Originally Posted by The Overlord
I think the sucess of Honey Booboo and Jersey Shore would prove my point of something being popular not always being good.
Sure there are some popular films that are good, but I reject the notion that just because something is popular that it is good.
Quickly checks to see how many bad films bombed...
Popularity and Success are not the same thing, not when it comes to expensive movie franchises.
Here's my point on this matter. Why has transformers been a consistent 3 and probably four time movie success at the box office, with consistently increasing returns? Some would say because it's a big fat effects reels from ILM. Well ILM not only releases about 3 movies a year that aren't always as successful as TF but they've also released their fair share of similar if not better looking, bombs. Battleship being a primary example. What is it about TF that was lacking in BS?
Of course, BS wasn't a recognized brand and property present in America since the 80's. Well then why don't we find something that was. GIJOE, why didn't that do transformers business(with a much bigger budget mind you)? Probably, because TF was “better” than the aforementioned.
Secondly, when Xmen first class did moderately poorly at the box office(established property et all) in spite of it being great, many were quick to point out that it simply was at the mercy of the poor films that came before. Those poor films may have made money (due to what came before them) but they put XFC in the hole, public perception wise. TF has consistently not only been successful but that success has grown. You can cover your ears to this and blame a fickle audience all you want but when you see this effect on Xmen, something should click.
Green Lantern Bombs, Air Bender Bombs, Battlehship, joe..etc. Why is TF any different. This is the success I was referring to and this is the "quality" I was referring to.
The same crowd that made Ironman a hit and not green lantern. Criticize them all you want, but there is much to be extrapolated from them.
In these movies we have plot points that come out of nowhere, bad scene transitions, characters with motives that make no sense and plot points that make no sense what so ever (like the fact in the second film they were able to cover up the existence of alien robots, when they had a huge fight in the middle of an American city, there would have been footage of them on the web and in the news media withing minutes, no way could the government have covered that up.) Michael Bay is not David Lynch, he isn't trying to make some statement with this non sense, its just bad directing.
"Bad scene transitions?" "Character motives that come out of nowhere" This is a matter of opinion. And can be subjectively (which is very much what you are doing here) applied to just about any tent pole, lest we get into the Nolan bat trilogy or Avengers of fanboy lore.
ON THE Matter of plot holes:
How do you know the gov't can't cover up what they really have to. Web algorithms not only exit but can exist in the context of a kids show adaptation that wipe the web clean of just about anything. Much of our media does and in the context of a kids show adaptation could get paid off by the gov't to say what ever need be said(see fox news and msnbc). Everyone in that city could have been brought in and either paid off or even mentally suggested to think it was a terrorist attack by advanced drone systems… Cell phone camera's existed during Bush, not the way they exist today, but even now I could pull up a dozen of these
uh oh, better run for the hills right?
The fact of the matter is that it's possible and not demonstrably impossible, which is where genre film often exists. Least we get in to radio active spider bites not killing people but making them gods..etc.
Every hole you brought up is on a script level btw. That means Spielberg and many of his partners all thought it was ok and wrote off on it in the context that it was an adaptation of an 80’s Saturday morning toy commercial fans hoped was even more true to it's material than that silly film already was.
Characters who grow, develop, learn something, have more then one dimension.
The key difference between Tony Stark and Thor and Sam is the first two have actual character arcs where they become better people, Sam has none of that. He has almost no development, he is the same piss-ant from start to finish.
I'll preface by saying, this is art, so theoretically there are no rules. If you don't believe go read some Baraka reviews. Secondly, I'll point out that there are a good number of films with stagnant characters, these usually come in the form of people that go against the grain and believe in something in spite of the world of antagonism only to have their steady heart prevail and the world around them change. Go watch "Surf's up" or “Orphan Annie” if you don't believe me.
Lastly, if you don't see the character arc in this Spielberg product plot, you simply aren't looking. I recall a story about a self absorbed materialistic white suburbanite always trying to get ahead essentially sacrificing himself towards the end of the film. And that's just at first glance. How he approaches women and talks to girls has it's little growth, how he deals with authority...
Sure it resets in every film to a degree, but then again IronMan has has three separate character restarts in the eyes of many a critic.
What you are confusing here is development and personality. You use the word "piss ant" I assume you are talking about his annoying characterization. That would be like me calling Tony Stark a snob and a smart ass, that won't ever change and it's fine. Neither will Nick Fury being Sam Jackson esque.
Well I found many things to dislike about him, in the beginning of the second film, he has a Decepticon at his mercy and he kills him. How is that noble? Killing in the heat of battle is one thing, but he murdered someone who was helpless, he killed in cold blood. In the real world that would be considered a war crime.
I'll start by pointing out that for someone to be objectively moral(if such a thing exists), all they have to do is abide by the virtue ethics of their own culture. If you don't agree with this, than tomorrow someone can compare you to Hitler for simply eating meat. That being said, we have no idea what the war time ethics are of Cybertronians.
Secondly, Prime could have been simply been performing an act of mercy at that point, dude was in bad shape.
Thirdly, if human life is Prime's priority, then killing Decepticons where ever they may be whilst you are on alien lands and greatly out numbered may be considered, "in the heat of battle". It’s a war of attrition.
As if "in the heat of battle" is any excuse to take a life...but let's not turn this into a moral discussion
I'll say this(and you may like it). In the first film Optimus has qualms about killing Megatron, in the second movie he kills his enemy with much more reckless disregard...do I sense a character development as we progress through this trilogy? Has the war changed the once quick to forgiveness warrior..
who's to say, the script is for kids anyways.
Conan is a "noble warrior king" to many a fan, and he will hack off any a villain's head armed or disarmed.
Also in the third Movie, Prime let the Decepticons kill thousands of people in Chicago, in order to teach the government a lesson. How is that noble? That is psychopathic. It would be like if Spider-Man decided because the daily Bugle is making him unpopular, he will do nothing and let Carnage kill a thousand people, in order to teach the people of NYC a lesson. That is not noble.
Look at it this way, if humans tell optimus to leave and he doesn't, he's no better than the Decepticons, not on a moral level. Technically speaking, all he did was “leave” until the humans changed their minds.
Go watch some good star trek episodes if you need a lesson on how morals and interfering with sentient life on the brink of destruction works in genre story telling at it’s best. It's not simply "to prove a psychopathic point." It's usually the sign of, get this, noble leadership.
SPIDERMAN is of earth, that's different, but if we must go there. Being a mask wearing vigilante is against not only the law but it crosses a moral fence that puts J.Jonah Jameson squarely in the right.
Comparing Transformers to raging Bull is also ridiculous, Raging Bull was a character study of a man who could have been a contender but allowed his jealous, rage and lack of impulse control destroy his athletic career, there is no character study with Sam, he is not a tragic figure or a heroic one, he is just an annoying snot nosed brat and the script expects me sympathize with him, when it gives me no reason to.
I didn't compare Transformers to Raging bull. I said that's a movie about a un-appealing protagonist. You don’t have to like the lead for a story, let alone a movie to be "good."
Never said TF was a character study either, I said it was an adaptation of an 80's saturday morning toy commercial.
People like you need to stop acting like it's failing at being a "character study" or rather something it’s not.
Snatch(73% on RT) is an over the top silly movie with lack of "coherence" odd "transitions" lack of arcs..etc, and is an over stylized excuse for a crime film, compared to the Godfather anyways, but godfather never claimed to be a comedy-crime film now did it. People need to stop acting like fun films are failing at being something they aren't, often times they succeeding at being just that. There's room in cinema for all sorts of things. This is art, not science magazine, there are different types of “great movies” especially when aimed at kids.