Scenes in the movie that made go "Uhhh really?"

[Rock Sexton]

This movie was loaded with moments where I simply just laughed out loud at what I was watching ..... and not because it was funny either.

I'll start it off with two of them ....

1. The scene where Sam's girl lectures Megatron. One of the most embarrassing moments I've ever seen in film.

2. How quickly the Russian astronauts were found and how quickly they gave up their info. The whole scene seemed like just another excuse for Bay's human characters to be really, over the top annoying and obnoxious.

[Lighthouse]

Almost every moment involving Sam at the beginning of the film. I was astonished by the audacity of the script trying to make me feel sorry for him because he didn't have a job.....with his supermodel girlfriend who is making tons of money.

Not an "Uh really?" moment, but I got mad at the Spock line, because it made me wish I was watching that movie instead.

[Liam_H]

This movie was loaded with moments where I simply just laughed out loud at what I was watching ..... and not because it was funny either.

I'll start it off with two of them ....

1. The scene where Sam's girl lectures Megatron. One of the most embarrassing moments I've ever seen in film.

2. How quickly the Russian astronauts were found and how quickly they gave up their info. The whole scene seemed like just another excuse for Bay's human characters to be really, over the top annoying and obnoxious.

Yeap, as soon as I saw that thread title..."I know what I'm going to say"

He should've just squashed her or at least flick her across a few blocks like he did to that random dude in the first movie. Yes. this was probably Fox's line which would've probably made more sense but they were too lazy to change it to something more believable.

As Movie Bob stated...the outcome of the final robot battle in this trilogy was due to a pretty girl making Megatron insecure about his robot manhood.

[psylockolussus]

How about those 2 scenes where Bumblee almost died.

[Crockett]

The scene where Optimus gets tangled up on the wires, they have their reasons but it's still silly.

Carly saying to Megatron that he'll be Sentinel Prime's *****. It should've been Starscream instead.

[Marvin]

this thread

[PyroChamber]

The ass shot; now don't get me wrong it was nice, but it's "really Bay"?

Everything involving Ken Jeong.

Everyone's mentioned Carly talking to Megatron, but how about the fact that he was pretty much just sitting there the whole time?

[LostSon88]

The notion that Sam apparently earned a college degree in the year following ROTF. :doh:

[CaptainSpunk]

How about WHY didnt Sentinel Prime accept the Matrix of Leadership when Optimus offered it to him. If Sentinel had that, ALL the rest of the Autobots would have listened to him. He would not have needed to go around blowing stuff up and trashing Nest. It doesnt make any sense for him to just wait a little longer and then turn on the Autobots... WTF?

[Kar]

Deep Wang. Optimus and the cables. Megatron wearing a cloth to...to shield him from the sun? I don't know. The fact that Sam keeps getting these hot girlfriends. Eps saying he's given up the guns and fighting....just to go right back into it and pretty much do nothing. Yeah that.

And I'm still tryna wrap my head around Soundwave's tentacle Kraken like thing.

[Ipodman]

How about WHY didnt Sentinel Prime accept the Matrix of Leadership when Optimus offered it to him. If Sentinel had that, ALL the rest of the Autobots would have listened to him. He would not have needed to go around blowing stuff up and trashing Nest. It doesnt make any sense for him to just wait a little longer and then turn on the Autobots... WTF?

Yea he could have just took the Matrix and then destroyed Optimus on the spot

(And then make it look like a suicide)

[Donut]

Why didn't the Government help Sam get a job ? Like he himself said in the movie he could be working with the Autobots since he is familiar with them & a friend to them. The Government payed his College bill & recognized him enough to give him a medal. Why not let him help with the Autobots & Lennox's team ? He should have asked Optimus / Bumblee to recommend Sam join them or something

[Rock Sexton]

this thread

Your taste in movies. :awesome:

[SPIDER-MAN-ROX]

Why did Mikaela leave her dog behind? Was it like a parting gift for Wheelie or an excuse to come back to Sam one day?

[DeeBarr]

This movie was loaded with moments where I simply just laughed out loud at what I was watching ..... and not because it was funny either.

I'll start it off with two of them ....

1. The scene where Sam's girl lectures Megatron. One of the most embarrassing moments I've ever seen in film.

2. How quickly the Russian astronauts were found and how quickly they gave up their info. The whole scene seemed like just another excuse for Bay's human characters to be really, over the top annoying and obnoxious.

Glad I wasnt the only one... :doh:

[Colossal Spoons]

The entire first hour
The humans surviving the collapsing building

Your taste in movies. :awesome:

He mad :o

[CaptainSpunk]

Buildings that can remain intact even tho they are almost completely sideways. Once a building makes it past that first few degrees they usually collapse on themselves in a few seconds.

[Quasimod0]

I'm just upset that megatron did nothing

[Kar]

I'm just upset that megatron did nothing

Correction, did nothing until Carly sweet talked him.

[Nathan]

I think pretty much anything that wasn't action. And even some of the action was stupid. Like the humans ****ing up Shockwave as badly as they did.

[Colossal Spoons]

Parachutes come out of Jetfire's butt when he sneezes. Parachutes blind Shockwave so the humans can kill him. Parachutes are the real villains in these movies :o

[krisko]

i read a quick cliffnotes review of the DOTM novel and apparently sentinal threw megatron off that building that they had the pillars set up around. so when carly goes over to megatron that's why he's just sitting there like he's drunk. sentinel also killed the obnoxious twins when he killed ironhide. so i don't know if they never filmed it, edited it out, or what. but yea it definitely would have made more sense if megan fox said that to him, or starscream.

[SPider-T0rch]

Sam's boss. I really don't get what was up with his head. He hated the color red or something? So unnecessary.

[spider_rob]

The opening ass shot of Carly. Made me kind of embarrassed to be seeing the movie.

[Quasimod0]

idk why but that felt sort of awkward

[Tony Stark]

Outside of the opening prologue, pretty much the whole movie. I said it before, this is by far the worst movie of the summer. If you want to debate over which is worse Green Lantern or Transformers, go ahead, they both sucked. This movie was supposed to be an apology for the second, instead it was more of the same crap.

[spider_rob]

Deep Wang. Optimus and the cables. Megatron wearing a cloth to...to shield him from the sun? I don't know. The fact that Sam keeps getting these hot girlfriends. Eps saying he's given up the guns and fighting....just to go right back into it and pretty much do nothing. Yeah that.

And I'm still tryna wrap my head around Soundwave's tentacle Kraken like thing.


Well, now that I think of it, Megatron's face was half-gone, exposing some innards. Bug robots were creeping in and out, so maybe that's why he was wearing the cloth.

[Superhero 101]

Any scene with Sam and Carly
Ken Jeong
John Malkovich
Simmons Scenes

[Drizzle]

The notion that Sam apparently earned a college degree in the year following ROTF. :doh:
DOTM happens almost four years after ROTF.

I actually said "Seriously?" at Starscream's death. Now, Starscream isn't my favorite Decepticon from the cartoon, but he was probably my favorite in the first film. He just did some cool **** in his brief amount of screentime. He even gave Ratchet and Ironhide a hard time. But he became more of a ***** in the second film. He got pushed around by Megatron constantly. They never touched upon his intent to betray Megatron. I was hoping they'd let him kick some ass in the third film, but no. He took out an empty space shuttle and a couple of ospreys. I didn't have a problem with Sam killing him, but it was just so drawn out and pathetic. Just the "Ow! Ow! Ow! I can't see! I can't see!" had me cringing. By the time he started dragging his face on the ground and said "I'm gonna kick you!", I just thought, "Put him out of his misery already."

I would have preferred if Starscream was the one who found Sam and Epps when they first get into Chicago and attacks them, only to be slaughtered by the Autobots. Pretty much replacing the random Decepticon in the dropship with Starscream.

[Thundercrack85]

Well, the whole movie sort of counts. But specifically... where were all these characters and plot elements in the first and second movie? The Fallen could have used that army on the moon.

Also, forcing the Autobots to leave Earth... again. Do the characters in this movie suffer from amnesia? What nearly happened last time they did that?

[Rock Sexton]

Seriously why did Bay even bother to use the old school sound effect of a transformer transforming only one time in this film? I've noticed this throughout the trilogy.

[warhorse78]

Seriously why did Bay even bother to use the old school sound effect of a transformer transforming only one time in this film? I've noticed this throughout the trilogy.

It was probably Spielberg that told him to do it. Spielberg is really, really good at getting that nostalgia factor in his movies. The first one was a decent movie with Spielberg's handprint all over it. The other two, Spielberg pretty much left the set to help Abbrams out. By the looks of it, everybody is ditching Bay. Megan Fox, Shia, Orci and Alex.

[rashad]

No mention of Ironhide's death whatsoever.

[Colossal Spoons]

No mention of Ironhide's death whatsoever.

Apparently this is because it was war-time and they had no time to mourn or even talk about it. But there was plenty of time(appx half the movie) for stupid jokes.

[Rock Sexton]

Anyone else notice that there were moments of a serious lack of urgency after Decepticons were discovered? I mean it literally went from Sam and his girl getting acquainted with all this top secret info, then in the next scene she's getting dolled up for her dinner party and getting mad at Sam for wanting to help the Autobots.

[Marvin]

Apparently this is because it was war-time and they had no time to mourn or even talk about it. But there was plenty of time(appx half the movie) for stupid jokes.

So the autobots were too busy making jokes to mourn iron hide?
I must have missed that part. I'm also sure everyone that was in fact "making stupid jokes" was doing so in spite of hearing about iron hides death...

Sorry if you wanted to see more tears for the death of a the secondary character, I'm sure when Optimus died in the last go around, and you indeed got what you asked for, you stood up and applauded at the tears shed by lead character himself....of course it was probably handled poorly in that film too so whose to say.

Here's a funny statistic, how many stupid jokes happened in the appx half of the lion king. after an actual important character died.

[mbnasir6]

When the building was falling sidewards, and there were people casually working before Sam and Co crashed in, WTF?!
Sliding down the room, which seemed to stretch about a mile long.
Autobots destroying buildings with no care whether there are people inside.
Sam flying across the room and having his arm practically glued to his body, no one cared to look at his arm?
Sam being dirty, covered in cuts and bruises, and Carlie looks exactly the same way she looked in the rest of the film.
Megatron wearing a scarf?
So many more things I can't remember, doesn't stop it being the second best film I've seen this year

[spider_rob]

So the autobots were too busy making jokes to mourn iron hide?
I must have missed that part. I'm also sure everyone that was in fact "making stupid jokes" was doing so in spite of hearing about iron hides death...

Sorry if you wanted to see more tears for the death of a the secondary character, I'm sure when Optimus died in the last go around, and you indeed got what you asked for, you stood up and applauded at the tears shed by lead character himself....of course it was probably handled poorly in that film too so whose to say.

Here's a funny statistic, how many stupid jokes happened in the appx half of the lion king. after an actual important character died.

Wow, for a dude that makes little cartoon/film thingies, you sure like to support bad movies.

[El Bastardo]

Just about the entirety of the movie, to answer the topic question.

Goodness, what a bad movie.

[Marvin]

Wow, for a dude that makes little cartoon/film thingies, you sure like to support bad movies.

Perhaps it takes a foot in the industry to appreciate another group of peoples work (the animation aspects in TF are top of the line after all).

Maybe that's why Nolan has been mentioned as being a fan of this type of work, perhaps that's why Cameron has been on record saying nothing but good things about the style. Perhaps, my sig needs to be read by more people. Why is it such a big deal to everyone what kinda films you enjoy, or tell everyone you enjoy...it's very lame in my honest opinion.

Guess what, I enjoy Mac & Cheese! I know!
It's not quite french gourmet but I really like it, and not just because I'm cheap. The weird thing is I've taken some cooking classes and stuff and yet I still "support bad food." Isn't that insane.

People need to stop acting like what they enjoy (and enjoy talking about) makes them a greater or lesser person, especially on forums. By the way, comedies are almost by definition flawed films if you look at them in certain ways...better be careful not to let anyone around these parts know you enjoy those.

cartoon film thingies eh...thanks I guess.
Art is subjective, it's hard to define a "bad" film.

[Colossal Spoons]

tl:dr

[spider_rob]

Perhaps it takes a foot in the industry to appreciate another group of peoples work (the animation aspects in TF are top of the line after all).

Maybe that's why Nolan has been mentioned as being a fan of this type of work, perhaps that's why Cameron has been on record saying nothing but good things about the style. Perhaps, my sig needs to be read by more people. Why is it such a big deal to everyone what kinda films you enjoy, or tell everyone you enjoy...it's very lame in my honest opinion.

Guess what, I enjoy Mac & Cheese! I know!
It's not quite french gourmet but I really like it, and not just because I'm cheap. The weird thing is I've taken some cooking classes and stuff and yet I still "support bad food." Isn't that insane.

People need to stop acting like what they enjoy (and enjoy talking about) makes them a greater or lesser person, especially on forums. By the way, comedies are almost by definition flawed films if you look at them in certain ways...better be careful not to let anyone around these parts know you enjoy those.

cartoon film thingies eh...thanks I guess.
Art is subjective, it's hard to define a "bad" film.

I wonder if you would support a Bay helmed Superman film, chock full of stupid, needless characters like Transformers. Lois Lane would be some super hot model with zero acting skills, and every scene with her would be filmed like a lingerie commercial. She would exist only to say supportive things to Superman, and never do anything useful herself, except pop up at the end and give Lex a peptalk, tricking him into saving Superman by attacking Darkseid.

Superman would be barely existent in the film, and Clark would be the main character, stumbling around like a buffoon (moreso than Reeve's version and without the charm), and getting into whacky misadventures with random, unneeded characters that contributes zero to the main plot.

Superman would only appear after Lois or Jimmy spend about 20-30 minutes running from enemies, escaping from falling buildings, or some other hazard scene that runs overly long. Superman would swoop in, save their asses, then fly off after saying some noble, or badass line.

BTW, the climax of the movie would be 45 minutes of nonstop, state of the art action, but with Perry, Lois, Jimmy and a random assortment of comic relief characters just running from the main villain. Superman appears towards the end to face off with the final villain, but instead of a climatic final battle, Superman instantly defeats the villain and the world is saved.

Rinse and repeat for sequel.

That's basically what Transformers 2&3 were, but replace Superman with Optimus.

BTW, did any of those directors give a meaningful critique of Bay's work, or basically just say, "He films action well", or "Is a good visual director". Basically just blanket statements of feigning politeness and nothing that describes his work as a whole.

[Rock Sexton]

BTW, did any of those directors give a meaningful critique of Bay's work, or basically just say, "He films action well", or "Is a good visual director". Basically just blanket statements of feigning politeness and nothing that describes his work as a whole.

This.

[Marvin]

I wonder if you would support a Bay helmed Superman film, chock full of stupid, needless characters like Transformers. Lois Lane would be some super hot model with zero acting skills, and every scene with her would be filmed like a lingerie commercial. She would exist only to say supportive things to Superman, and never do anything useful herself, except pop up at the end and give Lex a peptalk, tricking him into saving Superman by attacking Darkseid.

Superman would be barely existent in the film, and Clark would be the main character, stumbling around like a buffoon (moreso than Reeve's version and without the charm), and getting into whacky misadventures with random, unneeded characters that contributes zero to the main plot.

Superman would only appear after Lois or Jimmy spend about 20-30 minutes running from enemies, escaping from falling buildings, or some other hazard scene that runs overly long. Superman would swoop in, save their asses, then fly off after saying some noble, or badass line.

BTW, the climax of the movie would be 45 minutes of nonstop, state of the art action, but with Perry, Lois, Jimmy and a random assortment of comic relief characters just running from the main villain. Superman appears towards the end to face off with the final villain, but instead of a climatic final battle, Superman instantly defeats the villain and the world is saved.

Rinse and repeat for sequel.

That's basically what Transformers 2&3 were, but replace Superman with Optimus.

clever,

What would be even more clever would be comparing the beat/tone/comical work of Donners superman before he makes a superman movie(written by Mario friggon Puzo) to the beat/tone/comical work of his Lethal Weapon movies. (rinse and repeat 3 times for good measure)

Hey why not give Superman an old black, seemingly retired actor as a side kick, call him John Henry (irons) and have him run around like a chicken in spotted boxers for the opening of the movie, then have an acclaimed Asian action star/actor show up and not say a single word but do a lot of fancy kicks and twirls while he and his buds play on numerous negative Asian gang related/refugee stereo types......Hell why not cast Mel Gibson in the lead, I mean this is Richard Donner is it not.

It's called will full intent, for a welcoming and established audience. Superman played as fun action comedy probably wouldn't work as well as TF does. You'd have to ask the producers...they actually set and write off on the tone among other things. But hey, bay is bay so don't let me stop you from ignorant presumptions.

If Todd Phillips directs batman after Nolan, he might cast one of the hangover guys and set it in another Asian country and make another wildly offensive(but not as offensive as bay), and make an action comedy out of the dark knight.:whatever:

To be honest, even if bay didn't bring his Rock game to a superman production, I and a lot of people be way more interested in seeing it than another "well written," "well toned," Bryan Singer character piece.

BTW, did any of those directors give a meaningful critique of Bay's work, or basically just say, "He films action well", or "Is a good visual director". Basically just blanket statements of feigning politeness and nothing that describes his work as a whole.

I can't say, from what I've read they said they like what he does. Take that for what it's worth. Cameron said something about reverse engineering his style and what not. Hey, Bay has said he likes Kubrick, but that was probably just a blanket statement of politeness and nothing describing his work as a whole too. It's hard finding lush quotes in this day and age.

[spider_rob]

Too bad all of Bay's films follow the same tone and stupidity. Transformers 2&3 are basically full on Bay depravity with Transformers added on the side.

I also think it's funny how you never mention Bay's pacing issues, character issues, writing issues, etc. It must only be about the SFX and action for you.

[El Bastardo]

tl:dr
Haha. :woot: Yeah, this.

Art is not subjective, by the way. How much one likes a piece of art is subjective, by its very nature of being an opinion. Art is quite objective, in all its forms in every medium. Good writing vs. bad writing. Good filming vs. bad filming. Good art vs. bad art. But oh, you'll never understand.

I don't know if anyone has trashed Bay's action sequences. I haven't read far enough back in the thread. But I'm not. I'm saying the movie is bad. Why? Because it is.

Bay films good action sequences. They're clean, crisp, lacking any of that very bad-bad-bad "shaky camera syndrome" that was going on for a few years. They're vibrant, energetic. Colorful. Other good stuff. At least most of the time.

But there's the rub, right? This isn't an action sequence. It's a movie. Just because the action sequences are good does not make the movie good. The rest of the movie is quite poor, from writing to direction. Scenery's pretty. I still like most of the cast, other than that weirdly-shaped face of who replaced Megan Fox. It still hits a few moments right, but those are mostly relegated to the few moments we get of Sam with Bumblebee. Those few moments are all that's true to the original movie. The rest of it rings hollow, even more so than Revenge of the Fallen did.

Best part of the movie? Either Sam-'Bee moments, or Sentinel Nimoy spouting a Spock line. :awesome:

[spider_rob]

Haha. :woot: Yeah, this.

Art is not subjective, by the way. How much one likes a piece of art is subjective, by its very nature of being an opinion. Art is quite objective, in all its forms in every medium. Good writing vs. bad writing. Good filming vs. bad filming. Good art vs. bad art. But oh, you'll never understand.

I don't know if anyone has trashed Bay's action sequences. I haven't read far enough back in the thread. But I'm not. I'm saying the movie is bad. Why? Because it is.

Bay films good action sequences. They're clean, crisp, lacking any of that very bad-bad-bad "shaky camera syndrome" that was going on for a few years. They're vibrant, energetic. Colorful. Other good stuff. At least most of the time.

But there's the rub, right? This isn't an action sequence. It's a movie. Just because the action sequences are good does not make the movie good. The rest of the movie is quite poor, from writing to direction. Scenery's pretty. I still like most of the cast, other than that weirdly-shaped face of who replaced Megan Fox. It still hits a few moments right, but those are mostly relegated to the few moments we get of Sam with Bumblebee. Those few moments are all that's true to the original movie. The rest of it rings hollow, even more so than Revenge of the Fallen did.

Best part of the movie? Either Sam-'Bee moments, or Sentinel Nimoy spouting a Spock line. :awesome:

I would even go as far to say that a majority of the action scenes in Transformers do suck. Yes, they're engineered well, but there's no emotion, no sense of danger. Just underdeveloped, trite characters running around avoiding stuff while the cool characters (Autobots) are offscreen.

[Marvin]

Too bad all of Bay's films follow the same tone and stupidity. Transformers 2&3 are basically full on Bay depravity with Transformers added on the side.

sure

I also think it's funny how you never mention Bay's pacing issues, character issues, writing issues, etc. It must only be about the SFX and action for you.

Actually I mentioned just about all of those aspects in my short review...not so much his writing issues, considering the presence of a unionized writer on all films(even bays). But even if it was all about SFX for me, I'd be proud to say so, like I said before, I don't like films for socially acceptable reasons, I just like them. Bays films are entertaining for tons or reasons, and that's not just my opinion.(link to current box office charts and RT audience score)

If I go to a stand up comedy show, I don't care if it's not as insightful as lecture on world literature. It matters that I'm entertained. What I find silly is people telling other people not to like that same 2 hr stand up because it isn't in the same vain as my history prof's "stand up." Some films seek to entertain by way of "Story telling" others seek to do different things.

Film and Story.
Some stand up is actually about story telling, some about props, others about other things. Just like some modern art is about principles established during the renaissance while other modern art is literally finger painting. Be your person, it's less stressful :cwink:

[jaganar]

1. dont u guys dare make fun of LATINO HEAT MEGATRON (and his poncho of doooooooooooom).

2. DEEP WANG was epic .

3. NO Anthony Anderson WTH, they give a brotha a government job in BAY 1 only to make him not appear in the sequels ? wtf.

4. the fact that OCRI did a crappy job renaming the PREDACONS (rumblers or whatever >__>) in the highway scene (RAZORCLAW/RAMPAGE/HEADSTRONG) then the robot chicken who we all know is DIVEBOMB because Lazerbeak was a sniper/espionage expert at best. not a solo act.

i am glad to have 4 of the predacons in this , who were atleast true to the PACK mentality which is more than i can say for TITANIUM NUTS and his pyramid assault in BAY2.

5. how can any one say a bad word about John .. he is a batspit crazy actor , id buy it if he played a older HEATH-joker in a final batman movie.

really he OWNED sam with that look he shot him "NYUKAH PLEASE " expression during the interview :woot:


http://www.flicksandbits.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Transformers-DarkoftheMoon-FilmStill-JohnMalkovich-ShiaLaBeouf.jpg

6. bay did film the scenes with BUCKTOOF AND GOMER (the twins) but he cut them from the final version. just look at http://collider.com/transformers-3-twins-skids-mudflap-michael-bay/91104/ Where Michael Bay Will Bet You $25,000 That the Twins Aren’t in TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON

7. NO ONE brought this up yet so ill do it : IN 4 YEARS there have been a fingerfull of autobots arriving on earth YET when the CONs conquer the world they have small jets and zepplins .

cut to the end of the movie you really expect us to believe 9 autos FEND OFF an entire INVASION ?
also the Cons had a strong military force and when the control was destroyed everything disintergrated ? even those on Earth WHAT THE FRAK ??
this is TWILIGHT (CRAPPY BEYOND WORDS) writing at best :doh:

8. in the poster i laugh my @ss off because sam has a panic look on his face like Prime is gonna do Tenatcle stuff to him

http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-movie-poster-04.jpg


ok im Done :woot::woot:

[Rock Sexton]

Jag please post more. Seriously. I'm laughing hysterically.

[Marvin]

Haha. :woot: Yeah, this.

Art is not subjective, by the way. How much one likes a piece of art is subjective, by its very nature of being an opinion. Art is quite objective, in all its forms in every medium. Good writing vs. bad writing. Good filming vs. bad filming. Good art vs. bad art. But oh, you'll never understand.



All that action sequence talk, I'll personally avoid. Personally I think if the action sucks that I'm very, very curious what people are going in droves to see the film for...surely not the "writing"

Art is not subjective?
I'd disagree. Perspective, balance, composition, all these things can be criticized and analyzed but their all for nothing in the wake of intent. What is intent...

Someone says the universe is beautiful and someone else says it has no story, no composition(does it?)...someone else says it's a beautiful piece of mindless art. These same three people happen upon a bed of roses, one says it's beautiful, the other says it needs more green to balance it out, the third says according to who? The second guy says according to the rules?

rules...
This goes way beyond one's subjective tastes, who says the bed of flowers needs more green before it becomes balanced, the guy who designed the colour wheel and made green complimentary to red?

Self imposed social rules, meant to control the individual if you ask me. I heard all about them in animation school. Especially when it came down to analyzing the films of Norman Mclaren on Monday and Bicycle thieves on Tuesday and Shrek on Wednesday. Anyone that says any from of art is not subjective is misinformed if you ask me.

[jaganar]

damint kitty :woot: im tryin to be serious:oldrazz:

at this point im wondering with all the hate of BAYFORMERS how come you guys havent wondered if a THIS AINT TF would be better written

[Donut]

Its been a week since I have seen this & I am still trying to figure this out. The Deceptions knew of Sentinel being on Earths moon so they get there before the U.S. does & then take & hide a bunch of Pillars on Earth. But I am guessing this was Megatron doing this on his own. Then he goes to Earth looking for the Allspark after hiding the Pillars but he ends up getting frozen. If Megatron & Sentinel made the deal with each other before Sentinel left Cybertron then why shoot at his ship in the intro ? Unless that was just a ruse to make sure that the Autobots did not know of Sentinels betrayal & Sentinel & Megatron somehow knew that Sentinel would crash land on Earths Moon ? They should have explained that bit a little better

[Marvin]

1. dont u guys dare make fun of LATINO HEAT MEGATRON (and his poncho of doooooooooooom).

7. NO ONE brought this up yet so ill do it : IN 4 YEARS there have been a fingerfull of autobots arriving on earth YET when the CONs conquer the world they have small jets and zepplins .

cut to the end of the movie you really expect us to believe 9 autos FEND OFF an entire INVASION ?
also the Cons had a strong military force and when the control was destroyed everything disintergrated ? even those on Earth WHAT THE FRAK ??
this is TWILIGHT (CRAPPY BEYOND WORDS) writing at best :doh:


Last I heard autobots lost the war is this universe. In the first film Optimus makes a call to any surviving auto's ones to come to earth.
People probably don't bring things up for a reason.

As for a small disadvantaged unit defeating a larger more advanced invading force, um...
Hollywood kinda runs on this theory...has been for years...probably started when the Red Soc's defeated the Yankees few dozen years ago...but you're right it pretty stupid. I'd actually much prefer if the larger force defeated the smaller one for once. Damn You Bay.

[jaganar]

Its been a week since I have seen this & I am still trying to figure this out. The Deceptions knew of Sentinel being on Earths moon so they get there before the U.S. does & then take & hide a bunch of Pillars on Earth. But I am guessing this was Megatron doing this on his own. Then he goes to Earth looking for the Allspark after hiding the Pillars but he ends up getting frozen. If Megatron & Sentinel made the deal with each other before Sentinel left Cybertron then why shoot at his ship in the intro ? Unless that was just a ruse to make sure that the Autobots did not know of Sentinels betrayal & Sentinel & Megatron somehow knew that Sentinel would crash land on Earths Moon ? They should have explained that bit a little better

id like to add to this the 67 COSMONAUT camera which had no signs of impact and 68 camera which had the pillars impact on the moon ,does this incorporate TRANSWARP TECH from beastwars ? since MEGATRON and SENTINEL left Cyberton the same time (thousands of years ago as confirmed in BAY 1 and BAY-prequel comics)

2. i think if M followed SENTINEL without firing a shot it would have looked super suspicious since they had the agreement before the shuttle launch (read the prequel COMIC to 1 its from BB'S point of view) where he sees S's shuttle launch and no MEGZ in sight till the final panels.

i think the flashback is from OPTIMUS'S Pov and it was his worst fear with the ship being destroyed.

3. my only question is since cybertron is the Technological version of MOGO/EGO how come the planet didnt SIMPLY reformat the bodies of the dead bots ?? because as far advanced as they were i think they would have beeb able to transfer and contain some of the allspark energy :huh: to ensure the survival of the race (this would explain why FALLEN'S ship still had the nurseries to me atleast)

[El Bastardo]

I would even go as far to say that a majority of the action scenes in Transformers do suck. Yes, they're engineered well, but there's no emotion, no sense of danger. Just underdeveloped, trite characters running around avoiding stuff while the cool characters (Autobots) are offscreen.
This is certainly a prevalent point for Dark of the Moon, in which the Autobots, most of the time, are a bunch of ineffectual nipples.

[Thundercrack85]

Seeing Optimus tangled really killed the atmosphere.

Though, it's true that the characters are so underdeveloped you really couldn't care less if they died. Let us all take a moment to remember Jazz and possibly Arcee.

[El Bastardo]

Art is not subjective?
I'd disagree. Perspective, balance, composition, all these things can be criticized and analyzed but their all for nothing in the wake of intent. What is intent...
Yeah? Good for you. Disagree all you want - then go and study the arts, literature, and analysis and learn why you're wrong.

Your musings about intent might be all well and good, but they have nothing to do with objectivity, or even your attempted point that art is actually subjective. Intent matters nothing at all in any analysis, outside of asking the following question for d-baggery's sake: "Did the maker/s intend to make a piece of ****?"

I'm sure Bay intends to make pieces of quality art - or, at the least, he intends to make exciting blockbusters that wow and woo and awe his audience - but he generally does not, in the first case, and definitely has not with this movie. It is not a good movie.

Here's a very easy one: Bad Santa vs. Bad Teacher. Or do you contend that the makers of Bad Teacher had the intent of creating an inferior version of Bad Santa with none of the charm, humor, character growth? (Or, see aforementioned question: "Did the maker/s intend to make a piece of ****?") Because, if so, boy, they succeeded admirably, and guess what? Yep. Bad movie.

Geez, it really isn't hard to grasp.

[Spider-Man Luvr28]

The opening ass shot of Carly. Made me kind of embarrassed to be seeing the movie.

I had quite a few problems with her. The opening ass shot was definitely one of them because I was like "Um...okay..." and then the fact that throughout the whole film, she didn't have one single scratch on her face or anywhere else for that matter even after everyone survived a collapsing building ( :whatever: ) and everything else, meanwhile Sam's all banged up.

And there was this other random shot of her where she was just standing there on top of the rubble & they just put the camera to her.... :doh: & the speech she gave to Megatron as others have mentioned was just ridiculous.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing her acting ability or anything, because she was good, but it was just those moments with her that made me go :facepalm:. Heck even if it had been Fox I still would've said the same thing.

Josh Duhamel though.... :hrt::hrt:

[El Bastardo]

If I was Megatron, I would have pinched her head so her facial features looked even more squished-together.

[Spider-Man Luvr28]

If I was Megatron, I would have pinched her head so her facial features looked even more squished-together.

:funny:

[Thundercrack85]

What was Megatron even doing when she gave that speech? It seemed like he was literally just sitting there...

[El Bastardo]

Hiding. And pouting.

[Marvin]

Yeah? Good for you. Disagree all you want - then go and study the arts, literature, and analysis and learn why you're wrong.

Your musings about intent might be all well and good, but they have nothing to do with objectivity, or even your attempted point that art is actually subjective. Intent matters nothing at all in any analysis, outside of asking the following question for d-baggery's sake: "Did the maker/s intend to make a piece of ****?"

I'm sure Bay intends to make pieces of quality art - or, at the least, he intends to make exciting blockbusters that wow and woo and awe his audience - but he generally does not, in the first case, and definitely has not with this movie. It is not a good movie.

Here's a very easy one: Bad Santa vs. Bad Teacher. Or do you contend that the makers of Bad Teacher had the intent of creating an inferior version of Bad Santa with none of the charm, humor, character growth? (Or, see aforementioned question: "Did the maker/s intend to make a piece of ****?") Because, if so, boy, they succeeded admirably, and guess what? Yep. Bad movie.

Geez, it really isn't hard to grasp.

Geez, I wonder if I punctuate my points with a resounding "Geez" that maybe they too will finally hit home:whatever:.

I for one find it hard to believe that these so called critics even consider Bad Santa a good film, then again considering how "objective" all this is, I'd be a hypocrite to start questioning them now.

While we're on the topic of Santa, art and willful intent. What happens when some schmucks start running around the film boards telling everyone to hate a somewhat cult classic titled bad Santa because it's a silly an offensive, low denomination geared "commentary" on the role the character that Santa Clause has on society, kids, and a mans struggle with identity. They go one to proclaim that you instead watch George Seaton's 1947 classic Miracle on 34th street to see the material handled in a far greater more tasteful and down right more artistic fashion...objectively speaking of course...wouldn't that be something.

Bad Santa is a Bad Movie...at least when compared to you know a real filmmakers take on the material. But hey, perhaps Terry Zwigoff intent wasn't to make a "good film"

Bay intends to do what he does and he does it well most of the time. When the audience score is in the 90 percentile and the film is en-route to box office glory, I'd say the producers intent to success ratio are probably on point.

As far as artistic analysis, I think it's shaky at best, that Marla Olmstead documentary a few years back pretty much stomped all over the argument and that wasn't even it's intent.

[El Bastardo]

Wow. Yep. At some point I just have to stop trying to educate people.

I'm with Spoons: tl;dr.

Good luck with your illusions, sir. :facepalm:

[Marvin]

Wow. Yep. At some point I just have to stop trying to educate people.

I'm with Spoons: tl;dr.

Good luck with your illusions, sir. :facepalm:

how eloquent.
hows about you focus on "educating" yourself, you might find more success.

The concept of a bad film isn't lost on me, but everyone and their mother knows the hate for bayformers starts with it's intent before anything else.

Why are there so many humans anyways:whatever:
Why is John Turturro playing a comedic character(for the first time in his career)?
I myself have had many problems with the films execution, but never with it's intent.

peace

[Raiden]

1. Carly lecturing to Megatron, who even in its down-trollen state shouldn't have enough listened to a human and even gotten pursuaded by her. I'm still surprised at just how pathetic Megatron has become during the course of these three films.

2. Ken Jeong.

3. Bumblebee's peril. Bay's decision to slow-down the execution scene just made it more obvious.

4. Optimus Prime taking out Megatron with just one arm in 2 seconds after a lengthy battle against Sentinel Prime. Even with half a face Megatron shouldn't be this weak.

5. Sam. Even after being out-of-work, he's got a superhot girlfriend and lived in a big apartment. Yeah, you can really feel sorry for him. /sarcasm

[Marvin]

4. Optimus Prime taking out Megatron with just one arm in 2 seconds after a lengthy battle against Sentinel Prime. Even with half a face Megatron shouldn't be this weak.

Have you seen the cartoons?


5. Sam. Even after being out-of-work, he's got a superhot girlfriend and lived in a big apartment. Yeah, you can really feel sorry for him. /sarcasm

And here is my personal gripe of intent in action.

I'd understand if one said the writing didn't give Shia enough attention to have us "feel sorry for him," though I'm not sure they ever wanted us to be crying for his blight. But I've heard this numerous times now, how can someone in such a great (social) position be down, and why should it matter to us?

The Kings Speech just won the Oscar in spite of this very crux. Imagine a critique about how stupid it is to feel sorry for a European king dealing with a bad social or personal time of his life? He's a King! Hey, it's fine if it bothered you, me, myself, I could relate fully. I thought it was rather poignant and a brief commentary on the state U.S. employment at this time in history.

[spider_rob]

Have you seen the cartoons?



And here is my personal gripe of intent in action.

I'd understand if one said the writing didn't give Shia enough attention to have us "feel sorry for him," though I'm not sure they ever wanted us to be crying for his blight. But I've heard this numerous times now, how can someone in such a great (social) position be down, and why should it matter to us?

The Kings Speech just won the Oscar in spite of this very crux. Imagine a critique about how stupid it is to feel sorry for a European king dealing with a bad social or personal time of his life? He's a King! Hey, it's fine if it bothered you, me, myself, I could relate fully. I thought it was rather poignant and a brief commentary on the state U.S. employment at this time in history.

LOL, Marvin is comparing Transformers to King's Speech!

BTW, according to the first movie, Megatron can easily kick Optimus's ass. Are you going to by the cartoon continuity or the movie's?

[J.Howlett]

The whole plot made me sigh. It just doesn't fit with the mythology set forth in the first two films.

Sentinel Prime crashes on the Moon in 1961, having made an alliance with Megatron. How the hell does that happen if Megatron is at the Hoover Dame, frozen in ice at the time?

If you start thinking about this film in relation to the first two, your brain starts to hurt.

Honestly, Optimus giving Sentinel Prime the Matrix of Leadership is what did it for me...considering Prime blew it to hell at the end of the second film....

[Marvin]

LOL, Marvin is comparing Transformers to King's Speech!

BTW, according to the first movie, Megatron can easily kick Optimus's ass. Are you going to by the cartoon continuity or the movie's?

lol I know right
Figure if I go for the top, the complaint would look even more ridiculous.

I'm going by the cartoon. One day optimus can clean house the next he's taken down by starscream or whomever. This is even more present in beastwars. When a new character shows up he's all powerful, then he's a joke for the rest of the season. (optimal optimus)
Honestly all kids shows work this way, Especially power rangers

The whole plot made me sigh. It just doesn't fit with the mythology set forth in the first two films.

Sentinel Prime crashes on the Moon in 1961, having made an alliance with Megatron. How the hell does that happen if Megatron is at the Hoover Dame, frozen in ice at the time?

If you start thinking about this film in relation to the first two, your brain starts to hurt.

Honestly, Optimus giving Sentinel Prime the Matrix of Leadership is what did it for me...considering Prime blew it to hell at the end of the second film....

The former compliant is obviously a retcon, if you can't get past that, no one can blame you.

As for the latter
I wasn't aware that the matrix could be destroyed.

[spider_rob]

lol I know right:whatever:

I'm going by the cartoon. One day optimus can clean house the next he's taken down by starscream or whomever. This is even more present in beastwars. When a new character shows up he's all powerful, then he's a joke for the rest of the season. (optimal optimus)
Honestly all kids shows work this way, Especially power rangers.

Yeah, I guess it makes sense to equate Bay's writing methods to those of a children's cartoon.

But, Spider_rob, Transformers is based on a kid's cartoon so it fits!

Yeah, I don't remember waking up on Saturday to ghetto robots, close ups of supermodel asses, implied usage of the F word, and other depravity.

[Raiden]

Have you seen the cartoons?

Yes, I've seen G1, Beast Wars, and other Japan-exclusive shows like Headmaster and Victory. But Bayformers =/= TF cartoons. And Megatron went from kicking Optimus Prime's ass all over the place after coming out of deep freeze in TF1 to getting owned by him in less than a minute when Prime only had one good arm in TF3? And I thought the fact that Megatron had to team up with Blackout and Starscream in ROTF to beat Prime in ROTF was ridiculous.



And here is my personal gripe of intent in action.

I'd understand if one said the writing didn't give Shia enough attention to have us "feel sorry for him," though I'm not sure they ever wanted us to be crying for his blight. But I've heard this numerous times now, how can someone in such a great (social) position be down, and why should it matter to us?

The Kings Speech just won the Oscar in spite of this very crux. Imagine a critique about how stupid it is to feel sorry for a European king dealing with a bad social or personal time of his life? He's a King! Hey, it's fine if it bothered you, me, myself, I could relate fully. I thought it was rather poignant and a brief commentary on the state U.S. employment at this time in history.

Not sure how Sam's situation can be comparable with King's Speech. Btw, for all Sam's lamentation about his poor substitute of a car, I guess not everyone can get used to ordinary cars after driving a freakin' Transformer for so many years.

[Thundercrack85]

The character of Sam was fairly irrelevant to the plot. At least in the second movie, he was doing something important. Here he's just present for the sake of being present.

[spider_rob]

The character of Sam was fairly irrelevant to the plot. At least in the second movie, he was doing something important. Here he's just present for the sake of being present.

Hey, gotta give those failures in life with really hot girlfriends and badass transforming sportscars someone to relate to!

[Marvin]

Yeah, I guess it makes sense to equate Bay's writing methods to those of a children's cartoon.

But, Spider_rob, Transformers is based on a kid's cartoon so it fits!

Yeah, I don't remember waking up on Saturday to ghetto robots, close ups of supermodel asses, implied usage of the F word, and other depravity.

why are we doing that argument now?
All I said was that if people didn't have a problem with character strength consistency in the cartoon, why should they have one now?

...oh that's right because cartoons didn't have an ass hole director.

But now that you bring it up;
I do remember waking up on Saturday mornings to see jive talking robots, mixed with hick and Asian and even south Bronx talking robots doing and saying silly, stereotypical things. I remember naked bi-peds running all over the place, more ass shots than I can count to be honest. I remember robot farts and other bodily functions.
I don't ever remember hearing the F word in the cartoons though, you've gotta hand it to bay on that one, I know you can only drop the F-bomb once in a pg13 film and he really pushed the envelope on that....damn does the man not know the meaning of restraint. Now he's gone an offended everyone:whatever:

Yes, I've seen G1, Beast Wars, and other Japan-exclusive shows like Headmaster and Victory. But Bayformers =/= TF cartoons. And Megatron went from kicking Optimus Prime's ass all over the place after coming out of deep freeze in TF1 to getting owned by him in less than a minute when Prime only had one good arm in TF3? And I thought the fact that Megatron had to team up with Blackout and Starscream in ROTF to beat Prime in ROTF was ridiculous.

I thought it was a cool fight, I thought all fans did.
Someone told me they just figured the optimus of old wouldn't cut loose in a city full of people. Whereas in the forest he was especially driven based on principle. As for what happened in TF3.
Megatron is a walking corpse, his own crew probably doesn't even fear him anymore.

Not sure how Sam's situation can be comparable with King's Speech. Btw, for all Sam's lamentation about his poor substitute of a car, I guess not everyone can get used to ordinary cars after driving a freakin' Transformer for so many years.

simple, just because he's "rich" doesn't mean he can't have troubles.
ergo the king George comparison.

[J.Howlett]

Marvin,

There's really no rules to the Matrix except that it couldn't be found. It is earned. That's it. They never say it can't be physically destroyed.

Yeah, it technically was a sock of dust at one point before it became one again but still, Prime destroyed the Sun Harvester with the Matrix inside.

To me, it's done with and unimportant because the Autobots and Decepticons pretty much existed fine without the thing so it's not really relevant to their survival.

And yeah, I can't get past the retconned stuff in film. I mean, Prime's voice over can't even established how long they've been on Earth in relation to the last film. I couldn't even believe that piece of dialogue made it to the final film ("A year after our arrival?" WTF? How about four years after our arrival...)

[Raiden]

why are we doing that argument now?
All I said was that if people didn't have a problem with character strength consistency in the cartoon, why should they have one now?

...oh that's right because cartoons didn't have an ass hole director.

But now that you bring it up;
I do remember waking up on Saturday mornings to see jive talking robots, mixed with hick and Asian and even south Bronx talking robots doing and saying silly, stereotypical things. I remember naked bi-peds running all over the place, more ass shots than I can count to be honest. I remember robot farts and other bodily functions.
I don't ever remember hearing the F word in the cartoons though, you've gotta hand it to bay on that one, I know you can only drop the F-bomb once in a pg13 film and he really pushed the envelope on that....damn does the man not know the meaning of restraint. Now he's gone an offended everyone:whatever:

Yes, character consistency don't always exist in cartoons, comics, and other long-running storytelling medium, but obviously movies are a different matter and just because we accept Spider-man having clones and made a deal with the devil and wipe everyone's memories of his revelation as Spider-man, doesn't mean we'd accept it in the movies. We won't have defended movies like X3 and Batman & Robin by pointing out that in their long history in the comics, those characters have done much sillier things to justify the films' lack of quality. I don't think Transformers should get a free pass, either.

I thought it was a cool fight, I thought all fans did.
Someone told me they just figured the optimus of old wouldn't cut loose in a city full of people. Whereas in the forest he was especially driven based on principle. As for what happened in TF3.
Megatron is a walking corpse, his own crew probably doesn't even fear him anymore.

I don't understand why Megatron would become so pathetic in TF3, just because he lost in TF2 and got battle wounds to show for. He's a freakin' ROBOT, he can be repaired or even augmented. And Megatron basically were useless in TF3 until the final fight, when he decided to insert himself into the battle after Carly touched a nerve with a few choiced words. Basically, he can be written out of the movie and then showed up in the last 5 minute, and no one would've noticed.

simple, just because he's "rich" doesn't mean he can't have troubles.
ergo the king George comparison.

I just think if you don't really care about the character, you won't care about their troubles, either, esp, if he was sleeping with a Victoria's Secret model.

[Marvin]

Marvin,

There's really no rules to the Matrix except that it couldn't be found. It is earned. That's it. They never say it can't be physically destroyed.

Yeah, it technically was a sock of dust at one point before it became one again but still, Prime destroyed the Sun Harvester with the Matrix inside.



Which is why it's such a non issue in my humble opinion.

[Marvin]

Yes, character consistency don't always exist in cartoons, comics, and other long-running storytelling medium, but obviously movies are a different matter and just because we accept Spider-man having clones and made a devil with the devil and wipe everyone's memories of his revelation as Spider-man, doesn't mean we'd accept it in the movies. We won't have defended movies like X3 and Batman & Robin by pointing out that in their long history in the comics, those characters have done much sillier things to justify the films' lack of quality. I don't think Transformers should get a free pass, either.

All understandable, but the issue of someone being more or less effective in a fight based on circumstance is hardly a stretch. Superman almost always works on this principle.

Kryptonite renders him useless, then it just stuns him, then depending on if lois needs him or not, it has no effect. Then if he's mad he can beat up doomsday, then depending on if it's wednesday he can't. It's all circumstantial if even that. What remains consistent is that Lex Luthor isn't beating him in a foot race. But weather or not he can go toe to toe with darksied really depends on the day of the week and his state of mind.

Optimus probably has it in him to take out the entire con squad if his back is against the wall, but he could just as easily be taken out by a well placed missile. It's always been that way, why complain now?

Batman maybe be the top pure martial artist in the DCU, but that doesn't mean he can't be put down by 4 thugs on an off day. I think Optimus' prowess was best represented in part 3. This isn't the same issue as giving a free pass to spider clones.

I don't understand why Megatron would become so pathetic in TF3, just because he lost in TF2 and got battle wounds to show for. He's a freakin' ROBOT, he can be repaired or even augmented. And Megatron basically were useless in TF3 until the final fight, when he decided to insert himself into the battle after Carly touched a nerve with a few choiced words. Basically, he can be written out of the movie and then showed up in the last 5 minute, and no one would've noticed.

Megatron is not only crippled, he's mentally and spiritually defeated. Gone is the Sovereign that tore Jazz in two whilst perched on a building top. I think it's interesting...I can understand it bothering fans.

Secondly, not all injuries can be fixed, especially when your on the run and especially when you don't have a medic bot around. Take a look at bee's voice.

[Raiden]

Secondly, not all injuries can be fixed, especially when your on the run and especially when you don't have a medic bot around. Take a look at bee's voice.

Well, Bumblebee is around Ratchet and they still couldn't fix his voice box. Okay, it was fixed at the end of TF1, but Bay decided to recon it so he can be more "lovable" this way. But I digressed.

[Marvin]

Well, Bumblebee is around Ratchet and they still couldn't fix his voice box. Okay, it was fixed at the end of TF1, but Bay decided to recon it so he can be more "lovable" this way. But I digressed.

That's one thing I've never believed to be bay's choice alone.
No chance.

[jacobed]

I loved Sam in this movie, it allowed Shia to really show that he has some great range as an actor. I only have two scenes that I thought uh really and that was when Frances Mcdormand put on those weird looking shoes and when Ken Jeoung pulled out the two guns. Both were too dumb and too unneccessary. Everything else I was fine with.

[El Bastardo]

Optimus got stuck upside-down in crane wire despite having bladed weaponry he could pull forth to cut himself free.

Clearly, Optimus in Dark of the Moon is an ***clown.

Oh, wait, that was probably the intent of the filmmaker and writers, not an unforeseen consequence like making a craptastic movie.

[Marvin]

Optimus got stuck upside-down in crane wire despite having bladed weaponry he could pull forth to cut himself free.

Clearly, Optimus in Dark of the Moon is an ***clown.

Oh, wait, that was probably the intent of the filmmaker and writers, not an unforeseen consequence like making a craptastic movie.

your point, exactly?

[Rock Sexton]

Well, Bumblebee is around Ratchet and they still couldn't fix his voice box. Okay, it was fixed at the end of TF1, but Bay decided to recon it so he can be more "lovable" this way. But I digressed.

What makes no sense is when he finally spoke it was so enchanting .... I would've preferred that voice over the stupid cut and paste transmissions.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Two scenes

1) Deep wang, of course.

2) The Wreckers FINALLY coming to rescue Optimus from...a bunch of cables he was caught in? C'mon that makes him the Autobot equivalent of a fly or some stupid crap. What a lame epic fail getting caught in the cables was.

[El Bastardo]

Two scenes

1) Deep wang, of course.

2) The Wreckers FINALLY coming to rescue Optimus from...a bunch of cables he was caught in? C'mon that makes him the Autobot equivalent of a fly or some stupid crap. What a lame epic fail getting caught in the cables was.
:up:

[Greenknight1138]

Coming from a guy that REALLY liked TF 3, one scene that I groaned at was the scene where Carly looks up the car that Dylan got her. It was probably the worst product placement in the ENTIRE series, even worse than the Mtn Dew and Xbox 360 robots. It really was like "Dylan got me a car, it's called the fill in blank, here's the website, here's a montage, back to the plot!". I guess another thing was how completely useless the Wreckers were.

[Raiden]

What makes no sense is when he finally spoke it was so enchanting .... I would've preferred that voice over the stupid cut and paste transmissions.

I did notice that they put a line of two of Spock from the Wrath of Khan movie via Bee's voice box (and Nimoy is, obviously, voice of Sentinel Prime).

[moviedoors]

Perhaps it takes a foot in the industry to appreciate another group of peoples work (the animation aspects in TF are top of the line after all).

Maybe that's why Nolan has been mentioned as being a fan of this type of work, perhaps that's why Cameron has been on record saying nothing but good things about the style. Perhaps, my sig needs to be read by more people. Why is it such a big deal to everyone what kinda films you enjoy, or tell everyone you enjoy...it's very lame in my honest opinion.

Guess what, I enjoy Mac & Cheese! I know!
It's not quite french gourmet but I really like it, and not just because I'm cheap. The weird thing is I've taken some cooking classes and stuff and yet I still "support bad food." Isn't that insane.

People need to stop acting like what they enjoy (and enjoy talking about) makes them a greater or lesser person, especially on forums. By the way, comedies are almost by definition flawed films if you look at them in certain ways...better be careful not to let anyone around these parts know you enjoy those.

cartoon film thingies eh...thanks I guess.
Art is subjective, it's hard to define a "bad" film.
Wow, I couldn't disagree with your sig more. I can't think of single movie that I thought played worse in the theater. If it sucked in theater, it certainly sucks at home too. But I literally can't think of one movie that isn't already bad that wouldn't play better on the big screen with an appreciative audience.

[moviedoors]

you're point, exactly?

He thought Optimus Prime was ineffectual in the movie? Seems pretty obvious to me.

[Marvin]

He thought Optimus Prime was ineffectual in the movie? Seems pretty obvious to me.

I was referring actually, to the blanket statement he seemingly closed with.

Considering the title of this thread, I'm not sure why more people aren't mentioning said scene. However to say Optimus was ineffectual during the movie would be akin to the same out cry that was generated after the first movie, later giving the filmmaker incentive to "over power" the character in the opinion of many. Really take into consideration what Optimus was seen to do in this film and re-evaluate your conclusion.

As for the scene in question. It bothered my date as well. As a fan I can't see how such a thing doesn't bother you, but as a movie goer it just comes with the territory. Sometimes the hero ends up in a bind that could go either way. With bayformers, this of this nature tend to backfire on epic proportions.

Why it doesn't bother me (personally)
-Optimus isn't a natural flyer(I doubt the same would happen to star scream
-Construction/building cables of that nature can hold a lot more than the weight of a truck, wrecking balls come to mind(sorry if I offend anyone with that word)
-Optimus has on a lot of extra tech, enabling his movement(on his back and front, and his wings are wrapped, it's not a simple jet back he's wearing.
-The cables are wrapped around his arms and legs effectively crucifying him.

There's a few more points that I brought up at the time that are escaping me at the moment. Sure it's ironic that he has super heating blades that can possibly cut through steel cables, but that's all for nothing giving the nature of the cables. For example what good are adamantium claws if you're wrists are crucified? Like I said I don't care if it made people go "uhhh really?"
I do however care when people tie such a thing to blanket statements like the one you referenced. Me personally, I think it could have been handled better, I also think shockwave and SS should have been pressed the attack on him at that moment and the wreckers could/should really have saved the day. The execution of several things could have been better but like I said before, the intent (optimus incapacitated) is fine by me. I have a feeling a lot of people just hate the idea.

Again, it's easy to say why didn't he cut himself free, the thing is, it's just as easy to say the opposite. Given this is Bayformers, why even bother right.

Moreover, this is hardly the first time a hero has been circumstantially ineffective where he should have been otherwise. Batman, Spiderman, Ironman, Superman...it happens everywhere and all the time.

[Nathan]

Here's the thing though. Not all of his arms were caught up in the wires. He was actually trying to free himself with his left arm. But apparently completely forgot that he has blades in his arms.

[Marvin]

I'd have to see the scene again but that was the impression I got, plus I wasn't aware prime had blade on both arms in this movie, I could be wrong but I always seen him with a shield or gun in the other arm.

[El Bastardo]

He had a sword and an axe, both of which he was able to produce at points in the movie (in the case of the blade, also in Revenge of the Fallen and, I believe, the first movie) either from his arm or from somewhere on his back out of nowhere, kind of like the old days of video games where you could run around with no weapon showing and then POOF, weapon.

I'm pretty sure he could manage that upside-down.

Also, I made no blanket statement, thank you very much. Do you know what a blanket statement is? No, I made just a statement - a statement designed to mock.

Also, ineffective is fine, given situation and context. Laughably ineffective to the point where it becomes character development throughout the movie is not fine.

[Marvin]

He had a sword and an axe, both of which he was able to produce at points in the movie (in the case of the blade, also in Revenge of the Fallen and, I believe, the first movie) either from his arm or from somewhere on his back out of nowhere, kind of like the old days of video games where you could run around with no weapon showing and then POOF, weapon.

I'm pretty sure he could manage that upside-down.

I remember he had a bunch of gear in his trailer, I don't remember the axe coming out of his arm. I just recall the single sabre in this film. As scene in the super bowl spot.

being pretty sure he could manage something is pretty far removed from validating a statement about intent to make craptastic films...but that's (apparently) just me.

Also, I made no blanket statement, thank you very much. Do you know what a blanket statement is? No, I made just a statement - a statement designed to mock.

Also, ineffective is fine, given situation and context. Laughably ineffective to the point where it becomes character development throughout the movie is not fine.

I assumed it meant a generalization with little evidence. But I should have known that it was simply to mock, hard to take anything seriously when bay's involved.

I'm curious how you've come to this ineffective:cwink: conclusion. Optimus did the best he could with what he had and very much in line with his source material. This isn't Chris Nolans batman we're talking about here, Optimus is actually like he's always been though some would say he may need some more pacifism in his language.

[El Bastardo]

I never stated the axe came out of his arm. Given, I didn't differentiate, but I figured anyone who'd seen the movie would know themselves.

He did have gear in his trailer, which he had recovered by that point and was where he got the fly-tech from (off-screen). But regardless, we never see the axe on him until he pulls it out of nowhere from his back once he faces off against Sentinel Prime. As such, we can establish that he has access to it in the finale of the film.

Regardless, he had two arm blades in Revenge of the Fallen, one for each. Oh, maybe he lost that power-up when he died, like when Mario respawns as a midget.

This is discounting the physics of the situation, any and all. Momentum, size, weight, thrashing, not to mention the sheer size of the blade that he could have popped from the right arm and should have been able to pop from his left arm (but that's RotF, so I won't make it a sticking point).

Optimus is not how he's always been. The Autobots in the third movie are laugh-out-loud idiots, though I'll make an exception to that statement in the case of Bumblebee, who still comes off as deadly. Optimus only shines when he auto-kills Megatron at the end, like something out of Dragon Ball Z where the hero finally wins the battle because he's supposed to. Anywhere else in the movie, Prime and the Autobots (again, with the exception of Bumblebee) are ineffective and inept in battle when compared to the first - notably Ironhide and Ratchet warding off Starscream and the attack against whoever Decepticon-Tank was, and Prime vs. Bonecrusher and Megatron - and even the second movie - where Prime shined in general, and the rest of the Autobots were involved in the big siege at the end.

I have no gripe with Prime being evenly-matched or over-matched, as was the case in different situations in the first two movies. My gripe comes from him and the Autobots being ineffective and inept to the point of both being accurate character descriptors in the case of the third movie. My other gripe is we have no way of knowing or understanding as a viewing audience that Sentinel Prime is supposed to be more powerful than Optimus, and the only action we see of him prior to the finale is a surprise attack on Ironhide with acid rounds or some unexplained whatever, and then a big temper-tantrum on the Nest hangar.

Seriously, how is it hard to see the difference between that and the instances we have in the first two movies? There's a difference between ineffective/inept and over-matched. Megatron is built as a legitimate threat and recognized by the Autobots with fear by the time he's flying around in the first movie. Come the second movie, when Prime is over-matched he's fighting off three enemies simultaneously.

And please, get off your high-horse thinking it's all about Bay. I don't give a rat's *** about Bay. The first movie is a fine film, which he directed.

[TheZink]

This is a pretty awesome breakdown of some of the issues:
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4281/20110711flowchart.png


Also, the entire setup of the movie is heavily flawed.

1) We, the USA, have NEVER landed on the "Dark Side" of the Moon. The time of radio silence is when the orbiter is circling the far side of the Moon. EVERY landing from the US and other nations (manned and unmanned) have been on the "front side" of the moon.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Moon_landing_sites.svg/512px-Moon_landing_sites.svg.png
Why? Communication. We don't have geosync satellites around the moon that would allow for constant communication no matter the location. To argue they could have lifted out and re-landed on the moon is beyond preposterous.

Bay is terrible when it comes to actual space travel. He tremendously screwed the pooch on Armageddon (Space Shuttle taking off like a plan on the asteroid??!?!?!) and has done so again here.

[Colossal Spoons]

And please, get off your high-horse thinking it's all about Bay. I don't give a rat's *** about Bay. The first movie is a fine film, which he directed.

I think Micheal Bay himself might be posting in this forum. I've never seen a film defended with such tenacity.

[Marvin]

I never stated the axe came out of his arm. Given, I didn't differentiate, but I figured anyone who'd seen the movie would know themselves.

He did have gear in his trailer, which he had recovered by that point and was where he got the fly-tech from (off-screen). But regardless, we never see the axe on him until he pulls it out of nowhere from his back once he faces off against Sentinel Prime. As such, we can establish that he has access to it in the finale of the film.

And we know he didn't go back to his trailer set up for more tech a second time how? We know he has access to the axe while the jet pack is still on how? Honestly he could have had two blades, it really doesn't matter. I mean in the perfect world, the first reaction to the scenario presented is to put the pieces together. In the modern (forum) world it's nothing of the sort.

The same thing happened When Singer pretty much made the effects of Kryptonite a plot device. Nerd rage was all about calling bs on what they were seeing whilst the general audience was simply accepting that that was how Kryptonite worked in singers movie. If Optimus couldn't cut himself down, why not accept that he couldn't cut himself down? Honestly. Ask yourself, what makes more sense, that he couldn't or that he forget about his trusty go to weapon.

If batman was tangled in his own bungie lines, upside down and in chicago, I'd be right there saying the same thing to people who would scream plot hole, for batman has tons of cutting equipment in his belt.

Michael Bay has this effect.

Optimus is not how he's always been. The Autobots in the third movie are laugh-out-loud idiots, though I'll make an exception to that statement in the case of Bumblebee, who still comes off as deadly. Optimus only shines when he auto-kills Megatron at the end, like something out of Dragon Ball Z where the hero finally wins the battle because he's supposed to. Anywhere else in the movie, Prime and the Autobots (again, with the exception of Bumblebee) are ineffective and inept in battle when compared to the first - notably Ironhide and Ratchet warding off Starscream and the attack against whoever Decepticon-Tank was, and Prime vs. Bonecrusher and Megatron - and even the second movie - where Prime shined in general, and the rest of the Autobots were involved in the big siege at the end.

Which auto bots are laugh out loud idiots, all I remember of them is killing machines, especially in the last movie.

As for their battle with star scream, he tends to have the advantage...for obvious reasons. I love the part when Iron hide warns everyone of his arrival.

I have no gripe with Prime being evenly-matched or over-matched, as was the case in different situations in the first two movies. My gripe comes from him and the Autobots being ineffective and inept to the point of both being accurate character descriptors in the case of the third movie. My other gripe is we have no way of knowing or understanding as a viewing audience that Sentinel Prime is supposed to be more powerful than Optimus, and the only action we see of him prior to the finale is a surprise attack on Ironhide with acid rounds or some unexplained whatever, and then a big temper-tantrum on the Nest hangar.

Outside of the clear showing and not telling Sentinel gave the audience in just about all of their scenes together. Bay even staged their civil scenes in such a why that Sentinel was the clear power holder of the scene.

Again, outside of the house scene in the first, I've personally only ever seen the autos as decent to great fighters. Especially Ironhide.

Seriously, how is it hard to see the difference between that and the instances we have in the first two movies? There's a difference between ineffective/inept and over-matched. Megatron is built as a legitimate threat and recognized by the Autobots with fear by the time he's flying around in the first movie. Come the second movie, when Prime is over-matched he's fighting off three enemies simultaneously.

Optimus put on a better showing, the second time. it's as simple as that.
Moreover the terrain wasn't littered with innocent people,
Moreover he was past trying to reason with Megatron at that point in their character journey.
Moreover he had alot more conviction in that particular conflict.

fighting tends to work on these principles.

Again, why not put the pieces together as opposed to trying to find holes.

And please, get off your high-horse thinking it's all about Bay. I don't give a rat's *** about Bay. The first movie is a fine film, which he directed.

That's interesting, I wonder if you speak for everyone round these parts.
I ride a mule thank you very much.

[Marvin]

This is a pretty awesome breakdown of some of the issues:
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4281/20110711flowchart.png

that is pretty interesting.
not as interesting as questioning the happenings of megatrons plotting in beastwars.
(source material is sacred though)

I like the part where it says: "neither of these plans work if the preceding one succeeds."
Yea that's kinda how contingencies usually go down.

Also, the entire setup of the movie is heavily flawed.

1) We, the USA, have NEVER landed on the "Dark Side" of the Moon. The time of radio silence is when the orbiter is circling the far side of the Moon. EVERY landing from the US and other nations (manned and unmanned) have been on the "front side" of the moon.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Moon_landing_sites.svg/512px-Moon_landing_sites.svg.png
Why? Communication. We don't have geosync satellites around the moon that would allow for constant communication no matter the location. To argue they could have lifted out and re-landed on the moon is beyond preposterous.

At what point during the whole space race was motivated by the ark landing did you start questioning how accurate the lunar landing facts would be...I guess never.

Marvel universe (which TF was part of at some point) is only about 3x as revisionist as Hasbro's, which is 2x as revisionist as ours. Nazi's didn't have laser powered canons in world war 2 by the by.


Bay is terrible when it comes to actual space travel. He tremendously screwed the pooch on Armageddon (Space Shuttle taking off like a plan on the asteroid??!?!?!) and has done so again here.

aha...eh....eh.
:yay:
just a matter of time.

I think Micheal Bay himself might be posting in this forum. I've never seen a film defended with such tenacity.

I gotta admit, at this point I just do it for the lol's.
it's fun. It probably would have been more fun if the movie bombed like some were hoping though.

[TheZink]

At what point during the whole space race was motivated by the ark landing did you start questioning how accurate the lunar landing facts would be...I guess never.


Not at all. If instead of the Dark Side of the moon we went to a deep crater or somewhere NEAR where we did actually explore I wouldn't be so up in arms about it. But the fact is we could not have possibly gone to that side of the moon on the landing. It could have been any director or writer making the same mistake and I'd be calling BS. That part would have stuck out like a sore thumb and made me ill. Yes, I knew that going into the movie, I was hoping it would have been the worst mistake, sadly I was wrong.

Armageddon was much worse in this particular area. The shuttle lifting off from the asteroid is laughable. Both cases show me laziness or just not caring for what is physically possible with our technology (and we have big giant transforming robots, I know). It seems like the writers and directors went with the easiest tools they had and didn't try to make something a bit more believable to those that know better.

It's not picking on Bay, I'd rip apart any director with the same lazy plot. I hated a number of scenes from the new Star Trek that fell in the same category (Space Jump, wtf!?! and jettisoning the core into the time rift :doh:). The Star Trek ones I forgive because the story and writing around them prop them up.

Bay does what he wants and the hell to anyone else.

[Thundercrack85]

Well the underlying problem is that you can't have both storylines (Revenge of the Fallen and the Dark of the Moon) in the same universe. The fact that they got the wrong side of the moon is funny though.

[Marvin]

I've just never really seen film as documentary, if they say nasa has a space craft that can do ground to air lift offs from the surface of a comet, i chalk it up to science fiction and i'm done with the matter. Especially in a disney movie. Now when all if said and done, they went and said based on a true story that would be another matter.

Just about all the jargon in even the best of star trek is made up science fiction so I can't even begin to imagine where one would logically start to cry foul. I thought that space jump was dope, almost as cool as the wing suits actually. (I think bay ripped it off but one up'd it in the process so it's all good).

Personally I think a movie about a shuttle landing on the moon collecting samples and trying to get back to earth is more creatively lazy than a revisionist history with 80's kids properties to boot. However well done it is.

It's an interesting dilemma the responsibility a filmmaker has to follow rules when dealing with pure sci-fi, or anything for that matter. Should these same rules apply to fantasy as well, like LotR or Potter...which one of those is just lazy for not following the magic logic and would they be better for it, because as it stands they just do whatever the hell they want and "to hell with anyone else." It's a doozy.
The minute it's not fantasy it does seem to have an effect on some people. dr Degrasse Tyson wont shut up about it.

[Vid Electricz]

I've just never really seen film as documentary, if they say nasa has a space craft that can do ground to air lift offs from the surface of a comet, i chalk it up to science fiction and i'm done with the matter. Especially in a disney movie. Now when all if said and done, they went and said based on a true story that would be another matter.

Just about all the jargon in even the best of star trek is made up science fiction so I can't even begin to imagine where one would logically start to cry foul. I thought that space jump was dope, almost as cool as the wing suits actually. (I think bay ripped it off but one up'd it in the process so it's all good).

Personally I think a movie about a shuttle landing on the moon collecting samples and trying to get back to earth is more creatively lazy than a revisionist history with 80's kids properties to boot. However well done it is.

It's an interesting dilemma the responsibility a filmmaker has to follow rules when dealing with pure sci-fi, or anything for that matter. Should these same rules apply to fantasy as well, like LotR or Potter...which one of those is just lazy for not following the magic logic and would they be better for it, because as it stands they just do whatever the hell they want and "to hell with anyone else." It's a doozy.
The minute it's not fantasy it does seem to have an effect on some people. dr Degrasse Tyson wont shut up about it.


Hmmm...I think it's not so much abiding by "rules" per se (rather than the ones the movie itself sets in place), but rather the "suspension of disbelief". As in, how much do we as the audience need to suspend our reflex to not believe what is happening on the screen to accept it in the story.

Here's a nice explanation (funny enough, there's an example for Armageddon and Star Trek):
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/sci-fi1.htm

When it's science fiction, any number of outlandish things can be made up (Star Trek, Spider-Man, etc...) and we as the audience accept the logic of the situation as long as the story, from that point abides by it's own set of logic and doesn't deviate. War of the Worlds comes to mind, where all electronic devices were knocked out by an EMP but somehow someone got video footage of an alien transporting to it's craft underground. So the movie wasn't following it's own logic it had previously set up. I thought the movie was OK otherwise and things like that are generally nitpicks.

In movies that are based in our world that purport to abide to our laws of physics and science, with no supernatural or outlandish points or elements in the story, the suspension of disbelief still stands but it becomes more apparent when the movie pushes the boundaries (apparently ships lifting off from asteroids:huh:) I haven't seen Armageddon in like 11 years, so I don't remember all the inconsistencies or whatnot.

[TheZink]

I've just never really seen film as documentary, if they say nasa has a space craft that can do ground to air lift offs from the surface of a comet, i chalk it up to science fiction and i'm done with the matter. Especially in a disney movie. Now when all if said and done, they went and said based on a true story that would be another matter.

Just about all the jargon in even the best of star trek is made up science fiction so I can't even begin to imagine where one would logically start to cry foul. I thought that space jump was dope, almost as cool as the wing suits actually. (I think bay ripped it off but one up'd it in the process so it's all good).


My problem is, if you are going to use an event that is well known and documented and use the moon landing which is very well known and the science behind it is well known, why change it to something that is impossible with the technology available at the time? How hard would it have been to just have the craft land in a crater on this side of the moon? Or was Bay set on the "Dark of the Moon" title?


Hmmm...I think it's not so much abiding by "rules" per se (rather than the ones the movie itself sets in place), but rather the "suspension of disbelief". As in, how much do we as the audience need to suspend our reflex to not believe what is happening on the screen to accept it in the story.

Couldn't have said it any better. I loved The Rock. Maybe it's because I didn't know crap about biological warfare or Alcatraz prison.

I loved the first Bad Boys, the second got annoying when the movie could have ended 45 minutes earlier than it did.

Armageddon was good the first time I watched it. After I got into aerospace engineering and really learned about the space shuttle, propulsion and rocket theory, I realized how much BS the movie was full of.

Bay just doesn't seem to try and sell the unbelievable. He puts it out there without explanation and either you buy it or you don't.

[Marvin]

My problem is, if you are going to use an event that is well known and documented and use the moon landing which is very well known and the science behind it is well known, why change it to something that is impossible with the technology available at the time?

So you can make a fun film about it probably. apply your question to Xmen first class, apply it to watchmen and then conclude with the same point...

Cause you're not making a documentary, you're making an entertaining experience.

How hard would it have been to just have the craft land in a crater on this side of the moon? Or was Bay set on the "Dark of the Moon" title?

Bay and the rest of the people involved, including the people with more say than even he, probably thought it would be cool yea. In hindsight it's a pretty engaging twist.

Couldn't have said it any better. I loved The Rock. Maybe it's because I didn't know crap about biological warfare or Alcatraz prison.
I'm sure someone out there would argue that all the stuff that happened in that film is bull **** as well...in fact I'm sure of it. But here you are with an opportunity to see the other side.
(the dark side if you will)

Armageddon was good the first time I watched it. After I got into aerospace engineering and really learned about the space shuttle, propulsion and rocket theory, I realized how much BS the movie was full of.

Nasa signed off and lent themselves fully to the production(if I recall correctly). They don't do that often...they probably thought it was a fun film for the whole family and left the docu stuff for the ron howard film. I honestly don't think most people are bothered by problems of that nature.

Bay just doesn't seem to try and sell the unbelievable. He puts it out there without explanation and either you buy it or you don't.
Actually he's one of the few that tries to get more things on point than anyone. It actually annoys a lot of people.

Military operations is a big one.
Real stunts..that bore real film lovers...

Buddy cop movies defy just about every logical pathway of a police procedural, I'm starting to wonder if cops hate them.

[Marvin]

Hmmm...I think it's not so much abiding by "rules" per se (rather than the ones the movie itself sets in place), but rather the "suspension of disbelief". As in, how much do we as the audience need to suspend our reflex to not believe what is happening on the screen to accept it in the story.

Here's a nice explanation (funny enough, there's an example for Armageddon and Star Trek):
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/sci-fi1.htm

When it's science fiction, any number of outlandish things can be made up (Star Trek, Spider-Man, etc...) and we as the audience accept the logic of the situation as long as the story, from that point abides by it's own set of logic and doesn't deviate. War of the Worlds comes to mind, where all electronic devices were knocked out by an EMP but somehow someone got video footage of an alien transporting to it's craft underground. So the movie wasn't following it's own logic it had previously set up. I thought the movie was OK otherwise and things like that are generally nitpicks.

In movies that are based in our world that purport to abide to our laws of physics and science, with no supernatural or outlandish points or elements in the story, the suspension of disbelief still stands but it becomes more apparent when the movie pushes the boundaries (apparently ships lifting off from asteroids:huh:) I haven't seen Armageddon in like 11 years, so I don't remember all the inconsistencies or whatnot.

That's an obvious theory.
I don't think the TF series has really overstepped it.

the shuttle walking on Armageddon was a nice catch though.
Spiderman getting those powers pretty much spits in that theories face lol.

[TheZink]

So you can make a fun film about it probably. apply your question to Xmen first class, apply it to watchmen and then conclude with the same point...

Cause you're not making a documentary, you're making an entertaining experience.

So a movie can be technologically and historically accurate and entertaining? Gotcha.

X-Men first class changed the whole Cuban Missile crisis. I understood that. I am sure history buffs rolled their eyes. I am sure people who are not intimately involved with the Space Shuttle or Apollo Missions didn't mind the changes to Armageddon and DoTM. I did mind.


Bay and the rest of the people involved, including the people with more say than even he, probably thought it would be cool yea. In hindsight it's a pretty engaging twist.

How is it a twist? How much different would it have been if instead of the Dark Side of the Moon, it was a cavern or cave on the front side? Just how different would it have been? None. It would have kept the same story and added a sense a tangibility. Instead of changing history, you add to it.


I'm sure someone out there would argue that all the stuff that happened in that film is bull **** as well...in fact I'm sure of it. But here you are with an opportunity to see the other side.
(the dark side if you will)

I am sure, but I stand by above. I know of many directors that do their homework on their films. They try to learn as much as they can about the subject so they don't get called out on BS.


Nasa signed off and lent themselves fully to the production(if I recall correctly). They don't do that often...they probably thought it was a fun film for the whole family and left the docu stuff for the ron howard film. I honestly don't think most people are bothered by problems of that nature.

NASA the people making decisions don't speak for the workers who leave and breathe the shuttle or did for the Apollo missions. NASA is now run by bureaucrats and suits with the almighty dollar as the bottom line. I am sure Bay sold them the idea and $$$ was all they saw. I've worked with NASA people. They all say the same thing. "Yeah, it was fun, but full of unbelievable BS."

I guess what bothers me is how these inconsistencies seem so...easy to avoid. If someone just sat down and THOUGHT about it for 15 minutes you could get around it or add something to explain it. I don't need everything spelled out for me, but something to show me the director said "You know what, a space shuttle doesn't fly and take off like a giant plane, we need to address that for the get away from the asteroid."

[Vid Electricz]

That's an obvious theory.
I don't think the TF series has really overstepped it.

the shuttle walking on Armageddon was a nice catch though.
Spiderman getting those powers pretty much spits in that theories face lol.


Spider-Man is a perfect example of suspension of disbelief. It's a story where we accept that a man gains powers by being bitten by a radioactive spider (for the sake of the story). The comic/movie establishes why and how he gained these abilities and though they are outlandish, they still seem to be treated as though they are within the realm of possibility. That's the key. From that point on, as long as his abilities are treated consistently and abide by the rules they have constructed within the world that has been created for the comic/movie, we as an audience have no problem accepting it.

The problem starts when there is inconsistent or poor storytelling. Someone might act totally out of character or a plot point might be totally nonsensical, but this is not an excuse for suspension of disbelief. The excuse I hear most often is: "It's a movie about a guy who crawls on walls/robots from space/a guy from krypton, how much realism do you expect?"

The problem with this is that when the writer/film maker oversteps the boundaries of absurdity and outlandishness past what they had established, the audience will disengage and take notice of this.

[Marvin]

Spider-Man is a perfect example of suspension of disbelief. It's a story where we accept that a man gains powers by being bitten by a radioactive spider (for the sake of the story). The comic/movie establishes why and how he gained these abilities and though they are outlandish, they still seem to be treated as though they are within the realm of possibility. That's the key. From that point on, as long as his abilities are treated consistently and abide by the rules they have constructed within the world that has been created for the comic/movie, we as an audience have no problem accepting it.

The problem starts when there is inconsistent or poor storytelling. Someone might act totally out of character or a plot point might be totally nonsensical, but this is not an excuse for suspension of disbelief. The excuse I hear most often is: "It's a movie about a guy who crawls on walls/robots from space/a guy from krypton, how much realism do you expect?"

The problem with this is that when the writer/film maker oversteps the boundaries of absurdity and outlandishness past what they had established, the audience will disengage and take notice of this.

Again, this is mostly all agreeable believe me, however they already present the world of spiderman as a realistic place and they already show that radiation does what it's supposed to do, the minute he gains powers, they(stan lee) technically changed the rules to his universe.

Obviously the movie kinda change this to a more acceptable genetics landscape and the problem is actually dealt with...it's the source material(and possibly the new movie) I'm poking holes in.

[Marvin]

So a movie can be technologically and historically accurate and entertaining? Gotcha.

ok?

X-Men first class changed the whole Cuban Missile crisis. I understood that. I am sure history buffs rolled their eyes. I am sure people who are not intimately involved with the Space Shuttle or Apollo Missions didn't mind the changes to Armageddon and DoTM. I did mind.


You asked what the point was of shoehorning in a historical event into a revisionist plot. I implied that it adds relevance to the story and pointed to xmen and watchmen. I not questioning weather people do or don't have problems with them(i'm sure they do).

How is it a twist? How much different would it have been if instead of the Dark Side of the Moon, it was a cavern or cave on the front side? Just how different would it have been? None. It would have kept the same story and added a sense a tangibility. Instead of changing history, you add to it.

How is it a twist? because it changes the story of the moon landing...if that's what your asking.

I'm sure they could have made it a cave, they probably would have had to deal with cries of why no one had seen it for all this time(even with a kids telescope) guess an alien ship sitting just on the other side of our moon was just too appealing (to bay) to pass up. I they just figured their audience wouldn't harp on the logistics. Personally I wouldn't have enjoyed the film any more or less and it probably shows in the revenue.

I am sure, but I stand by above. I know of many directors that do their homework on their films. They try to learn as much as they can about the subject so they don't get called out on BS.
Most just have good writers that solve all their issues for them. I do know the few writer directors tend to deal with all issues presented most of the time. Not sure about Quinton T.


NASA the people making decisions don't speak for the workers who leave and breathe the shuttle or did for the Apollo missions. NASA is now run by bureaucrats and suits with the almighty dollar as the bottom line. I am sure Bay sold them the idea and $$$ was all they saw. I've worked with NASA people. They all say the same thing. "Yeah, it was fun, but full of unbelievable BS."

Again, you must know bay is not alone in all this (selling)... Secondly if I asked someone about a comedy and they said "yea, it was fun, but full of unbelievable BS." I'd roll my eyes deeper than they probably can roll theirs lol.
I personally see action comedies in this vain.

I'm a big fan of hong kong films.
There's actually a nasa feature video about this production floating around.

I guess what bothers me is how these inconsistencies seem so...easy to avoid. If someone just sat down and THOUGHT about it for 15 minutes you could get around it or add something to explain it. I don't need everything spelled out for me, but something to show me the director said "You know what, a space shuttle doesn't fly and take off like a giant plane, we need to address that for the get away from the asteroid."

Hey, that's understandable.
You've gotta know that probably did put in about 15mins into solving a bunch of problems that you probably aren't complaining about now though. To suggest that these people don't put any THOUGHT into their work is somewhat obtuse to say the least.

[TheZink]

ok?

Sorry, should have read "can't be technologically and historically accurate and entertaining"


You asked what the point was of shoehorning in a historical event into a revisionist plot. I implied that it adds relevance to the story and pointed to xmen and watchmen. I not questioning weather people do or don't have problems with them(i'm sure they do).
Watchmen was an alternate reality completely and still tried to remain somewhat "realistic" Trust me, the movie (and the comic) had its fair-share of plot holes (Dr Manhattan's creation for one).

I didn't ask why use a historical event, I asked why change it drastically for no real reason? And change to something that couldn't have possibly happened?
If they had told us "Hey, a spaceship crash landed on the moon and we went to investigate" I could buy that. If they added "Landed in a deep crater and is covered by moon rock and debris, making it barely visible by use of telescope" I could believe that.

Saying "It landed on the dark side of the moon, all you know about orbital mechanics, communications with the Apollo mission, etc etc means jack ****" I don't buy it.


How is it a twist? because it changes the story of the moon landing...if that's what your asking.

I'm sure they could have made it a cave, they probably would have had to deal with cries of why no one had seen it for all this time(even with a kids telescope) guess an alien ship sitting just on the other side of our moon was just too appealing (to bay) to pass up. I they just figured their audience wouldn't harp on the logistics. Personally I wouldn't have enjoyed the film any more or less and it probably shows in the revenue.
Exactly, so why not do something that makes...sense?


Hey, that's understandable.
You've gotta know that probably did put in about 15mins into solving a bunch of problems that you probably aren't complaining about now though. To suggest that these people don't put any THOUGHT into their work is somewhat obtuse to say the least.I'm sure they do think it through, but how much of their work is then changed by producers and directors? And is it really hard to make things consistent from movie to movie, or hell at least throughout ONE movie?

There's glaring inconsistencies in each of these movies (RotF being the worst). Do they just not care, or are we just that good at pointing them out?

[Rock Sexton]

http://www.bontheball.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Ping_pong_table_tenniswin.gif

[Marvin]

Sorry, should have read "can't be technologically and historically accurate and entertaining"

Watchmen was an alternate reality completely and still tried to remain somewhat "realistic" Trust me, the movie (and the comic) had its fair-share of plot holes (Dr Manhattan's creation for one).

sure and TF3 tried to be "realistic" as well...if you're going to ask why did they do it for TF3 one would answer, the same reason Moore did it with watchmen, because it's interesting and it has an audience. People like revisions, especially of american history. TF1 probably owes a lot of it's appeal to the approach. But like you go on to say in your next stanza, that's not really your issue. I just don't like leaving questions unanswered(plot holes)


I didn't ask why use a historical event, I asked why change it drastically for no real reason? And change to something that couldn't have possibly happened?
If they had told us "Hey, a spaceship crash landed on the moon and we went to investigate" I could buy that. If they added "Landed in a deep crater and is covered by moon rock and debris, making it barely visible by use of telescope" I could believe that.

The reason being that it's new, fresh, different and has a tangible hook. That first teaser communicated to the laymen intrinsically what otherwise would have just been another movie about a crash landing and it's subsequent investigation(involving transformers). I assume this dark of the moon concept has never been done before? For good reason I'm sure.

In the film the crash itself is detected by everyone who's looking, but how often has is the far side of the moon actually been walked, let alone seen?(I know some slingshot missions have seen it). But it's pretty much a mythic un-ventured frontier that's so close it's haunting. You ask the point? Well as a producer, making a hasbro movie are you going to use the high concept selling point of the celestial undiscovered land that's a cultural milestone or the lesser ship in a creator angle? Especially when your source material derives from a saturday morning toy commercial from the 80's that only 12 year olds watched even though many say different.

Speilberg didn't make the film with the purpose of having any aerospace lab coats that happen to have some free time on their hands pull out their check list and give the film a passing grade on accuracy. He made it for the same people that gave all the b.s. in his Indy movies the thumbs up. That's literally why, and I hate assuming peoples intentions.

Wasn't there a plot point about the Russians taking photos but never actually visiting themselves? Probably for the same reasons they haven't ever in real history...

Saying "It landed on the dark side of the moon, all you know about orbital mechanics, communications with the Apollo mission, etc etc means jack ****" I don't buy it.

I don't by Nolans dream tech in Inception.....many do.

Exactly, so why not do something that makes...sense?
1. Because the former concept is a better sell than the latter
2. Because it doesn't matter if it makes technical sense...not when it's fiction.

I take it you've seen Sunshine.

I'm sure they do think it through, but how much of their work is then changed by producers and directors? And is it really hard to make things consistent from movie to movie, or hell at least throughout ONE movie?
Alot, but not for lack of you unappreciating their effort...
and it's harder than you think yes.
Just ask Jim Cameron.

There's glaring inconsistencies in each of these movies (RotF being the worst). Do they just not care, or are we just that good at pointing them out?
Most movies have inconsistencies, they're usually non issues and when they're not they become cultural discussions for it.

[TheZink]

I don't see us changing our thoughts or opinions on the matter. I can appreciate the TF franchise for what it is. Mindless thoughtless fun. I would love for a bit more thought provoking better written story, but alas that will have to wait IF we ever get another.

Bay does what Bay does, and he makes hundreds of millions while doing it.

Still good discussing and debating with ya :up:

[Marvin]

BFHM8qpVrFo
A lot of people can appreciate a lot of movies for what they are...
With TF there's a certain bile when people actually say that.

peace

[spider_rob]

Anyone notice how Bay made all the new Autobots into *****? It seems they're always insulting, threatening, or saying something sexual. Prime examples would be the two little bots that Sam keeps as pets and the bots guarding the space shuttle. At least in the first movie, we had Ironhide and Rachet, who seemed to be pretty well rounded.

[Mace Dolex]

Most of the complaints here seem just nitpicking but if I'd have to pick a scene it's when Sam and Lennox are swinging on a cable attached to Starscream when he could've just easily kiled them by swatting them against the wall or something.

[def28]

Just a few scenes really got me going wtf.

1. Not showing how the Autobots got captured. One minute Bee was with the humans then in the next hes all of sudden captured with all the other bots. Made zero sense. I dont ask for much with these films but I felt I missed something somewhat important.

2. The most powerful character in the movie gets stopped by wires and needs three Autobots to get him down.

3. Starscream Vs Sam. Scene was not that cool, a waste for Starscream and it went on too long. Should have been an epic bot battle.

4. Shockwave Vs Humans. Should have been an epic bot Battle.

[Rock Sexton]

Most of the complaints here seem just nitpicking but if I'd have to pick a scene it's when Sam and Lennox are swinging on a cable attached to Starscream when he could've just easily kiled them by swatting them against the wall or something.

...... but yours somehow isn't?

Give me a break. Knit picking would be if we blasted what colored shirt Shia was wearing.

[El Bastardo]

...... but yours somehow isn't?

Give me a break. Knit picking would be if we blasted what colored shirt Shia was wearing.
It should have been pink! :cmad:

[Rock Sexton]

It should have been pink! :cmad:

Actually with Bay's sensibilities (or lack thereof) it should've been some obnoxious shirt like "F.B.I. Female Body Inspector" ....

[Marvin]

Go watch horrible bosses ya'll, you'll hate it for all these supposed reasons and more, doubt it though.

[El Bastardo]

Horrible Bosses is fantastic. I'm not surprised this evades you, considering you couldn't understand that Bad Santa was also a fantastic movie.

[Marvin]

I'm not surprised you actually think I didn't like the film, comprehension has always been fickle around here.

these are the TF boards after all.

[El Bastardo]

Sigh.

[Rock Sexton]

Go watch horrible bosses ya'll, you'll hate it for all these supposed reasons and more, doubt it though.

That movie is what it is supposed to be. It doesn't flaunt misleading trailers or bastardized material.

[Marvin]

Sigh.

I think you jumped the gun a little...

[THANOSRULES]

DOTM happens almost four years after ROTF.

I actually said "Seriously?" at Starscream's death. Now, Starscream isn't my favorite Decepticon from the cartoon, but he was probably my favorite in the first film. He just did some cool **** in his brief amount of screentime. He even gave Ratchet and Ironhide a hard time. But he became more of a ***** in the second film. He got pushed around by Megatron constantly. They never touched upon his intent to betray Megatron. I was hoping they'd let him kick some ass in the third film, but no. He took out an empty space shuttle and a couple of ospreys. I didn't have a problem with Sam killing him, but it was just so drawn out and pathetic. Just the "Ow! Ow! Ow! I can't see! I can't see!" had me cringing. By the time he started dragging his face on the ground and said "I'm gonna kick you!", I just thought, "Put him out of his misery already."

I would have preferred if Starscream was the one who found Sam and Epps when they first get into Chicago and attacks them, only to be slaughtered by the Autobots. Pretty much replacing the random Decepticon in the dropship with Starscream.

Crap I didnt even realize that was starscream, i was hoping it wasnt becuase the character was so off, even off from what had been portrayed already. Thought it might be thundercracker or something. Dang..starscream was always my fav decepticon.

[craigdbfan]

When Michael Bay decided to take a **** on Ironhide. :(

[Drizzle]

When Michael Bay decided to take a **** on Ironhide. :(
That was nothing compared to the **** he took on Starscream and Megatron. At least Ironhide took out some Decepticons before he died.

[Mr. Fixit]

Horrible Bosses is fantastic. I'm not surprised this evades you, considering you couldn't understand that Bad Santa was also a fantastic movie.

I loved Bad Santa....but found Horrible Bosses meh.

Go figure.