Originally Posted by nogster
If we can have movies of substance about people that have evolved to have outlandish superpowers and physical properties, A superman alien that is the last son of his home planet and gets godlike powers from our sun. A teenager gets bitten by a spider and becomes a spiderman. or how about the story of a group of costumed vigilantes along with a man that dies and reconstructs himself to become a naked blue being with godlike powers.
How are these tales, any less outrageous than an alien race of sentient machines that battle over our planets resources and protection?
If the director takes the source material seriously, constructs it with a degree of respect and treats the audience accordingly. then there is no reason why a Transformers film cannot be an epic scifi blockbuster that doesnt insult ones intelligence.
The 1st TF film. despite its flaws and "Bayisms" might not've had much substance. but at least it had some heart and had that sense of awe. The basic premise had been established. then Bay ruins it with juvenile shenanigans, and pisses on the personalities and depth of the title characters and the primary themes of the decades of source material that had transcended its "toyline" origins.
The "ultimate doom" storyline that DOTM took inspiration from couldve been handled so much better. and the title characters. Man did they get bastardized. The film series started off with promise. but now that it is all said and done, its Transformers in name only.
Bayformers really is a fitting title.
Originally Posted by bell110
Exactly. I think people might not have imagination. They see what was a silly cartoon and think there is no way not to make the movies silly.
I really didn't get a chance to flesh out my thought earlier, so let me do that now, and address your points.
I do not believe that movies - regardless of genre - can lack the potential to be truly moving, societal-changing works of art. Anything and everything has that potential. But having that potential does not mean it will ultimately fit the requirements of "high art" and it certainly doesn't
mean that every piece of art, every book and every film should even try. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "low brow" art and entertainment at its core; there is only our reaction to it.
In terms of these movies, we have to look at them for what they are. These are standard summer blockbuster movies that are meant appeal to a wide range of people. These movies are designed to be purely adrenaline pumping action set pieces. That was the film makers' intent. That intent is what we should judge it on. My comment about trying to get milk out of an orange reflects this. It seems like those who are the more vocal in this thread are looking for philosophical inspiration, messiah-like ideals and values out of a movie that was never intended to harbor such things.
Could the movie have handled some things better, while remaining a popcorn flick? Yes. Should directors not cave to the summer blockbuster check lists? Yes. Do I think that Transformers should have been the steeple of the "watch this movie to be enlightened" movie genre? Hell no. I personally don't want to watch a movie like transformers and be hit over the head with morality lessons and philosophical mutterings. There are a plethora of other movies, games, books and sermons for that.
My intent is to not excuse the weakness of these films (lord knows there are many), such as story structure and the unnecessary sexuality of certain characters. My only intent is to offer my opinion that looking for and ultimately complaining about the lack of high art appeal and musings in a decidedly low art film is frivolous. Vid and others are analyzing this film based on what it could have been
, while I am looking at how it is