doing nothing. He doesn't give a s*** do i dont give a s***

Take a chill pill and calm down.

Its Paramounts money and its shareholders they can do whatever they want with it.

[CelticPredator]

Yes. Bay put so little effort into the movie.

I mean, seriously, how long does it take to set up the biggest explosion in FILM HISTORY, or how to match the TF cars to the bots.

[LinDuh]

Hmmm, I could have sworn I read long ago before the first movie came out how how very little interest ANYONE had in getting involved with a Transformers movie. Bay was the only one talked into doing it, really, after nudging by Spielberg, I think. Blah, wish I still had the article cuz my facts could be off. Basically no one wanted to do it. Except Bay. If it wasn't for him, we might have all still been waiting for a Transformers movie, if we'd get one at all. I do wish Spielberg was the one to helm the director reighns, but for whatever reason, he didn't do it. And what if Bay didn't either? Would we have ever gotten a live-action film? Maybe so. Many years down the line in someone else's hands. But I'm sure that'd be just fine for alot of the "Bayformer" haters out there! :hehe:

For me personally, eh...I'm taking what I can get. I'm glad SOMEONE took a stab at the Transformers universe when no one else dared to do it. Sucky franchise or not, it still introduced me to Transformers and made a fan out of me and I'm happy for that. It may not be perfect, but it is what it is, and for what it's worth, I'm loving it. If someone else wants to take another go at it, feel free. Bay may have screwed this up for tons of people, but at least he got the ball rolling, yes? At least he's showed the world that people will PAY to see Transformers, so maybe future directors won't be as scared if they want to take a shot at it.

One thing I think we can all agree on that Bay got RIGHT was bringing on Peter Cullen as Optimus. Can you imagine how even MORE loathed he'd have been if he didn't do that? So there's at least one smidgen of good thing, right? :woot:

[CelticPredator]

Actually, the fans damanded Cullen would play Prime, he was going to cast someone else. But he caved. And he was thankful for it.

[portland2002]

1/10 and that's being generous ... Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, a.k.a TINO: ROTF is one of the worsr films I have ever seen. It makes Catwoman look like Return of the King. It is a putrid steaming pile of garbage ... inexcusable.

[roach]

ha ha ha ha you guys are precious

[nintendo nerd]

ha ha ha ha you guys are precious


No. You are precious, for praising and loving this piece of crap. I wonder if some of you would be thinking the same if the movie wasn't making the gazillion of dollars it has made so far.

[nintendo nerd]

Movies that PISSED me off.

Saw 3
AvP
AvP-R
Spider-Man 3
Fantastic Four 2
Epic Movie
Meet the Spartans
Wolverine
AvP-R
Everyone of those PG-13 Japanese Horror remakes. (kmaybe exluding The Ring)

I'd watch any of this movies a hundred times before watching ROTF again.

[roach]

No. You are precious, for praising and loving this piece of crap. I wonder if some of you would be thinking the same if the movie wasn't making the gazillion of dollars it has made so far.

Im praising the movie for making a ton of money. I recognize the faults this movie had but was also entertained by it. I didnt go in thinking I was going to see robotic Macbeth. I also love lots of movies that didnt do well and hate movies that did well.
What is happeneing is you guys who didnt like this movie feel the need to justify yourselves since apparently everyone else liked or loved it. If you didnt feel this need you would have left this thread a long time ago.

[luca_frontino]

I hope all the money it's making are mainly from people pissed off about this movie and not returning back for this and the damn sequel.

[SsM]

No. You are precious, for praising and loving this piece of crap. I wonder if some of you would be thinking the same if the movie wasn't making the gazillion of dollars it has made so far.


One mans trash is another mans treasure....

[nintendo nerd]

Im praising the movie for making a ton of money. I recognize the faults this movie had but was also entertained by it. I didnt go in thinking I was going to see robotic Macbeth. I also love lots of movies that didnt do well and hate movies that did well.
What is happeneing is you guys who didnt like this movie feel the need to justify yourselves since apparently everyone else liked or loved it. If you didnt feel this need you would have left this thread a long time ago.

Who said anything about a robotic Macbeth? I just wanted a decent story. TF1 had it, why couldn't this one? What makes me angry is that if we don'¡t lke the movie we are trolls or haters. We have the right to express our opinion as much as lovers do.

The movie can't be fun? Yes it can. The first one is the proof of that. But this one was a joke. It felt stupid many times. You can have jokes, great action, WTF moments and still be a great movie. Star Trek did it this summer.

[nintendo nerd]

One mans trash is another mans treasure....

You are brilliant my friend :whatever:

What are you doing here, when you could be teaching philosophy?

[Marvin]

I'd watch any of this movies a hundred times before watching ROTF again.

good sir

that says more about your taste in film the it does about the quality of the film you are trying to belittle

[Marvin]

Who said anything about a robotic Macbeth? I just wanted a decent story. TF1 had it, why couldn't this one? What makes me angry is that if we don'¡t lke the movie we are trolls or haters. We have the right to express our opinion as much as lovers do.

The movie can't be fun? Yes it can. The first one is the proof of that. But this one was a joke. It felt stupid many times. You can have jokes, great action, WTF moments and still be a great movie. Star Trek did it this summer.

and whose to say you didn't get one?
apparently you wanted more.

[CEREBRAL....]

you took the time to read all my writings?
I'm honored :yay:

weather your stupid assumption is right or wrong, for you do the same thing that you spoke out so vehemently against is..

hypocritical and ridiculous

being "hypocritical and ridiculous" on a internet message board...maybe you are taken this "site' way too serious...because this right here is down right funny to me..."spin doctor":woot:


honestly..i really don't need to comment on the rest of your post.I'm just gonna laugh at it all, and throw one of these in there..:whatever: and tell you to enjoy the rest of your day...ok "spin doc.":woot:

[Marvin]

Wow -- another widely spaced, snotty post that manages not to say very much -- thanks once again for that.

hey don't hate on the wide spaces:csad:
I just find them easier to read though

I didn't know they bothered you...

not to say very much? your just not listening.

"TF had other things to think about" ? LOL... Whatever that means.
OK, more to the point, transformers has different things it tries to focus on besides the typical Emmerich lingering wide shots of disaster stricken city scapes. destruction of city scapes was the draw in that particular production. Transformers had other selling points. Why you compare the selling point one film to another film that uses it as an after thought is beyond me...unless of course to propagate you misguided opinion about said films short comings

(watch out here comes my sarcasm)
hey, guess what? the hand to hand combat in transformers kinda sucked compared to that in Enter the Dragon!

really? for all his lack of story telling I figured bay would atleast make the fighting amazing.
(end sarcasm)

"other things to think about"

besides, last I checked landing transformer pods didn't necessarily cause explosions the likes of what transpired in ID4.

Bay obviously tried to insert a violent, shocking devastation scene into ROTF as an homage to his own earlier disaster films (funny how Bay only includes "homages" to himself, but that's another issue).

obviously :whatever:

Overlooking the fact that the devastating disaster scenes in ROTF actually have the gall to reference 9/11 while being shoehorned inbetween lame extended comedy segments involving Sam's parents and humping robots, they also fail on a visceral level when compared to those seen in ID4.
The editing of the main alien attack in ID4 gives us scenes that actually linger on the expanding devastation and aftermath of the aliens' death-rays, unlike Bay's 3-seconds-is-too-much school of editing.

Despite the many silly parts in ID4, these main destruction scenes delivered an effective punch to the movie audiences, and I recall very well the stunned silence in the theater when those particular scenes ended in ID4. In ROTF, the audience response after the big "Armageddon" scenes seemed to be merely impatience to get back to the robot action. Despite the jarring and out-of-place imagery of thousands of sailors and civilians dying in the midst of the comedy that was ROTF, those scenes didn't even take the time to deliver their punch in the most effective way.

as said before, TF2 never tries to be a "serious" film. ID4 actually does, and it does so magnificently:o

TF is far more lighthearted, or should bay have actually went into families of all the soldiers that died? People continue to claim this movie as something it's not and then give it a failing grade in doing so.

Did rush hour really deal with all the international bureaucracy involved in international policing in a serious way? No. And no one is pointing their finger at that.Does power rangers actually deal with the many lives lost each time the monsters dance around cities? No

Transformers was always intended to be light hearted, I'm sorry if you wanted a sappy end of the world drama.

pearl harbor for all it's faults, is a movie about the loss of many peoples(soldiers) lives and thus it fully lingers on not only the devastation of the events but the aftermath. Transformers didn't need to do that again...not when the focus was on sams adventure.

BTW -- just for fun I'll mention that I also watched Bad Boys 2 this weekend -- and even it is more coherent and better-edited than ROTF. Simply put -- Bay could have done a lot better than he did with this film - even in comparison with his own work.

I'll accept that as a reasonable opinion,
especially in light of how you've expressed your feelings about TF2.

But by all means -- please continue with your own grasping.

sure, I'll start with comparing the action in bays films to that of sesame street in an attempt to show how great it really is...

[Marvin]

being "hypocritical and ridiculous" on a internet message board...maybe you are taken this "site' way too serious...because this right here is down right funny to me..."spin doctor":woot:


honestly..i really don't need to comment on the rest of your post.I'm just gonna laugh at it all, and throw one of these in there..:whatever: and tell you to enjoy the rest of your day...ok "spin doc.":woot:

you're doing it again

[protocida]

Just when I tough I saw everything... I read certain posts from this thread.

[DarknessOfDeath]

Am I the only one who liked the movie? :(

[Lunar_Wolf]

Am I the only one who liked the movie? :(

Critics seem to hate it, while the general public liked it. I loved it.

[DarknessOfDeath]

I loved it too.

Wouldn't it be so awesome if the cars of today were able to transform into autobots?

hehe. Ah Lunar. Your so cool :cool:

[dodgers2213]

. I recognize the faults this movie had but was also entertained by it.

If your idea of entertainment is 15 comedic relief "characters", glaring plot holes and continuity errors, dogs humping, transformers humping megan fox, non-sensical dialogue trying to hit punchlines after every sentence, john tuturo in a jock strap, and LOADS MORE juvenile "humor"....we definitely are not going to reach a common ground.

i'll be more understanding if you were High and drunk AND with a group of friends...that is the only way any of the "jokes" in this movie could be "entertaining"...yes, you have to be either out of your goddamn mind or MADE IT funny..or both.

.
I didnt go in thinking I was going to see robotic Macbeth

Neither did I and i'm certain nobody who is a fan of the Transformers expected a robot macbeth. A robot macbeth drama would have pissed me off too
I'll tell you what i did go in thinking of....i expected to see a Transformers movies not shia lebeof and crew act like douchebags and fools

.
What is happeneing is you guys who didnt like this movie feel the need to justify yourselves since apparently everyone else liked or loved it. If you didnt feel this need you would have left this thread a long time ago.

i think we're just incredibly puzzled by how anyone can enjoy this "movie". Its certainly NOT a transformers movie.
Of the 30-40mins of robots that we do see....its either incoherrent junk flying around with big flashy explosions everywhere or Robots excreting bodily fluids, having sex, hard to distinguish dialogue, blatantly offensive and stupid slang, etc
The other 2 hours....is Shia Lebeouf and his entourage of retards running around in rambling about nonsense WHEN THEY DID NOT have to be. The "characters" did not have to be in this movie

Transformers and Transformers ROTF have little to do with the transformers

[what_19]

was it the best movie ever? hell no

but i was entertained for 2 hours....and thats all i expected

[LostSon88]

You know, i'm really sick of this idea that just because certain people liked it, the people who didn't think there's something wrong with those people.

I (along with the rest of the world, apparently) was throughly entertained by the movie, plotholes/bad jokes and all. I HAD A GOOD TIME.

I came in with certain expectations from this movie and they more or less were met. YOUR expectations clearly were not.

Tough, but don't rag on us because we had a good time and you didn't.

[Marvin]

was it the best movie ever? hell no

but i was entertained for 2 hours....and thats all i expected

how could you be "entertained?"

the things you say you found entertaining don't measure up to the standards of what entertaining should be:huh:

[LostSon88]

And yet, people continue to go out and see ROTF despite your constant ragging of the film...

Lol...since when was there a standard of what constitutes entertainment?

[Rock Sexton]

Critics seem to hate it, while the general public liked it. I loved it.

The "general public" likes whatever it is told to like ala marketing blitzkriegs, etc....... television is the equivalent of pounding meat so that it'll soak in the marinade better. Regardless this movie is carried by big CGI robots and Megan Fox (which is all the gen-pub want). Says nothing of the quality or lackthereof when it comes to this film.

[CelticPredator]

Wait so....someone told me to like the movie? Who told you to hate the movie?

[LostSon88]

:whatever:

Yes. Because clearly we're all too dumb to actually go out and enjoy a film. We're all just drones that do what the big corporations tell us, right?

[Marvin]

The "general public" likes whatever it is told to like ala marketing blitzkriegs, etc....... television is the equivalent of pounding meat so that it'll soak in the marinade better. Regardless this movie is carried by big CGI robots and Megan Fox (which is all the gen-pub want). Says nothing of the quality or lackthereof when it comes to this film.

the "marketing" must have been alot better for this movie then any other this year, and many others in previous years then..

[Dark Knight]

The "general public" likes whatever it is told to like ala marketing blitzkriegs, etc....... television is the equivalent of pounding meat so that it'll soak in the marinade better. Regardless this movie is carried by big CGI robots and Megan Fox (which is all the gen-pub want). Says nothing of the quality or lackthereof when it comes to this film.




Exactly.

Hollywood and the Media love to try and force feed the general public....

[dodgers2213]

i have lost faith in humanity....if this is the future of entertainment then we're all doomed

[terry78]

TJ Hooker, Asteroids and View-Master the Movie is, you mean.

[Dark Knight]

:whatever:

Yes. Because clearly we're all too dumb to actually go out and enjoy a film. We're all just drones that do what the big corporations tell us, right?




Hence why there is so much CRAP on TV that get high enough ratings to stay alive with all of these "reality" shows on the airwaves that are just utterly stupid.

[Rock Sexton]

the "marketing" must have been alot better for this movie then any other this year, and many others in previous years then..

They did a great job marketing this film, particularly in the last month leading up to the release. The cross-promotions were off the charts. And it's continued. VH-1 and Burger King are still running a ton.

[Rock Sexton]

Exactly.

Hollywood and the Media love to try and force feed the general public....

It's the same as the music industry..........the label decides what it perceives as the next big hit....then when the gen-pub swarms they recycle the recipe over and over again. For Christ sakes they have boy band and girl band factories now. They lean on their radio and media connections to determine the fate of their music act.

[Rock Sexton]

Hence why there is so much CRAP on TV that get high enough ratings to stay alive with all of these "reality" shows on the airwaves that are just utterly stupid.

Seriously, you should see the marketing tie-ins with VH-1 when their reality shows are airing.

[Dark Knight]

In regards to what Bay would bring to a Superman film.

Yes, he would bring the action....but everything else around the action would be whack.

You know what lame Bay would do if he directed the next Superman film?

The lame Bay would cast Fox as Lois Lane and he would make her dress and act like a total skank (which Fox dresses like most of the time anyways I'm sure) of a reporter. Matter of fact, Fox wouldn't really be acting since she can't act anyways!

Tight short skirt, with cleavage hanging all over the place in 5 inch high heels!

Then he would probably miscast someone like Chris Rock to play Jimmy Olsen and just have him be the unecessary comedy relief with some crazy off the wall jokes that would be done at the wrong times. He would probably make Lex Luthor dress and act like a pimp and Superman would wear some shiny black suit throughout the whole movie. He would make sure to get the military involved of course as well.

Oh man...the lame Bay is so predictable isn't he?

[Rock Sexton]

:whatever:

Yes. Because clearly we're all too dumb to actually go out and enjoy a film. We're all just drones that do what the big corporations tell us, right?

It's not really that.

The general public's sensibilities have slowly been eroded thru cable television, the 24 hour news cycle, the media, and the internet.

The thinking man's audience is on it's death bed. Nowadays, it's got to be easy, sexy, and explosive to gain massive gen-pub notoriety.

[Rock Sexton]

In regards to what Bay would bring to a Superman film.

Yes, he would bring the action....but everything else around the action would be whack.

You know what lame Bay would do if he directed the next Superman film?

The lame Bay would cast Fox as Lois Lane and he would make her dress and act like a total skank (which Fox dresses like most of the time anyways I'm sure) of a reporter. Matter of fact, Fox wouldn't really be acting since she can't act anyways!

Tight short skirt, with cleavage hanging all over the place in 5 inch high heels!

Then he would probably miscast someone like Chris Rock to play Jimmy Olsen and just have him be the unecessary comedy relief with some crazy off the wall jokes that would be done at the wrong times. He would probably make Lex Luthor dress and act like a pimp and Superman would wear some shiny black suit throughout the whole movie. He would make sure to get the military involved of course as well.

Oh man...the lame Bay is so predictable isn't he?

It's not about substance for Bay.........for him it's all hormonally driven. He tries to appeal to life's so-called "guilty pleasures" and he does it in excess. I just don't share any appreciation for it because it's overkill.

[Episode29]

It's not really that.

The general public's sensibilities have slowly been eroded thru cable television, the 24 hour news cycle, the media, and the internet.

The thinking man's audience is on it's death bed. Nowadays, it's got to be easy, sexy, and explosive now to gain massive gen-pub notoriety.

Have your read Roger Ebert's latest blog post? It explores this exact argument in relation to RotF.

[Rock Sexton]

Have your read Roger Ebert's latest blog post? It explores this exact argument in relation to RotF.

When was it posted? I'll take a look .........

[Episode29]

When was it posted? I'll take a look .........

I posted a link in the critics thread.

[Rock Sexton]

I posted a link in the critics thread.

Wow. The writers were paid $8 million for ROTF? Really? :wow:

Excellent blog though.

I'll draw on a reference to that Mike Judge film I've talked about on here before. Won't say the name because a few people on here seem to think I'm directly calling them idiots. While exaggerated, the movie hits on some points that are really being driven home these days. There's a particular scene where Luke Wilson is trying to figure out why the president and his cabinet are using a sports drink to water their plantations and every response is "because it has electrolytes" .........

Do they know what electrolytes are? Nope. But when the word is repeated enough times it certainly becomes effective. It's the same with sex, violence, and everything else "extreme" we can now access 24/7. A buddy of mine actually commented on this the other night. All of us were in the hotel room watching "The Vine" as we were waiting to go out. I had to turn away from looking at all the over the top gore. My buddy just laughed and asked how I'm not already de-sensitized.

Just look at the economic crisis. A decade or so ago people would've shat in their pants upon hearing the words "trillions" .........not now. The MSM has done it's job in uttering the word so many times that it found back-doored acceptability.

[Marvin]

You know what lame Bay would do if he directed the next Superman film?

depends on the screenplay


Tight short skirt, with cleavage hanging all over the place in 5 inch high heels!


how much of that did you see in pearl harbor?

Oh man...the lame Bay is so predictable isn't he?

not as predictable as his detractors

even i'm not the biggest fan of bay doing superman(tho i'd prefer it to singer)
but come on, I don't really care for bay as much as I seem to but you people really motivate me.

[Marvin]

Have your read Roger Ebert's latest blog post? It explores this exact argument in relation to RotF.

more talks about how he's too smart for his own good actually, but that's just what I took away from it.

[Jager X]

more talks about how he's too smart for his own good actually, but that's just what I took away from it.

How could you have possibly come to that conclusion when what he said is the opposite?:huh:

[The Lizard]

not to say very much? your just not listening.


No, you're just repeating the same trite mantras over and over to try to defend ROTF -- while setting up an entire field of straw-men I might add.


OK, more to the point, transformers has different things it tries to focus on besides the typical Emmerich lingering wide shots of disaster stricken city scapes. destruction of city scapes was the draw in that particular production. Transformers had other selling points. Why you compare the selling point one film to another film that uses it as an after thought is beyond me...unless of course to propagate you misguided opinion about said films short comings

(watch out here comes my sarcasm)
hey, guess what? the hand to hand combat in transformers kinda sucked compared to that in Enter the Dragon!

And there's one of those wacky straw-man arguments - right on schedule.

I seem to recall a LOT of aerial dogfighting in ID4, don't you? So trying to claim that the city destruction was all that ID4 had to offer in the action/FX department is misleading at best. Shall I proceed to compare the cinematography of the aerial battles of ID4 to those in ROTF? I won't....but I very well could, and would be totally justified in doing so.

besides, last I checked landing transformer pods didn't necessarily cause explosions the likes of what transpired in ID4.

That has nothing to do with the way the scenes were composed, filmed and edited. Bay inserted a "shocking disaster scene" into TF:ROTF that is very much in the vein of ID4, Armageddon, Deep Impact, etc. It didn't fit, and it wasn't done well.


obviously :whatever:

Yep, obviously. Did you miss the part in the first TF where the kid says "This was easily 10 times cooler than Armageddon" (as if any kid would actually reference that movie these days)? You might claim Bay just did it for laughs, but he does this self-referential bit a lot in his movies. He saw an opportunity to do his patented "Armageddon" routine, and he went for it, simple as that.

as said before, TF2 never tries to be a "serious" film. ID4 actually does, and it does so magnificently:o
...
Transformers was always intended to be light hearted, I'm sorry if you wanted a sappy end of the world drama.

Hey, no need for you to be sorry -- I blame Bay for crafting a destruction scene that does indeed go for a "serious" feel, despite your claims otherwise. I mean, someone actually mentions 9/11 afterwards for god's sake, how can you claim that was part of ROTF's "light-hearted" atmosphere?

pearl harbor for all it's faults, is a movie about the loss of many peoples(soldiers) lives and thus it fully lingers on not only the devastation of the events but the aftermath. Transformers didn't need to do that again...not when the focus was on sams adventure.

You mean like those scenes in ROTF that show the drowned soldiers sinking with the aircraft carrier that directly mirror scenes from Pearl Harbor? Right. Gotcha. The shots might not be as long as in Pearl Harbor, but the serious subject matter portrayed was the same.

...Until ROTF then returned to farting robot humor, that is.

sure, I'll start with comparing the action in bays films to that of sesame street in an attempt to show how great it really is...

http://i31.tinypic.com/23k830h.jpg

You knock yourself out, there.

[Lunar_Wolf]

The "general public" likes whatever it is told to like ala marketing blitzkriegs, etc....... television is the equivalent of pounding meat so that it'll soak in the marinade better. Regardless this movie is carried by big CGI robots and Megan Fox (which is all the gen-pub want). Says nothing of the quality or lackthereof when it comes to this film.
People are not mindless drones:facepalm
''We must see this film because that poster tells us to'':whatever:

Transformers made so much money because it appealed to kids(who bring in the most amount at the BO 90% of the time.), teens and adults.

2008 The Dark Knight came number last year because it appealed to all age groups.

2007 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End came number 1, why? Because it appealed to everyone.

Why do you think action and horror are now pg-13 most of the time? Because it earns more money at the BO.





i have lost faith in humanity....if this is the future of entertainment then we're all doomed
You do realized there are 100's of movie released a year:huh:
Just because you dislike one, doesn't mean entertainment is coming to
an end. Bruno, Funny People, District 9, Inglourious Basterds are just some films that are coming out soon that have high expectations.

[Marvin]

How could you have possibly come to that conclusion when what he said is the opposite?:huh:

the repeated use of the brainiac motif

[Rock Sexton]

People are not mindless drones:facepalm
''We must see this film because that poster tells us to'':whatever:

Did I use the words mindless drones? No. But I was quick to point out how impressionable the gen-pub is and gave specific reasons for this. It's a common phenomena with today's audiences. Why make an attempt at a well-crafted story when you can just trot out some hot women, explosions, and expensive CGI?

Just look at reality TV. A smash hit, because it doesn't involve stories with depth and certainly doesn't make you think at all. Instead you get to watch people live out their live's in excess. And it's cheap to put together for the networks.

Transformers made so much money because it appealed to kids(who bring in the most amount at the BO 90% of the time.), teens and adults.

I have no qualms with the first one. I though Spielberg's presence was felt throughout that film. ROTF is riding the wave the first one created and is loaded with expensive CGI and Megan Fox. This one, more than the first, is pandering to the most lazy sense of film making possible.

2008 The Dark Knight came number last year because it appealed to all age groups.

2007 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End came number 1, why? Because it appealed to everyone.

Why do you think action and horror are now pg-13 most of the time? Because it earns more money at the BO.

I understand your point in the PG-13 allows for a more diverse set of audience. But it does not explain this years success.

You do realized there are 100's of movie released a year:huh:
Just because you dislike one, doesn't mean entertainment is coming to
an end. Bruno, Funny People, District 9, Inglourious Basterds are just some films that are coming out soon that have high expectations.

You really want me psycho-analyze those movies? I mean c'mon. Bruno? Look I find Sascha Baron Cohen hilarious, but his whole schtick is based on making people uncomfortable with crude humor. Inglorious Bastards is predominantly a "slaughtering Nazi's" with plenty of over-the-top ways to kill people.

Again..... I call these things "guilty pleasures".........and there's plenty of them in world (specifically this country) that has developed plenty of liberal sensibilities over the past couple of decades. Whoever denies this apparently has been locked in a cave for a while. Sex, murder, crude jokes, special effects, etc etc are EVERYWHERE.

[Lunar_Wolf]

Did I use the words mindless drones? No. But I was quick to point out how impressionable the gen-pub is and gave specific reasons for this. It's a common phenomena with today's audiences. Why make an attempt at a well-crafted story when you can just trot out some hot women, explosions, and expensive CGI?

Just look at reality TV. A smash hit, because it doesn't involve stories with depth and certainly doesn't make you think at all. Instead you get to watch people live out their live's in excess. And it's cheap to put together for the networks.





It's a Transformers film, of course your going to see explosions and expensive CGI. Does it have a great story? No. Could it have a great story? Yes. Even tho I loved the film, I still see the flaws it had.

Like most people who liked the film are saying, it's just a fun popcorn film.
Just because Transformers made it big at the BO, doesn't mean every other film with hot women, CGI and explosions will. G. I Joe has all that, but no one will see that film. It won't make good money at the BO. Hulk had all that and a good story, did it do well at the BO? Not anywhere near as it should have.

TV is much different to film. No one would go to the cinema and lay money down to watch people do average things. TV is something you can just flick on anytime at home.



You really want me psycho-analyze those movies? I mean c'mon. Bruno? Look I find Sascha Baron Cohen hilarious, but his whole schtick is based on making people uncomfortable with crude humor. Inglorious Bastards is predominantly a "slaughtering Nazi's" with plenty of over-the-top ways to kill people.

Again..... I call these things "guilty pleasures".........and there's plenty of them in world (specifically this country) that has developed plenty of liberal sensibilities over the past couple of decades. Whoever denies this apparently has been locked in a cave for a while. Sex, murder, crude jokes, special effects, etc etc are


EVERYWHERE.
A guilty pleasure is a film that most people hate, but you like.

Sex, murder, jokes are all apart of the world, so they will appear in films.
Clockwork Orange is a fine example of that. If you want avoid that or you want something with realism, then this film is not for you. Films have always had sex, murder, crude jokes and special effects in them.

[CelticPredator]

All this hate makes me want to see it again. :lol

[The Guard]

You mean like those scenes in ROTF that show the drowned soldiers sinking with the aircraft carrier that directly mirror scenes from Pearl Harbor? Right. Gotcha. The shots might not be as long as in Pearl Harbor, but the serious subject matter portrayed was the same.

...Until ROTF then returned to farting robot humor, that is.

People are acting like seconds after the disaster scenes...there was a farting robot. I do not recall that being the case.

[Jager X]

the repeated use of the brainiac motif

So...you looked at two pictures of Brainiac and drew your conclusion of the entire article from that?

[Episode29]

So...you looked at two pictures of Brainiac and drew your conclusion of the entire article from that?

Yikes. Me thinks Ebert's article may have hit a bit too close to home for his comfort.

[Jager X]

Yikes. Me thinks Ebert's article may have hit a bit too close to home for his comfort.

I actually agree with what Ebert said. His articles calls out alot of people, even those on the HYPE.

[Marvin]

No, you're just repeating the same trite mantras over and over to try to defend ROTF -- while setting up an entire field of straw-men I might add.

if you see me writing the same thing over and over it's probably in response to something.


And there's one of those wacky straw-man arguments - right on schedule.
how fitting you bring this term up in a direct response to my calling you out on such things

can't say I'm surprised.

I seem to recall a LOT of aerial dogfighting in ID4, don't you? So trying to claim that the city destruction was all that ID4 had to offer in the action/FX department is misleading at best. Shall I proceed to compare the cinematography of the aerial battles of ID4 to those in ROTF? I won't....but I very well could, and would be totally justified in doing so.

where did I claim that?
Somewhere in my faint memory I remember the words "selling point" being used. Most of the advertising fo ID4 was centered around iconical imagery of say the white house with a laser in it, or a popular tunnel with a fire in it(see; emmerich strategy for putting ppl in seats 101(see the final shot in his newest trailer)).

yes there were dog fights but you can't tell me that dog fights are why film goers flocked to theaters for that film, but hey that's my opinion.

As much landmark destruction was sold in the Trailers for TF, I have an inkling that people went to see Optimus fighting bad guys and Shia run around with Megan Fox, but if you honestly think ROTF would be better if bay focused on the public death as much/well as he did his other films then that's great, every little bit helps I suppose, maybe the film would have felt as long as it did...


That has nothing to do with the way the scenes were composed, filmed and edited. Bay inserted a "shocking disaster scene" into TF:ROTF that is very much in the vein of ID4, Armageddon, Deep Impact, etc. It didn't fit, and it wasn't done well.

speaking on the scenes themselves.
Considering your the first person, not just on these boards but really anywhere I've checked to feel he "composed" those scenes/shots poorly, I'll chalk that you to your reasonable opinion.

I think they were shot very well.
even if they weren't the focus and or selling point of the film.


Yep, obviously. Did you miss the part in the first TF where the kid says "This was easily 10 times cooler than Armageddon" (as if any kid would actually reference that movie these days)? You might claim Bay just did it for laughs, but he does this self-referential bit a lot in his movies. He saw an opportunity to do his patented "Armageddon" routine, and he went for it, simple as that.

first of all you said Bay obviously tried to insert a violent, shocking devastation scene into ROTF as an homage to his own earlier disaster films (funny how Bay only includes "homages" to himself, but that's another issue).
my memory must be slipping cause I didn't notice the subtitle rotf in the first transformers film

secondly you say he only pays homages to his own film? "homages" go well well beyond having a kid reference another film in on a comedic beat. It could be said the entire pearl harbor film was a homage to a earlier style of film, the same could be said about parts of the Island. So no, I disagree, I don't think it's funny how bay only includes "homages" to himself...cause he doesn't

as far as the bad boys two poster, cause I know that's coming? that was a homage to clock work orange.


Hey, no need for you to be sorry -- I blame Bay for crafting a destruction scene that does indeed go for a "serious" feel, despite your claims otherwise. I mean, someone actually mentions 9/11 afterwards for god's sake, how can you claim that was part of ROTF's "light-hearted" atmosphere?

actually i should be sorry, maybe he should have went for a truly comedic feel for that scene, that would have driven you boys up the wall.
yes someone mentions 9/11, the movie isn't completely off the wall. It's still a light hearted film.

and how can I claim that you ask? (staw man, power up)
disney films are considered light hearted, even you (i think would agree) Lion King a light hearted musical for the whole family yes?
well somewhere in the first and third act it deals with death, and it makes no joke about it (yet it doesn't deal with it in the way it would be dealt with in a good drama), the dancing and music stop.
The film is still light hearted as a whole.

Schindler's list, monster, passion of the christ, these are not light hearted films.

point being, TF is a light hearted film unlike pearl habor, bay treats the casualties and collateral damage of robots fighting each other differently than he does in previous films and with good reason. However, he does not treat them as they would in spoofs.
(or even star trek)


You mean like those scenes in ROTF that show the drowned soldiers sinking with the aircraft carrier that directly mirror scenes from Pearl Harbor? Right. Gotcha. The shots might not be as long as in Pearl Harbor, but the serious subject matter portrayed was the same.

did any of these soldiers have faces, was there real drama there, as you were getting at before, bay doesn't handle these scenes with as much care as he has in the past...when he was making a drama about dying soldiers and the tragedy of war with the selling point being the attack on pearl harbor.

this film handles it like it would in a comic book or even in the cartoon show(funny how that works)


...Until ROTF then returned to farting robot humor, that is.
my memory again, i don't recall any robots or humans farting in this movie.


http://i31.tinypic.com/23k830h.jpg

You knock yourself out, there.

it's only when I defend something unpopular that people resort to the belittling and name calling

go figure, transformers was an immature film after all.

[Rock Sexton]

It's a Transformers film, of course your going to see explosions and expensive CGI. Does it have a great story? No. Could it have a great story? Yes. Even tho I loved the film, I still see the flaws it had.

Again, making an argument out of where there isn't one. Explosions and CGI were a given and I never denied this. However it doesn't mean that the story had to be half-arsed. It was rushed because the team didn't care. Instead they tried to cover everything up by tossing in too many characters, a ton of gratuitous juvenile humor, and as much Megan Fox as they could muster.

Like most people who liked the film are saying, it's just a fun popcorn film.
Just because Transformers made it big at the BO, doesn't mean every other film with hot women, CGI and explosions will. G. I Joe has all that, but no one will see that film. It won't make good money at the BO. Hulk had all that and a good story, did it do well at the BO? Not anywhere near as it should have.

Nobody will go see GI Joe? Clearly you do not understand branding at this point. Will it break ROTF numbers? Odds aren't good. The Hulk had a story so I don't even want to see you relegate it to ROTF status and there certainly weren't tons of hot chicks in that one. IT suffered because of it's predecessor, given that it was what, only 5 years removed.

TV is much different to film. No one would go to the cinema and lay money down to watch people do average things. TV is something you can just flick on anytime at home.

You're crazy. The numbers don't lie with the success of ROTF. It's quite clear that people, to the tune of nearly $600 billions worth, apparently like to be overwhelmed with the horribly less complicated. Much to the same degree they like reality tv.

A guilty pleasure is a film that most people hate, but you like.

Sex, murder, jokes are all apart of the world, so they will appear in films.
Clockwork Orange is a fine example of that. If you want avoid that or you want something with realism, then this film is not for you. Films have always had sex, murder, crude jokes and special effects in them.

Not gratuitously .......and that's where you keep veering away from and which is the central part of my argument. Face it, the movie has no soul. It's just hot chicks, CGI, crude jokes, and explosions. I respect that you like it, but I'm just calling the movie what it is. I grew up on popcorn style flicks like Gremlins, Ghostbusters, The Goonies. These films understood the delicate balance between fun and character development.

As I've repeated over and over again, Bay doesn't give a crap about those things and neither do a lot of people apparently. It's gotta be risque, crude, and expensive now to "entertain" the gen-pub.

[Rock Sexton]

All this hate makes me want to see it again. :lol

Trust me....... Nobody's stoppin' you. By all means, see if you can rent a chair to live their while it's still in theaters.

[Rock Sexton]

So...you looked at two pictures of Brainiac and drew your conclusion of the entire article from that?

That's the kind of attention span that comes in to question when analyzing why this movie is successful.

[roach]

hmmm so let me get this straight
Last year TDK made loads of money and everyone hailed it as the greatest film ever made?
This year TF2 is making loads of money and people who like it are brainwashed by tv and drones?
So what happened between TDK and TF2 that made us all stupid grunting beasts????

[Marvin]

Yikes. Me thinks Ebert's article may have hit a bit too close to home for his comfort.

you think too much:yay:

maybe you should start a blog playing the victim as well.


So...you looked at two pictures of Brainiac and drew your conclusion of the entire article from that?

no that was just a direct answer to your question

A reader named Jared Diamond, a senior at Syracuse, sports editor of The Daily Orange, put my disturbance eloquently in a post asking: "Why in this society are the intelligent vilified? Why is education so undervalued and those who preach it considered arrogant or pretentious?"

like poor old brainiac.

that very paragraph goes on to (quite cleverly) compare his knowledge of film to a sports writers knowledge of "the game"

If all you want to do is drink beer in the sunshine and watch a ball game, why should some elitist play-by-play announcer bore you with his knowledge? Yet sports fans are proud of their baseball knowledge, and respect commentators who know their stuff.

when the up and coming young, stadium filling basket ball star is "entertaining" the crowd with nonsencial dribbling and fancy dunking and the the sports writers start talking about fundamentals of the game and how in the old days the crowd cared about the important things...

then I'd love to see how Jared Diamond feels about his readers

this part
She hasn't forgotten. Neither have many other readers of middle school age. Their posts give me hope for the future. For them, to be a kid is not to be uncritical or thoughtlessly accepting. They seek magic, and don't find it in the brutal hammering of "Transformers."

what does that say about the many young kids that grew up on the "brutal hammering of TF"

they found the magic else where in the material, the mythology for example, or the transformation.

maybe they should take the action of this franchise, so that little Sue can actually look at some of the more subtle story elements
then again, everybody here seems to think the action is the only parts worth watching.

I can go on, but I think the point has been made, you asked me why I drew the conclusion that I did?
beyond the motifs all over the article, I find the article speaks on him being "vilified" for his brains

[Jager X]

Nothing happened. You just have people who can't accept that the movie made money. I did not like the ***** but I cannot deny the lots of people bought into it. Personally I think there is alot of hypocrasy across the board from both sides. I've seen people who love this movie rag on films like "Catwoman" and *insert any Uwe Boll film* when it could be argued that those most hated films were made with the same elements and intentions as ROTF. And I've seen people who talk down about fans of this movie then get upset when called haters. Both extremes are retarded.

[Marvin]

That's the kind of attention span that comes in to question when analyzing why this movie is successful.

"there's more to them than meets the eye"

haha

[roach]

"there's more to them than meets the eye"

haha

sick burn

[Jake Cassidy]

Nothing happened. You just have people who can't accept that the movie made money. I did not like the ***** but I cannot deny the lots of people bought into it. Personally I think there is alot of hypocrasy across the board from both sides. I've seen people who love this movie rag on films like "Catwoman" and *insert any Uwe Boll film* when it could be argued that those most hated films were made with the same elements and intentions as ROTF. And I've seen people who talk down about fans of this movie then get upset when called haters. Both extremes are retarded.

Exactly. We all need to just accept that everyone has different tastes. :woot:

[Marvin]

Nothing happened. You just have people who can't accept that the movie made money. I did not like the ***** but I cannot deny the lots of people bought into it. Personally I think there is alot of hypocrasy across the board from both sides. I've seen people who love this movie rag on films like "Catwoman" and *insert any Uwe Boll film* when it could be argued that those most hated films were made with the same elements and intentions as ROTF. And I've seen people who talk down about fans of this movie then get upset when called haters. Both extremes are retarded.

you make an excellent point

the only thing is, TF is at a higher quality then catwoman or a boll film

i'm sure of it

[Jake Cassidy]

I've never seen Catwoman and the only Boll movie I have seen is Bloodrayne. I didn't like it.

[roach]

Yes we all like different things. There should be no reason why we are name calling anyone for liking this film or not liking this film

[Jake Cassidy]

^ Or any film, tv show, music, book, sport etc.

[terry78]

^ Or any film, tv show, music, book, sport etc.

Now you're just talking nuts. :o

[Jager X]

you think too much:yay:

maybe you should start a blog playing the victim as well.




no that was just a direct answer to your question



like poor old brainiac.

that very paragraph goes on to (quite cleverly) compare his knowledge of film to a sports writers knowledge of "the game"



when the up and coming young, stadium filling basket ball star is "entertaining" the crowd with nonsencial dribbling and fancy dunking and the the sports writers start talking about fundamentals of the game and how in the old days the crowd cared about the important things...

then I'd love to see how Jared Diamond feels about his readers

this part


what does that say about the many young kids that grew up on the "brutal hammering of TF"

they found the magic else where in the material, the mythology for example, or the transformation.

maybe they should take the action of this franchise, so that little Sue can actually look at some of the more subtle story elements
then again, everybody here seems to think the action is the only parts worth watching.

I can go on, but I think the point has been made, you asked me why I drew the conclusion that I did?
beyond the motifs all over the article, I find the article speaks on him being "vilified" for his brains

You took what Ebert said out of context.

His comment about intellect being vilified is in line with alot of comments on this site. The paragraph beforehand he states how people tend to tell him that how thinks "too deep" about films and that he knows too much and does not allow himself to overlook things that the GA does not care about. EXACTLY like the reponses on here, exactly. This lead to the comment about where kids seek magic. Just because he thinks about what he watches does not mean he forgot how to be a kid. Even a kid wants to watch something that makes sense. Even my - what a coincidence - 12 yo cousin asked me what the story was about in the movie. He did not bash the cartoon or people who watched it.

Jared was basically taking a look at SOME movie fans and speaking on how it would be if sports fans were the same way. We all know the some people go to the movie, no matter how stupid it is, and think its one of the best things they have seen. Why do you think they keep coming out with these movie spoofs nowadays?

[Jake Cassidy]

Now you're just talking nuts. :o

What was I thinking?

Rap is not music and anyone who likes it is a ****in' moron. :cmad:

I feel so much better. :woot:

[Jager X]

you make an excellent point

the only thing is, TF is at a higher quality then catwoman or a boll film

i'm sure of it

I'm sure of it as well. Think about it, how many would have flocked to this film if it was done by the likes of SciFi. You have movies like Transmorphers and Giant Shart Vs. Mega Squid that become the butt of jokes and deemed one of the worst movies ever. Let's not get on reality tv, everyone on here ready their pitchforks in wait for those to come in and say the LOVE the Hills or Hannah Montana (not reality tv, I know). This movie definately has quality on its side. The action is amazing and spx was beautiful.

[The Lizard]

DISCLAIMER: I'm pretty sure being I'm trolled here. Marvin is being purposefully obtuse and pseudo-condescending to keep me on a roll. But whatever, here we go...

if you see me writing the same thing over and over it's probably in response to something.

Or maybe just you taking refuge in a state of denial, eh?

how fitting you bring this term up in a direct response to my calling you out on such things

can't say I'm surprised.

So you can't see the difference between comparing the cinematography of two disaster scenes in two big-budget sci-fi blockbuster event films, and comparing the hand-to-hand-battle in a martial arts movie to said sci-fi films. Yep - the latter is a straw man, the former not so much.

Can't say I'm surprised you don't get it, though.

where did I claim that?
Somewhere in my faint memory I remember the words "selling point" being used. Most of the advertising fo ID4 was centered around iconical imagery of say the white house with a laser in it, or a popular tunnel with a fire in it(see; emmerich strategy for putting ppl in seats 101(see the final shot in his newest trailer))

Actually, you said : "destruction of city scapes was the draw in that particular production (ID4)."

But regardless, what is perceived as "the draw" has no bearing on the overall quality of a sequence, which is what I'm focusing on. So you'd claim that one has no business comparing any aspect of any two films (in the same genre, I might add) that aren't about the same subject? See: film criticism 101.

if you honestly think ROTF would be better if bay focused on the public death as much/well as he did his other films then that's great, every little bit helps I suppose, maybe the film would have felt as long as it did...

I'm saying he shouldn't have put those kind of scenes in ROTF at all, and you know it. Nice try with the aforementioned purposeful obtuseness, though. :up:

speaking on the scenes themselves.
Considering your the first person, not just on these boards but really anywhere I've checked to feel he "composed" those scenes/shots poorly, I'll chalk that you to your reasonable opinion.

I think they were shot very well.
even if they weren't the focus and or selling point of the film.

Hint: there's a difference between an "unsuccessful" scene and a "poor" scene, but yes, that is indeed my opinion - thanks for reminding me.
And kudos to your "reasonable" opinions as well. Great thing we live in a free country where we can put those out there, eh?

first of all you said
my memory must be slipping cause I didn't notice the subtitle rotf in the first transformers film

You might be being purposefully obtuse again, but to clarify:

TF 2007 - protoforms crash, "Armageddon" reference by kid
ROTF 2009 - many more protoforms crash "Armageddon"-style, with destruction mirroring that movie and Pearl Harbor (and yes, stupid "Bad Boys 2" poster as well).

secondly you say he only pays homages to his own film? "homages" go well well beyond having a kid reference another film in on a comedic beat. It could be said the entire pearl harbor film was a homage to a earlier style of film, the same could be said about parts of the Island. So no, I disagree, I don't think it's funny how bay only includes "homages" to himself...cause he doesn't

Homages or self-referential scenes or easter-eggs...whatever you want to call it. And yes, he does.


actually i should be sorry, maybe he should have went for a truly comedic feel for that scene, that would have driven you boys up the wall.
yes someone mentions 9/11, the movie isn't completely off the wall. It's still a light hearted film.

Not quite sure who "you boys" are, son, but whatever.

And we both know it was more than just a mention of 9/11, is was the whole overblown disaster scene, and the 9/11 reference was just the twisted cherry on top of the schizophrenic cake.

and how can I claim that you ask? (staw man, power up)
disney films are considered light hearted, even you (i think would agree) Lion King a light hearted musical for the whole family yes?
well somewhere in the first and third act it deals with death, and it makes no joke about it (yet it doesn't deal with it in the way it would be dealt with in a good drama), the dancing and music stop.
The film is still light hearted as a whole.

Schindler's list, monster, passion of the christ, these are not light hearted films.

point being, TF is a light hearted film unlike pearl habor, bay treats the casualties and collateral damage of robots fighting each other differently than he does in previous films and with good reason. However, he does not treat them as they would in spoofs. (or even star trek)

You are again giving ROTF the benefit of the doubt by merely calling it "light hearted". It has elements that are truly ridiculous and juvenille, as well as slapstick "adult" humor that falls far outside your Lion King example.

did any of these soldiers have faces, was there real drama there, as you were getting at before, bay doesn't handle these scenes with as much care as he has in the past...when he was making a drama about dying soldiers and the tragedy of war with the selling point being the attack on pearl harbor.

this film handles it like it would in a comic book or even in the cartoon show(funny how that works)

Disagree. The intent was clearly there, even if the time and effort to make the scene just like "Pearl Harbor" wasn't. While I do see how the more recent Transformers comic titles (eg: those published by Dreamwave or IDW) would depict such a disaster and loss of life as that seen in the movie, those comics series are too mature to feature leg-humping dogs/robots or robots farting.

And speaking of farting...
my memory again, i don't recall any robots or humans farting in this movie.
Jetfire rips one off after he transforms and a parachute shoots out his ass. How did you miss that one? I'd suggest you go back and watch the movie again, but I wouldn't wish that abuse on anyone -- not even you. :cwink:

it's only when I defend something unpopular that people resort to the belittling and name calling. go figure, transformers was an immature film after all.

Funny, you post just as many "duhs" and supposedly subtle digs at the intelligence and maturity of those who disagree with you as many of the anti-ROTF people here. Your insulting tone is somewhat more subtle than most, but less subtle than I believe you think it is.

But if you really feel the need to try to contradict every single thing negative that's been observed about this film (and they are legion), then by all means do what you think you need to do.

However, despite the big box office, there is indeed a spreading word-of mouth that is showing that not all the "non-fanboy general public" loves ROTF. I'm seeing it IRL.

And not to beat a dead horse, but: TF 2007 Rottentomatometer score : 57% ROTF score : 19%

[Jake Cassidy]

You two are just as bad as each other, sometimes.

[terry78]

Everytime people fight on this board, it's like they're old married couples.

[Marvin]

You took what Ebert said out of context.

His comment about intellect being vilified is in line with alot of comments on this site. The paragraph beforehand he states how people tend to tell him that how thinks "too deep" about films and that he knows too much and does not allow himself to overlook things that the GA does not care about. EXACTLY like the reponses on here, exactly. This lead to the comment about where kids seek magic. Just because he thinks about what he watches does not mean he forgot how to be a kid. Even a kid wants to watch something that makes sense. Even my - what a coincidence - 12 yo cousin asked me what the story was about in the movie. He did not bash the cartoon or people who watched it.

Jared was basically taking a look at SOME movie fans and speaking on how it would be if sports fans were the same way. We all know the some people go to the movie, no matter how stupid it is, and think its one of the best things they have seen. Why do you think they keep coming out with these movie spoofs nowadays?

In short(cause i gotta go), those brainiac pics need not be on that article

the use of the word vilified is in that article for a reason

lastly, and most importantly
ROTF is not a spoof, if it was, ppl calling it the "dumbest, most pointless, potty humor garbage and marks the end of cinema..etc"
would be right and I would be out of the business of schooling people on forums

there is a story, there are themes there are characters with full arcs

if they are not "good enough" thats one thing give it a poor review.
but that's not what's happening here.

not even in eberts review

[Marvin]

You two are just as bad as each other, sometimes.

you won't ever see me call names,
guess that makes me peggy bundy

[Jake Cassidy]

you won't ever see me call names,
guess that makes me peggy bundy

I can insult him if you like. I love insulting people. I'd probably get banned for it, though. :woot:

Married With Children is ****in' great. :yay:

[The Lizard]

You two are just as bad as each other, sometimes. The only fair thing to do is make us both stand in the corner. :csad:


you won't ever see me call names,


Same with me.

Although "not calling names" and not being insulting are two different things, eh? :o

[Jager X]

In short(cause i gotta go), those brainiac pics need not be on that article

the use of the word vilified is in that article for a reason

lastly, and most importantly
ROTF is not a spoof, if it was, ppl calling it the "dumbest, most pointless, potty humor garbage and marks the end of cinema..etc"
would be right and I would be out of the business of schooling people on forums

there is a story, there are themes there are characters with full arcs

if they are not "good enough" thats one thing give it a poor review.
but that's not what's happening here.

not even in eberts review

Those pics are there in the article because is Ebert is being a smartass. He states multiple times in the article how people who does not like what he says calls him a man is, just like you said, too smart for his own good. If him approaching a movie with logic makes him a "Braniac" then he is proud to take on the title.

Not ONCE did I call ROTF a spoof. Not sure how you comprehended that. You make it seem like he is being an elitist when he is stately the truth. I sure you wouldn't be making this argument if this was a thread about "Meet the Spartans" or "Disaster Movie". People love stupid, crap-ass films. And I'm not talking about ROTF specifically but the proof is in the Box Office.

You're right, there is a story. A terribly crafted one, but there is a story nonetheless. Like I stated in another thread, if some of the characters expessed any sense of logic or intellect in this film then there would be no sequal to Transformers.

[Episode29]

you think too much:yay:

maybe you should start a blog playing the victim as well.

Za? :huh:

[Sarge 2.0]

Za? :huh:
At some point you just have to stop trying to comprehend his posts and do the best you can to respond to them. You'd need a freaking Interwebs Rosetta Stone to fully translate them, though. :csad:

[Marvin]

DISCLAIMER: I'm pretty sure being I'm trolled here. Marvin is being purposefully obtuse and pseudo-condescending to keep me on a roll. But whatever, here we go...

if I respond I'm a troll if I don't, someone might think you made a point
lol. I'm not trying to keep you on a roll, quite the opposite actually.


Or maybe just you taking refuge in a state of denial, eh?
believe me it's the former.

So you can't see the difference between comparing the cinematography of two disaster scenes in two big-budget sci-fi blockbuster event films, and comparing the hand-to-hand-battle in a martial arts movie to said sci-fi films. Yep - the latter is a straw man, the former not so much.

Can't say I'm surprised you don't get it, though.

Actually, you said : "destruction of city scapes was the draw in that particular production (ID4)."

But regardless, what is perceived as "the draw" has no bearing on the overall quality of a sequence, which is what I'm focusing on. So you'd claim that one has no business comparing any aspect of any two films (in the same genre, I might add) that aren't about the same subject?

the filmmakers focus on different things during their movies, emmerich's biggest selling point is his landmark destruction, look at teh posters for his movies, transformers focuses on other things.

here's a more focused comparison for you, TF handles it's alien motivation a lot better then ID4's voiceless terrorists.
that is not entirely because emmerich is weak when it comes to character motivation but rather because one of the selling points of Transformers has always been decepticons with personality seeking resources on earth and saying funny things whereas the aliens in ID4 are just "bad guys"
It's only natural that the antagonistic motivation in TF gets more focus and "better" handling than that in ID4

if someone then said, "well at least I know what the aliens want and why they want it in TF, in fact i can kinda of realate to them" you'd say "well, duh."

id4 was sold around the idea that large ships camp out over big city land marks and at the quasi climax of the film, marked by a timer of all things, the director focuses all his (production) energy and money into giving the audience what they came for.

Will smith has a hand to hand bout with an alien no, it's pretty quick and not full of tension. In tf sam has great encounters with aliens.
the films handle this differently because again, one film focuses on it whilst another decides to focus on other things.

The minute you said, and I paraphrase, "well the big city destruction is handled so much better and more indulgent in Id4 than in TF"
first I said to my self "duh" and then I proceeded to tell you why I thought it was.(better handled, yet still not better shot)
"selling points"

looking at story for a moment;
the destruction in TF2 about aliens landing
the destruction in ID4 is about destruction and the loss of human life
if you wanna start talking about straight comparisons, start there.

lastly, the whole argument is based on the assumption that you're right about the cinematography being better in ID4. It isn't, but that comes down to opinion.


I'm saying he shouldn't have put those kind of scenes in ROTF at all, and you know it. Nice try with the aforementioned purposeful obtuseness, though. :up:

Story wise, because trying to convince you of their quality isn't going to happen. story wise, those scenes had good reason to be there, I know that much.

Hint: there's a difference between an "unsuccessful" scene and a "poor" scene, but yes, that is indeed my opinion - thanks for reminding me.
And kudos to your "reasonable" opinions as well. Great thing we live in a free country where we can put those out there, eh?

do you also know that there is a difference between a bad scene and a successful scene
here's some perspective Mw6xfpZ7xpw&feature=related

TF is shot by a world class cinematographer and it's very successfull.

what this is is more of ppl coming down on this film at every facet, I'll be the first to say it has major flaws but now even the destruction cinematography is piss poor?

sorry but that's why I appear to be defending "every" aspect of this production, cause i personally find this ridiculous
from the racism to the misygony, it's all here, like everyone has been holding back some pent up criticism for the past few years and TF's success was the last straw.
"worst movie ever!"

You might be being purposefully obtuse again, but to clarify:

TF 2007 - protoforms crash, "Armageddon" reference by kid
ROTF 2009 - many more protoforms crash "Armageddon"-style, with destruction mirroring that movie and Pearl Harbor (and yes, stupid "Bad Boys 2" poster as well).



Homages or self-referential scenes or easter-eggs...whatever you want to call it. And yes, he does.



ok so you were talking about the kid making reference to armageddon in the first one, there was some confusion.

I'm not sure how any one makes any reference to armageddon in the second film unless you mean the scenes with fireballs falling from the sky?
why again is this a self homage to armageddon and not any number of other films?
becuase a kid from the first movie made a silly joke?
because bay is shameless?

maybe in part three, for bay not to embarrass himself with the self indulgent homages to his own films he'll avoid the fire ball like protoform re entries that have been clearly established, and if he can't do that he'd better at least find a way to make sure they don't hit anything breakable.
sorry for the sarcastic tone but I find that point worked well that way, at least I avoided the eye roll.

the bad boy poster;
in 1971, Kubrick did the same thing with clock work orange.
if anything it was an homage to that.

it's also been said that bay paid homage to his producers first film with the use of optimus in his truck form

Not quite sure who "you boys" are, son, but whatever.
didn't mean boys in a condescending way.

And we both know it was more than just a mention of 9/11, is was the whole overblown disaster scene, and the 9/11 reference was just the twisted cherry on top of the schizophrenic cake.

it was a mention of the event and then the film went on with it's own story.
for example, if the film them asked a reporter how they thought the disaster compared to the real 9/11 and then showed stock footage of the real event, you'd have a good point.
but as I recall, someone mentions the date.

You are again giving ROTF the benefit of the doubt by merely calling it "light hearted". It has elements that are truly ridiculous and juvenille, as well as slapstick "adult" humor that falls far outside your Lion King example.


the presence of all that humor, no matter how adult and not kiddie, make it light hearted. Most of the humor in the 40 year old virgin is very adult...yet still it's a very light hearted film(see kevin smith). Maybe I shouldn't have used lion king, I was so juiced on that straw man theme, you understand.

Disagree. The intent was clearly there, even if the time and effort to make the scene just like "Pearl Harbor" wasn't. While I do see how the more recent Transformers comic titles (eg: those published by Dreamwave or IDW) would depict such a disaster and loss of life as that seen in the movie, those comics series are too mature to feature leg-humping dogs/robots or robots farting.

just like most of the comics the new batman movies are based on are too mature to pull off some of the cheese seen in Begins, movies need to have a wider appeal I suppose. But I'm glad you agree about the TF comics doing it the same way.

And speaking of farting...

Jetfire rips one off after he transforms and a parachute shoots out his ass. How did you miss that one? I'd suggest you go back and watch the movie again, but I wouldn't wish that abuse on anyone -- not even you. :cwink:


jetfire's parachute shot out his back side in a malfunction due to his old age, in a very character driven gag that drives his personal exposition along, the fact that I can defend it is a testament to it's subtlety of execution.

moreover, there's this.

beast wars homage
Sk7sqHdl0Ws
with a set up and everything, regarded as one of the best written incarnations of transformer ever beast wars pulls this visual gag off and no ones is the wiser. It even references the odor.

just goes to show how much fun can be had with the source material but when put on the big screen and or bay, even the most level headed fan can turn into a..um..not so level head viewer..


But if you really feel the need to try to contradict every single thing negative that's been observed about this film (and they are legion), then by all means do what you think you need to do.

not everything no, like I said i have a very long list of my problems with the film, I just do not agree with yours.

However, despite the big box office, there is indeed a spreading word-of mouth that is showing that not all the "non-fanboy general public" loves ROTF. I'm seeing it IRL.
there must have been some new exit polls done cause last I heard it was a 90% positive.

And not to beat a dead horse, but: TF 2007 Rottentomatometer score : 57% ROTF score : 19%

ugh critics.

Funny, you post just as many "duhs" and supposedly subtle digs at the intelligence and maturity of those who disagree with you as many of the anti-ROTF people here. Your insulting tone is somewhat more subtle than most, but less subtle than I believe you think it is.


See: film criticism 101.

it's becoming increasingly apparent that this is getting personal, if I offended you I apologize here and now

that being said, my little digs here there with the "duhs" seem well within this forums etiquette, this being a forum that promotes the use of smilies the first 3 being subtle digs in nature.

out right calling people names on the other hand, especially in response to a point being made seems petty

they aren't the same thing, even a "straw man" could tell you that.

but hey I apologize again
:yay:

[CelticPredator]

Now you're just talking nuts. :o

Thats a lot of NUTS!

[Sarge 2.0]

if I respond I'm a troll if I don't, someone might think you made a point
lol. I'm not trying to keep you on a roll, quite the opposite actually.


believe me it's the former.



the filmmakers focus on different things during their movies, emmerich's biggest selling point is his landmark destruction, look at teh posters for his movies, transformers focuses on other things.

here's a more focused comparison for you, TF handles it's alien motivation a lot better then ID4's voiceless terrorists.
that is not entirely because emmerich is weak when it comes to character motivation but rather because one of the selling points of Transformers has always been decepticons with personality seeking resources on earth and saying funny things whereas the aliens in ID4 are just "bad guys"
It's only natural that the antagonistic motivation in TF gets more focus and "better" handling than that in ID4

if someone then said, "well at least I know what the aliens want and why they want it in TF, in fact i can kinda of realate to them" you'd say "well, duh."

id4 was sold around the idea that large ships camp out over big city land marks and at the quasi climax of the film, marked by a timer of all things, the director focuses all his (production) energy and money into giving the audience what they came for.

Will smith has a hand to hand bout with an alien no, it's pretty quick and not full of tension. In tf sam has great encounters with aliens.
the films handle this differently because again, one film focuses on it whilst another decides to focus on other things.

The minute you said, and I paraphrase, "well the big city destruction is handled so much better and more indulgent in Id4 than in TF"
first I said to my self "duh" and then I proceeded to tell you why I thought it was.(better handled, yet still not better shot)
"selling points"

looking at story for a moment;
the destruction in TF2 about aliens landing
the destruction in ID4 is about destruction and the loss of human life
if you wanna start talking about straight comparisons, start there.

lastly, the whole argument is based on the assumption that you're right about the cinematography being better in ID4. It isn't, but that comes down to opinion.




Story wise, because trying to convince you of their quality isn't going to happen. story wise, those scenes had good reason to be there, I know that much.



do you also know that there is a difference between a bad scene and a successful scene
here's some perspective Mw6xfpZ7xpw&feature=related

TF is shot by a world class cinematographer and it's very successfull.

what this is is more of ppl coming down on this film at every facet, I'll be the first to say it has major flaws but now even the destruction cinematography is piss poor?

sorry but that's why I appear to be defending "every" aspect of this production, cause i personally find this ridiculous
from the racism to the misygony, it's all here, like everyone has been holding back some pent up criticism for the past few years and TF's success was the last straw.
"worst movie ever!"



ok so you were talking about the kid making reference to armageddon in the first one, there was some confusion.

I'm not sure how any one makes any reference to armageddon in the second film unless you mean the scenes with fireballs falling from the sky?
why again is this a self homage to armageddon and not any number of other films?
becuase a kid from the first movie made a silly joke?
because bay is shameless?

maybe in part three, for bay not to embarrass himself with the self indulgent homages to his own films he'll avoid the fire ball like protoform re entries that have been clearly established, and if he can't do that he'd better at least find a way to make sure they don't hit anything breakable.
sorry for the sarcastic tone but I find that point worked well that way, at least I avoided the eye roll.

the bad boy poster;
in 1971, Kubrick did the same thing with clock work orange.
if anything it was an homage to that.

it's also been said that bay paid homage to his producers first film with the use of optimus in his truck form


didn't mean boys in a condescending way.



it was a mention of the event and then the film went on with it's own story.
for example, if the film them asked a reporter how they thought the disaster compared to the real 9/11 and then showed stock footage of the real event, you'd have a good point.
but as I recall, someone mentions the date.



the presence of all that humor, no matter how adult and not kiddie, make it light hearted. Most of the humor in the 40 year old virgin is very adult...yet still it's a very light hearted film(see kevin smith). Maybe I shouldn't have used lion king, I was so juiced on that straw man theme, you understand.



just like most of the comics the new batman movies are based on are too mature to pull off some of the cheese seen in Begins, movies need to have a wider appeal I suppose. But I'm glad you agree about the TF comics doing it the same way.



jetfire's parachute shot out his back side in a malfunction due to his old age, in a very character driven gag that drives his personal exposition along, the fact that I can defend it is a testament to it's subtlety of execution.

moreover, there's this.

beast wars homage
Sk7sqHdl0Ws
with a set up and everything, regarded as one of the best written incarnations of transformer ever beast wars pulls this visual gag off and no ones is the wiser. It even references the odor.

just goes to show how much fun can be had with the source material but when put on the big screen and or bay, even the most level headed fan can turn into a..um..not so level head viewer..




not everything no, like I said i have a very long list of my problems with the film, I just do not agree with yours.


there must have been some new exit polls done cause last I heard it was a 90% positive.



ugh critics.



it's becoming increasingly apparent that this is getting personal, if I offended you I apologize here and now

that being said, my little digs here there with the "duhs" seem well within this forums etiquette, this being a forum that promotes the use of smilies the first 3 being subtle digs in nature.

out right calling people names on the other hand, especially in response to a point being made seems petty

they aren't the same thing, even a "straw man" could tell you that.

but hey I apologize again
:yay:He wasn't calling you a straw man, a straw man argument is a type of logical fallacy.

[Marvin]

He wasn't calling you a straw man, a straw man argument is a type of logical fallacy.

I know exactly what it is

the way it was used however, the imagery provided, has an ad hominem vibe to it.

straw man make for a good pun.

[Marvin]

Za? :huh:

well in reference to an article with the theme of over thinking and how it has led to a man being called names and or things he doesn't believe he deserves to be called

and then this being said
Yikes. Me thinks Ebert's article may have hit a bit too close to home for his comfort.
which I'm sure implies I'm one of these detractors he's referring to
(in truth I usually like him, I just think he needs some perspective in this particular case)

I simply responded to your assumption with one of my own
you think too much

maybe you should start a blog playing the victim as well.

in keeping with the thinking theme, I simply flipped your wording in what I assumed would be a clever way, it appears I failed. You know what they say about assuming. That second part was in reference to my thoughts on Eberts little article.

save your money, I hear Rosetta Stones don't come cheap nowadays.
just ask :yay:

[kane9321]

Ok I finally saw Transformers:ROTF and without a shadow of a doubt I can honestly say..this movie was garbage, upon crap,mixed in with trash. About at the 45min mark into this movie, I "checked out" meaning... I wanted to leave,. The movie seemed rushed,piss poor acting (meagan fox..I'm looking at you) and you have the nerve to talk trash about michael bay...wow. There's just so much wrong with this movie.The jokes were bad and juvenile.Did I really need to see John Torturro's azz,or Sam's annoying idiot roomate? Meagtron, The great leader of the decepticons...has a Boss....what? Wheelie "humping" fox's leg,you have got to be kidding me! Devastator transforming....what the hell was he supposed to be? and after a while I just didnt care , he surely wasnt the devastator i knew as a child. Jetfire, I couldnt understand a damned thing he was babbling about, I thought he just jumped off the " black pearl" from the pirates of the carribean movies. Now to the most ridculous thing about the movie...the female decepticon posing as a human...A BIG WTF.That was just about as dumb as dumb gets, I thought I was watching Transformers not Terminator. Now hearing all the talk about the "twins" I was eagerly awaiting their time on screen, Unfortunatley I got my wish. I was totally upset when they talked and how they looked, yeah they were trying to be from the "hood". Listen to what they were saying, then the biggest insult...one had a gold effing tooth..Me being a black man, I really was upset and pissed off, that was so sterotypical.The final battle was a joke in itself, talk about outnumbered, you see the main core of decepticons then all of a sudden..here comes their "reinforcements". So where were the rest of the autobots?...A big joke! All in all this movie was a waste of time and money "my time,my money". I really wouldnt tell anyone to see this at all.

[Rock Sexton]

^ Or any film, tv show, music, book, sport etc.


The point is ............ because nearly $600 million dollars worth of tickets have been sold, we have to put up with more of this in the future...........ultra-fanboy is obviously fine with every aspect of this film, but the movie clearly has major flaws and could be so much better. But we'll never get that as long as gen-pub continues to flood the BO in support of soul-less films like these.

[Batman137]

heres my review...it sucked...badly. I just think Michael Bay is one big pervert

[Rock Sexton]

heres my review...it sucked...badly. I just think Michael Bay is one big pervert

Yup. A pervert who had a $200+ million budget and 2.5 hours of screen time to fill and that juvenile escapade is what we got as the final result.

[Lunar_Wolf]

Again, making an argument out of where there isn't one. Explosions and CGI were a given and I never denied this. However it doesn't mean that the story had to be half-arsed. It was rushed because the team didn't care. Instead they tried to cover everything up by tossing in too many characters, a ton of gratuitous juvenile humor, and as much Megan Fox as they could muster.



Like I said before, the story wasn't great. Most of that was due on the writer's strike at the time.

Roberto Orci: We took the job with Ehren Kruger two weeks before the strike so in that two weeks, we had to generate a 20-page outline that we handed in, and then during the strike, Michael and the amazing (producer) Ian Bryce tried to prep everything they could off of that outline. Then from the day the strike ended to the first day of shooting was three months, so we had to write the script in those three months, handing in pages at the end of every day so they could be prepped. It was crazy. We finished writing the movie two weeks ago, literally.

Alex Kurtzman: Because you're writing lines for the robots in post. Not only did we rewrite on set but we spent the last six months with Michael in post, cutting the movie and writing the lines for the robots, just making jokes or making plot points more clear. Literally, they had to just rip it out of our dead hands the other day.

So if you going to blame anyone, then blame the writers strike. Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and Ehren Krueger were holed up in a hotel to pound out the script in a short time to get the film ready for production.

Bay didn't write the film. He might of had some say in it, but he didn't sit down in the hotel and come up with most of the story.

For some reason, you think this one film making so much, is the end of cinema or something. No, far from it.

[SsM]

The point is ............ because nearly $600 billion dollars worth of tickets have been sold, we have to put up with more of this in the future...........ultra-fanboy is obviously fine with every aspect of this film, but the movie clearly has major flaws and could be so much better. But we'll never get that as long as gen-pub continues to flood the BO in support of soul-less films like these.



Wow, that's a lot.

[Marvin]

People, friends;

If a film doesn't appeal to your liking why can't you just proclaim that and by all means tell the rest of us why. What's happening here, and what happens with most bay movies in general I've noticed, is that people begin to lob grandiose statements about the majority of the movie going audience or insults implying that that if you liked it you are a neanderthal or perv or a sheep or a supporter of soul-less cinema.
At the same time, a critic, that is put off by his audience critiquing his own critiques pokes at their intelligence. You'll see all that and more in this very thread.

why wasn't the "bad" film wolverine: origins received this way?

truly something to think about


...bring on TF3

[SsM]

I thought XMO flopped.

[Adrian89]

People, friends;

If a film doesn't appeal to your liking why can't you just proclaim that and by all means tell the rest of us why. What's happening here, and what happens with most bay movies in general I've noticed, is that people begin to lob grandiose statements about the majority of the movie going audience or insults implying that that if you liked it you are a neanderthal or perv or a sheep or a supporter of soul-less cinema.
At the same time, a critic, that is put off by his audience critiquing his own critiques pokes at their intelligence. You'll see all that and more in this very thread.

why wasn't the "bad" film wolverine: origins received this way?

truly something to think about


...bring on TF3
+1 dude.

[The Lizard]

DISCLAIMER # 2 -- I'm going to edit some of Marvin's responses for the sake of space and clarity, since he seems to be throwing large amounts of words at me to see what sticks at this point. If I leave something important out, please bring it to my attention.


if I respond I'm a troll if I don't, someone might think you made a point
You're the one who's dodging, ducking, tapdancing and doing gymnastics to try to make a point there, slick. :o
But I'm referring to the calculated wording and effect of your responses, not the fact that you respond.

the filmmakers focus on different things during their movies, emmerich's biggest selling point is his landmark destruction, look at teh posters for his movies, transformers focuses on other things.

Right -- the posters for two different films determines what you can and can't compare with regards to subject matter. Do you really want to continue with this? Two SF movies have major destruction scenes shot in different styles. Those styles may be validly compared stylistically - end of story. Geez.

here's a more focused comparison for you, TF handles it's alien motivation a lot better then ID4's voiceless terrorists.
that is not entirely because emmerich is weak when it comes to character motivation but rather because one of the selling points of Transformers has always been decepticons with personality seeking resources on earth and saying funny things whereas the aliens in ID4 are just "bad guys"
It's only natural that the antagonistic motivation in TF gets more focus and "better" handling than that in ID4

Ignoring that fact that you're now talking about a plot element as opposed to an actual scene composition, you're wrong about the ID4 aliens not having an established motivation.
It's clearly determined in ID4 during the Area 51 lab scene that the aliens are nomadic parasites that travel the galaxy invading worlds, using up all the natural resources, and then leaving to find another planet.

The ID4 aliens are not given any individual personalities because A) they are a hive mind, and B) it wasn't in the script. Apples and oranges, again.

id4 was sold around the idea that large ships camp out over big city land marks and at the quasi climax of the film, marked by a timer of all things, the director focuses all his (production) energy and money into giving the audience what they came for.

Do you recall that the big cities destruction scene in ID4 happens less than halfway into the film? There were plenty of other things for Emmerich to focus his production energy and money on after that point.

The minute you said, and I paraphrase, "well the big city destruction is handled so much better and more indulgent in Id4 than in TF"
first I said to my self "duh" and then I proceeded to tell you why I thought it was.(better handled, yet still not better shot)
"selling points"

looking at story for a moment;
the destruction in TF2 about aliens landing
the destruction in ID4 is about destruction and the loss of human life
if you wanna start talking about straight comparisons, start there.

But there was plenty of destruction and loss of human life depicted in the disaster scene in ROTF, even though the point was about aliens landing. This is the main part of my argument why it was inappropriate and incongruous with the tone of the rest of the movie. Duh.

lastly, the whole argument is based on the assumption that you're right about the cinematography being better in ID4. It isn't, but that comes down to opinion.
Story wise, because trying to convince you of their quality isn't going to happen. story wise, those scenes had good reason to be there, I know that much.
do you also know that there is a difference between a bad scene and a successful scene
here's some perspective Mw6xfpZ7xpw&feature=related
TF is shot by a world class cinematographer and it's very successfull.
Opinion, opinion, opinion. Thanks, got it.

BTW, what's the deal with the clip from The Host? That was a very well-staged scene in a very quirky film. Your point?

what this is is more of ppl coming down on this film at every facet, I'll be the first to say it has major flaws but now even the destruction cinematography is piss poor?
sorry but that's why I appear to be defending "every" aspect of this production, cause i personally find this ridiculous
from the racism to the misygony, it's all here, like everyone has been holding back some pent up criticism for the past few years and TF's success was the last straw."worst movie ever!"

I did give ROTF 5/10 you know. I didn't hate every aspect of the film (I loved Ravage, for example).
However, we're at a point now where the outspoken fans of ROTF have had their say about how super-awesome everything was, and it's honestly more fun and interesting for those of us who DIDN'T love the movie to compare notes on all the stuff that was wrong with it.
So yeah, maybe not all the negative criticism is valid, but when a movie has as much "WTF" elements in it as ROTF, that criticism is going to go on a long time, so get used to it.

in 1971, Kubrick did the same thing with clock work orange.
if anything it was an homage to that.

Yep, Bay = Kubrick, you nailed it. :eyeroll:

But seriously, Bay is self referential. It's just something predictable he does, and I mentioned it in passing, so what? Your mountain is still a molehill.


it was a mention of the event and then the film went on with it's own story.
for example, if the film them asked a reporter how they thought the disaster compared to the real 9/11 and then showed stock footage of the real event, you'd have a good point.
but as I recall, someone mentions the date.

It was unneccessary and incongruous, as I've already said.

just like most of the comics the new batman movies are based on are too mature to pull off some of the cheese seen in Begins, movies need to have a wider appeal I suppose. But I'm glad you agree about the TF comics doing it the same way.

"Cheese" in Batman Begins? Whatchoo talkin 'bout Willis? Gordon saying "I got to get me one of these" in regards to the Batmobile? Because that was about it for the cheese factor in BB. Nothing even in the same solar system as ROTF's cheese level.

jetfire's parachute shot out his back side in a malfunction due to his old age, in a very character driven gag that drives his personal exposition along, the fact that I can defend it is a testament to it's subtlety of execution.

OK, now I know you're just pulling my leg. Well played, sir.

moreover, there's this.
beast wars homage
Sk7sqHdl0Ws
with a set up and everything, regarded as one of the best written incarnations of transformer ever beast wars pulls this visual gag off and no ones is the wiser. It even references the odor.

It was a lame gag then (on a kid's TV show I might add), and it's lame now. Although an animal beast-form farting makes more sense than a metal robot farting, but the Bayformers' schtick constantly involves all sorts of squirting liquids and such, so would would you expect?

just goes to show how much fun can be had with the source material but when put on the big screen and or bay, even the most level headed fan can turn into a..um..not so level head viewer..

I think level-headedness is actually the biggest enemy facing ROTF.

not everything no, like I said i have a very long list of my problems with the film, I just do not agree with yours.

Maybe I need to search around more, but I'd honestly be interested in hearing your list of problems you had with ROTF. I'm sure there's some stuff we agree on there.

there must have been some new exit polls done cause last I heard it was a 90% positive.

Yeah, those were the exit polls conducted and publicized by ROTF's distributor Paramount at advanced screenings actively packed with Bayformers fans. Not the best impartial indicator of actual public opinion.

However, I will say that the ROTF public opinion polls in general are indeed a much higher positive percentage than the critic's ratings .... as they always are with any mainstream movie.

ugh critics.

I know, right? - Damn them for doing their jobs and having the gall to not sufficiently "turn off their brains". *trying not to overuse rolleyes*

out right calling people names on the other hand, especially in response to a point being made seems petty
they aren't the same thing, even a "straw man" could tell you that.
but hey I apologize again
:yay:

As has been pointed out, "straw man" refers to the argument, not you (see also "argumentum verbosium" for another one). So you have still not been called any names by me.
However, my little "digs" in response to any perceived condescension are certainly there too, and I realize that.

But hey. we haven't gotten threatened with probation yet, so we can't be that bad with the bickering. (Having flashbacks to Shyair, for those who remember him - yeeesh.)