View Single Post
Old 03-18-2013, 09:27 PM   #43
The Overlord
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,341
Default Re: Will there ever be a good Transformers movie?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
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.
So do all bad movies do badly at the box office? Okay, then are the twilight movies good because they did well at the box office? I have a list of some pretty bad movies that did well at the box office:

http://www.hitfix.com/articles/10-of...ts-of-all-time

Are all those movies good because they did well at the box office? I hate that notion that just because something is successful, that instantly makes it good, instead of debating the pros and cons of the work itself.

People like junk food, binge drinking and cigarettes, just because people like these things doesn't make them any less bad for you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
"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.
Avengers and dark Knight are not perfect, but they do not have as many problems as the TF films.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
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
VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

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.
So no one in the local media decided to cover this story and it didnt get picked up by CNN? I call BS on that. What about the thousands of eye witnesses who saw the whole thing. What happened to them? How did the government cover up that giant battle in Shanghai? Its a bad plot point that makes no sense.

And suspension of disbelief doesn't a work should not have any sort of internal rules or logic. Spider-Man getting powers from a spider that is covered by suspension of disbelief, but if what no where, he started shooting lasers out of his hands and there is no explanation for it, that wouldn't be covered, you are introducing new elements out of nowhere. There are way too many things that come out of nowhere, have no build up, no set up or just blatantly contradict other things in the franchise. In the first movie the Allspark kills Megatron, in the second it brings him back to life, Jetfire teleporting everyone to Egypt comes out of nowhere and since we never saw any Transformer teleport anyone anywhere before, it looks like something the writers pulled out of their butts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
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.

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.
One Spielberg is not perfect, look at Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and really how much input did he have in the later films. The first seemed have more involvement from him then the other two.

Two, there are rules to story telling (example: show don't tell) and generally you shouldn't throw away these rules unless you really know what you are doing and are making a good story point, Bay did not do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
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....
And he is the same annoying little bastard by the start the second film. He never seems to learn anything that is retained.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
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.
Character regression is one of the problems I had with Iron Man 2, but it was worse with Sam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
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.
I would say Tony Stark and Nick Fury are better written and better acted then Sam was. Better acting and better dialogue can give a character more dimensions then characters without those things. Plus Nick Fury is just a supporting character, not a main character like Sam and Nick Fury is way better supporting character then anyone in the TF films.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
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.
Except none of that is actually in the movie, its just stuff you are projecting on this character. If after Prime killed that Decpeticon, he showed some regret and we get into why he did that, then I might sympathetize with him, as the scene stands now, he just seems like a thug.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
As if "in the heat of battle" is any excuse to take a life...but let's not turn this into a moral discussion
You do realize that killing a helpless prisoner on the battlefield is considered a war crime, right? If a solider to is trying to kill you, you can kill him to defend yourself, but you can't kill a helpless prisoner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
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.

So he becomes more of an A-hole as the movies progress? Yeah, that's what people want to see from Prime. And these movies are rated PG-13, so they are not just for kids.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
Conan is a "noble warrior king" to many a fan, and he will hack off any a villain's head armed or disarmed.
Prime is not Conan, you are comparing apples to oranges.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
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.
Except I have seen many later Star Trek episodes where the "heroes" let a civilization die ans come off as A-holes. Check out "Dear Doctor" the Enterprise episode, where Archer's inaction results in genocide. How is that heroic? So yeah Prime doesn't seem noble, he seems like a callous A-hole and the humans seem stupid for exiling the Autobots. Its a bad plot, with characters acting stupid or cruel or both.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
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.
With all the vile frat boy humor in these films, I don't see how they are aimed at kids. Are jokes about dogs humping and moms getting high and telling comprising stories and jokes about masturbation really for kids? Heck if these were just kids films I would be easier on them, but they have Bay's crass sense of humor that make them ill suited to be considered kids films.

There are kids movies that are better written then this dreck, why should I be soft on these films? Almost any Pixar movie is way better written then the TF movies, so saying that because its a kids movie, so the no one has put any real effort forward, I would have to disagree with that.


Last edited by The Overlord; 03-18-2013 at 09:47 PM.
The Overlord is offline   Reply With Quote