Will there ever be a good Transformers movie?

[portland2002]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

No, I would say the first and maybe the third had their merits, but the 2nd was awful.

Let's not talk about the cheese for a second, but simply put, the second film meanders, so it has terrible pacing and major script issues. The first hour is useless. By the time you're introduce to the Fallen, it feels like an after-thought. The plot is uneven. It doesn't have to bet strong but it's just strung along.

Not only that, it's the one movie that the transformers really get sidelined. No bot has a real arc to speak of, the Autobots introduced in the first flim were barely featured, the new characters are just unlikable (the twins) and you're stuck with them for the entire second act while Prime is 'out'.

It's overly long, directionless, aimless, and strangely boring.

The first film, from my perspective, is flawed, with moments of good movie writing, directing, etc.

The 2nd film, even worse than what the critics said. I did walk out on my first attempt at seeing it, right after Bumblebee knocked aside one of the Twins. I considered walking out at several other junctures, including the opening ten minutes. Very bad dialog and scene structures. "Pull over?" "Any last words?" Really.

The other problems of the film have been crtically analyzed with great detail by other viewers on these forums, so I won't go on and on.

With regards to the third film, the spoilers were enough to keep me away, not to mention ROTF was a disappointment of such tremendous magnitude, it was beyond sufficent to keep me away.

As cliched as it sounds, it's true, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

[Octoberist]

The movie are what they are, but I think the second film fundamentally flawed, even for a popcorn flick. It's the one movie where I felt like I felt stupid for the world.

I think the perfect popcorn flick is 'Fast 5'; it delievers in the fun, pacing and action. But it never stoops to the lowest common denominator like showing off robotic balls or stupid slapstick humor (from the useless twins). If you gonna have banter, make it funny.

I've always felt that Transformers don't strive to do..more with the story. And while you can say it shouldn't, I mean, again, look at Fast 5. Or better yet, look at the Marvel Studios films. They never stoop low for anyone.

Transformers is junk food but once in a while, it's okay to sneak in an apple. Hopefully that apple can be part 4.

[portland2002]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

The movie are what they are, but I think the second film fundamentally flawed, even for a popcorn flick. It's the one movie where I felt like I felt stupid for the world.

I think the perfect popcorn flick is 'Fast 5'; it delievers in the fun, pacing and action. But it never stoops to the lowest common denominator like showing off robotic balls or stupid slapstick humor (from the useless twins). If you gonna have banter, make it funny.

I've always felt that Transformers don't strive to do..more with the story. And while you can say it shouldn't, I mean, again, look at Fast 5. Or better yet, look at the Marvel Studios films. They never stoop low for anyone.

Transformers is junk food but once in a while, it's okay to sneak in an apple. Hopefully that apple can be part 4.

I haven't seen Fast Five, nonetheless, I'd like to watch it sometime on DVD.

I would like to see much more engaging stories as well for Transformers and more faithful designs (looking at the Dreamwave and IDW comics) as well as even some fan art, I thought the potential to have robots more similar to their original designs could work well.

You mentioned the Marvel films, and I will say I thought the Iron Man films provided a good example on how to execute a look to the character very similar to the comics' designs, and yet having excellent aesthetics and design choices (such as the darkening of the red and gold) of Iron Man's Mark II armor.

Also with regards to the Marvel films (Thor, Iron Man films, Incredible Hulk, etc.) were done well.

I watched the Avengers five times in the theater.

[portland2002]

Originally Posted by Diamondhead

Just because they don't fit your liking doesn't mean they're not good
Check out the box office you idiots
I suggest you go back reading your little batman comics
They should forbid you and your kind’s access to the internet
It is because of idiots like you who are responsible for a lot interesting and original movie to fail at the box office

They give you a forum to express yourself and all of a sudden you think that you are a master of criticism, you’re so pathetic.

With all due respect sir, no need for name calling. Let us maintain a civil discourse.

[Octoberist]

Originally Posted by portland2002

I haven't seen Fast Five, nonetheless, I'd like to watch it sometime on DVD.

I would like to see much more engaging stories as well for Transformers and more faithful designs (looking at the Dreamwave and IDW comics) as well as even some fan art, I thought the potential to have robots more similar to their original designs could work well.

You mentioned the Marvel films, and I will say I thought the Iron Man films provided a good example on how to execute a look to the character very similar to the comics' designs, and yet having excellent aesthetics and design choices (such as the darkening of the red and gold) of Iron Man's Mark II armor.

Also with regards to the Marvel films (Thor, Iron Man films, Incredible Hulk, etc.) were done well.

I watched the Avengers five times in the theater.

The designs used for the Transformers movies are gaudy. Extremely gaudy. They're overly designed while the original designs and the art from Dreamwave and IDW are great templete to use. In fact, it felt like Bay was trying to reinvent the wheel and put his stamp on the franchise. But the problem to me is that I never get the sense that he truly respects it, hence the designs choices. I mean, Optimus Prime is an extremely well designed character from the get-go, and while the film version stays kinda true, it's NOT an improvement

The film version of Starscream is an example of a character who looked worse than his cartoon/comic/toy version. Totally generic looking.

[portland2002]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

The designs used for the Transformers movies are gaudy. Extremely gaudy. They're overly designed while the original designs and the art from Dreamwave and IDW are great templete to use. In fact, it felt like Bay was trying to reinvent the wheel and put his stamp on the franchise. But the problem to me is that I never get the sense that he truly respects it, hence the designs choices. I mean, Optimus Prime is an extremely well designed character from the get-go, and while the film version stays kinda true, it's NOT an improvement

The film version of Starscream is an example of a character who looked worse than his cartoon/comic/toy version. Totally generic looking.

Excellent points and I am in complete agreement.

[ShredderX]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

The designs used for the Transformers movies are gaudy. Extremely gaudy. They're overly designed while the original designs and the art from Dreamwave and IDW are great templete to use. In fact, it felt like Bay was trying to reinvent the wheel and put his stamp on the franchise. But the problem to me is that I never get the sense that he truly respects it, hence the designs choices. I mean, Optimus Prime is an extremely well designed character from the get-go, and while the film version stays kinda true, it's NOT an improvement

The film version of Starscream is an example of a character who looked worse than his cartoon/comic/toy version. Totally generic looking.

Thats because Bay was never a fan of the TF, nor did he respect the franchise. I remember him saying in an interview that he was'nt into Transformers backin the day , he was too busy going out with girls, and when he finally watched the cartoon, he said it was stupid .

[def28]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

The film version of Starscream is an example of a character who looked worse than his cartoon/comic/toy version. Totally generic looking.

Yeah Starscream looked horrible. Just a dumb design for one of the coolest characters.

There's a few I didn't mind the changes to, always thought film Sideswipe had a pretty sick look.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

The designs used for the Transformers movies are gaudy. Extremely gaudy. They're overly designed while the original designs and the art from Dreamwave and IDW are great templete to use. In fact, it felt like Bay was trying to reinvent the wheel and put his stamp on the franchise. But the problem to me is that I never get the sense that he truly respects it, hence the designs choices. I mean, Optimus Prime is an extremely well designed character from the get-go, and while the film version stays kinda true, it's NOT an improvement

The film version of Starscream is an example of a character who looked worse than his cartoon/comic/toy version. Totally generic looking.

Consider how many people are involved on an executive level(and creative level), it's pretty obtuse to think everything you are seeing of the designs is from BAY's mind.
-Spielberg
-Hasbro(probably have the most say)
-ILM creative leads
Not saying bay doesn't have a say let's be real, this is a multi studio film. That being said, if you people had no concept of what the source material every looked like, I have a feeling things would be different. People have to get it through their heads that the aesthetic they are so in love was was born out of a designed for 2D animation pitch package. Designing for 80's 2D animation and designing for 200million dollar CGI shouldn't be the same thing. Just look at LordOfTheRings(probably a bad example).

Secondly, unlike "ironman," selling the concept of mech aliens that open and fold up into vehicles at the "jurassic park wow" cgi levels, means that the designs may have to be more on the function over form style. Ironman is a man encased in metal, especially that first suit. Transformers are something else. And you better believe kids believe what they are seeing 100%.
What's interesting is that when you had an ironman armor that sorta had to transform you got a much more radical design. see suit case amor. Still it wasn't an alien and it was still just an encasement.

Thirdly, The producers of this franchise have to deal with a particular issue almost no other film of this success ever has. A live action film with non human leads. It's never, and will never happen. Ignoring the press tour element, executives sell movies on human leads and romance. Why bay should simply make fans happy by taking all the executive money and making a movie like the video games or comics is silly thinking. This isn't Avengers or GI Joe.
Sadly bay and co. have the same dilemma with TMNT.

Lastly,
I love how we all love to put our noses up and hate on this so called "lowest common denominator" and how it's a plague upon cinema, yet you will never ever hear a word about the shame in the Hangover franchise(racism, nudity, low ball humor). That recent jack and the bean stock movie from the respectable Bryan Singer, has farting and other such jokes...
Then we'll have people defend the fast series as good but TF 1-3 as bad. This is simply hypocrisy. If there was conviction I would at least give their opinion more weight.
TF has never pretended to be anything more than an adaptation of an 80's toy commercial...for kids, are kids happy?

This summer we'll see a more geek friendly Pacific Rim come out. It's got money, it's got ILM, and it's got a great date. Let's see what happens. When it fails to get TF numbers, the matter of what Bay and co are doing should be resolved.
Again, those robots don't have to transform so we'll finally get to see solid designs......droooll.

Sometimes aliens have dog legs, deal with it.

[TheAQU4M4N]

Originally Posted by snyderrocks

part 4 will be the best one yet since the fighter star mark wahlberg will be in it alongside irish actor jack reynor .

I doubt it.

[Octoberist]

Marvin, we may not agree on everything......but I respect your opinion. But Transformers is for kids and families, and we've gotten to the point in pop culture where..we can do better. I'm not asking for Shakespeare..but robot balls and the Twins are awful. Agian, I don't hate part 1 and 3, but part 2 is just meandering, loud and boring.

And let's not compare this to The Hangover. I think there's a valid discussion there, but that's a Rated R franchise built on the college crowd. It's not for selling toys for kids.

That being said, did I mention that Bay's Transformers look nasty and gaudy? Hehe..

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

Marvin, we may not agree on everything......but I respect your opinion. But Transformers is for kids and families, and we've gotten to the point in pop culture where..we can do better. I'm not asking for Shakespeare..but robot balls and the Twins are awful. Agian, I don't hate part 1 and 3, but part 2 is just meandering, loud and boring.

And let's not compare this to The Hangover. I think there's a valid discussion there, but that's a Rated R franchise built on the college crowd. It's not for selling toys for kids.

That being said, did I mention that Bay's Transformers look nasty and gaudy? Hehe..

It's a real discussion when you label what the hangover is and reaches for. However that discussion is never ever framed when people show up(here for example) and say things like.

"I was offended by this movie"
"I thought the humor was trite"
"I thought the character was racist"

Are these people speaking for the many children(showing up to a pg13 film). Or are they just speaking for themselves? The parents that show up with their kids for the 3rd film and are surprised, fine. But forum members that simply act offended upon viewing this film but not others(such as hangover) are pretty two faced imo.

I remember how bad people wanted to complain about Ken Jeong being another racial stereotype that was offensive to them in TF3. They wanted to soooo bad.
That same summer dude reprized his crazy asian role in hangover and not a word was spoken of the matter.

All that being said, I'm there with most of you guys. The series could be better, but just because it can doesn't mean it's not making hundreds of thousands of people really happy. It's for that very same reason that I don't bash nolans batman as much as I want to(I do rant often). Cause it's just my opinion.
3 straight hits means something. And not coming off of a star wars legacy.
The last one making more money than any batman effort.

[Kal-E]

I love the first three. I have no doubt in my mind this film will be as good as the last three or even better. Bay is the man!!!!!!!

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by Diamondhead

Just because they don't fit your liking doesn't mean they're not good
Check out the box office you idiots
I suggest you go back reading your little batman comics
They should forbid you and your kind access to the internet
Sometimes It is because of idiots like that a lot interesting and original movies are failing at the box office.

They give you a forum to express yourself and all of a sudden you think that you are a master of criticism, you’re so pathetic.

Yes, how dare I express a negative opinion on these films, clearly I am foolish for doing so, because we all popularity equals quality and box office numbers are more important then a story with good characters and a plot that makes sense.

These films making money doesn't negate the massive flaws in terms of plot and story telling these movies suffer from.

Originally Posted by Mace Dolex

You're funny.

Were you expecting a Citizen Kane and The Godfather? These aren't movies meant to be critical darlings but about giant alien robots kicking the crap out of each other and causing mass destruction, it's what people want to see on the big screen.

I loved the trilogy and I'm a life long TF fan since 1984 so I've seen the brand goes through it's ups and downs.

I was not expecting Citizen Kane, I was expecting something with a coherent plot and interesting characters, something none of the Bay Transformers films had.

Name one compelling character: Sam is spoiled, entitled, neurotic brat, Prime often comes off as a A-hole, Megan Fox was just eye candy and Megatron is one of the least effective villains ever and those are most developed characters in the series, the supporting characters are worse, even more bland or annoying.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by The Overlord

Yes, how dare I express a negative opinion on these films, clearly I am foolish for doing so, because we all popularity equals quality and box office numbers are more important then a story with good characters and a plot that makes sense.

Quickly checks the All time box office top ten.
Yup, financial success is definitely has nothing to do with crowd pleasing movies, the only films that make money are the lowest common denomination fare. If anything consistent success in a franchise is a sign of a bad film.

I was not expecting Citizen Kane, I was expecting something with a coherent plot and interesting characters, something none of the Bay Transformers films had.

Hyperbole is this properties best friend.. If you don't see a "coherent plot" you must have watched the film with the sound off...You may want to avoid almost anything from Terrance Malick. Or that little 2009 space odyssey movie.

Define "interesting characters," I mean not every character is going to be the lead from old boy, but what is "interesting" to you may not be the same to other people.

Name one compelling character: Sam is spoiled, entitled, neurotic brat, Prime often comes off as a A-hole

Prime, in all his self sacrificing noble leadership and monologues, hardly seemed like an ass hole to many people, even many of the stringent haters of this film have been slow to critique his characterization in such a way.

As for your description of Sam. That sounds more like Henry the 8th or even Tony Stark and Thor pre typical marvel character growth arc. The question is, what's wrong with a movie about an "interesting" character...not every movie is about a saint with their **** together, just look at Raging Bull.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by Marvin

Quickly checks the All time box office top ten.
Yup, financial success is definitely has nothing to do with crowd pleasing movies, the only films that make money are the lowest common denomination fare. If anything consistent success in a franchise is a sign of a bad film.

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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

Hyperbole is this properties best friend.. If you don't see a "coherent plot" you must have watched the film with the sound off...You may want to avoid almost anything from Terrance Malick. Or that little 2009 space odyssey movie.

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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

Define "interesting characters," I mean not every character is going to be the lead from old boy, but what is "interesting" to you may not be the same to other people.

Characters who grow, develop, learn something, have more then one dimension.

Originally Posted by Marvin

Prime, in all his self sacrificing noble leadership and monologues, hardly seemed like an ass hole to many people, even many of the stringent haters of this film have been slow to critique his characterization in such a way.

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.


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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

As for your description of Sam. That sounds more like Henry the 8th or even Tony Stark and Thor pre typical marvel character growth arc. The question is, what's wrong with a movie about an "interesting" character...not every movie is about a saint with their **** together, just look at Raging Bull.

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.

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.

[Marvin]

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.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by Marvin

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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

"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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

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.

[Kal-E]

This is a billion dollar franchise. The movies were bad they would never made this much money. Every about these movies screams blockbusters. Plus I have heard so epic rumors from my buddy dean about the plans for the 4th one. It will be the highest grossing of the transformer films and it will be consider the best.
Autobots Roll out!!

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by Kal-E

This is a billion dollar franchise. The movies were bad they would never made this much money. Every about these movies screams blockbusters. Plus I have heard so epic rumors from my buddy dean about the plans for the 4th one. It will be the highest grossing of the transformer films and it will be consider the best.
Autobots Roll out!!

Again I reject the whole notion that just because something is successful and profitable, that is instantly good. Lots of bad movies have been successful. If some people like these movies, fine, that's their opinion, just like its my opinion that these movies are bad. But people on this thread saying all criticism of these illegitimate because these movies are successful, that strikes me as bizarre.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by The Overlord

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.

Nope, but most do.
Especially when they aren't coming off of such things as the most loved franchises in the history of film or are the sequels to critically and financially successful installments. Or are adapted from books that are worldwide pop culture zeitgeist machines. If a film is coming off of nothing but it's own merit or better yet a hated series of films, it's most likely not anywhere near that top 20 list unless it's doing something right.

I like your food analogy. Here's another. There is a well cooked meal and then there's ice cream. That's all well and good. Now there is good ice cream and there's bad ice cream.
Good ice cream has it's place. Next you will be saying there's no place for comedy in the film industry because it offers no "substance." I mean people like it but you know, that doesn't make it any less "bad for you".

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.

You can call all the bs you want. Like I said, there are many ways around it, you but need to apply yourself. And perhaps imagine what the gov't and military are truly capable off on their own soil.

ie, robots, not alien monsters, so who's to say it wasn't a military experiment or attack. Are there enough locals to doubt that? A localized emp could stop any footage being recorded or immediately sent out...I digress, because it wasn't shown I suppose that makes it a hole.
I honestly wonder how they even cleaned up the city, seeing as how that wasn't shown either.

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.

Suspension of Disbelief ends where the story wants it to end. If Shia all of a sudden transforms you would cry bloody murder, then the script would say, he's had alot of exposure to the all spark and you would still cry bloody murder. If spiderman started shooting lasers out of his hand, after he was bit and anyone but fan boys cried about it, I would be surprised. A radio active spider bite and we're supposed to understand what comes next, outside of nothing or death

Do you know the physics, quantum or otherwise of how the all spark works, moreover how it reacts with cybertronian physiology, let alone what state the robot's body has to in(dead or alive) when it is put in contact with the artifact ....you don't. So why act like you just saw an apple bounce off the ground and reach orbit.

Jetfire used a mobile ground bride, I thought that was clear.

And he is the same annoying little bastard by the start the second film. He never seems to learn anything that is retained. Character regression is one of the problems I had with Iron Man 2, but it was worse with Sam.

Character regression as you put it is very much Marvel's stigma. Well as long as you complained about it in those films, I don't need to bring it up. That being said, again Sam’s growth, similar to Tony's is still present, what you are critiquing is their personality traits. To suggest sam isn’t a better person by the end of the movie…

btw, I'm having a hard time recalling Captain America's oh so important character arc. I suppose one could say that after the steroids, he started to believe in himself more.

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.

Prime showed regret in the first film. The second is a year or so into the war in which Decepticons are now killing innocent humans every week or so. Call it what you will, he’s changed, but because it’s a change you aren’t hip too, now its bad.

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.

Says who exactly?
Also, not every time a soldier kills other soldiers, is it an act of self defense in the strictest form. Especially when a bomb is used from a plane. Or better yet, a drone. Yet those aren't war crimes. But putting a dying building sized killer out do do more killing out of it's misery is the devils work. My point was that even our rules are fickle, whose to say what the rules are for these millennia old war time aliens.

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.

I never said he becomes more of an A-hole, those are your words. I said he becomes more of a soldier and less of an idealist. And yes, many people probably did want to see that.

Prime is not Conan, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Never said Prime is like Conan. I said Conan is a "Noble" warrior and leader.
I also said Prime is a Noble warrior and leader.
Apple and Oranges are both fruits.

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.

The TNG episode "homeworld" deals with the same issue only because it's TNG it's of course better handled imo. The Prime directive may make people come off as A holes, but that doesn't mean it's not right.
Superman could end world hunger and war and all sorts of things in a day yet any fool can argue why he has no right too. Mark Millar nailed it in RedSun.
If Prime doesn't listen to the worlds leaders who represent the people then he truly would be the Ahole you make him out to be.

I'd expect Superman to leave if faced with the same public outcry too.

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.

I don't know about you but none of that is beyond the humor of a 13 year old boy. I say this cause I was one not too long ago. Oh no, dogs humping that's so juvenile. Mothers getting drunk off of band(in some states) substances, so vile...When bay shows a 17 year old masterbating on or off camera, bring it up. When parents have "the talk," and it's a big misunderstanding, it's a joke, one for the whole family.
Fresh Prince and Cosby both dealt with young adult sex, and those programs were intended for the entire family.

I say the films for kids because it's adapted from an 80's Saturday morning toy commercial only this time it's PG13. That means it can appeal to older audiences in it's humor and action. That doesn't mean the material isn't still based on an 80's Saturday morning toy commercial.
I’d expect a PG 13 rated Barney episode to not have G humor if made into a 100plus million dollar film franchise. Maybe they just shouldn’t bother though.

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.

Pixar films aren't trying to do what TF is trying to do. Transformers films and "no real effort" are hardly synonymous. Lots of people, artists and technicians and stunt men alike, work pretty darn hard to put this ultra successful franchise together. I just think it's offensive to ignore that fact. And say there is no effort here, just cause the script doesn’t appeal to your sensibilities or standards for an action comedy adapted from an 80’s Saturday morning toy commercial.

Here's the thing. The simpsons is a great great animated sitcom. Does it compare to the writing in a pixar film? I would argue no. It's great at what it's trying to do. I hate south park with a passion but I'm not on here saying , well it's no Grave of the Fireflies...No, it's great at what it's trying to do.

TF isn't failing at being Toystory 4, it's succeeding at being TF, lots of people don’t like it, but lots of people do. No one liked The Happening for sucking.
Something about Mary is a great little comedy, it's no Gosford Park, so it's a failure? No, it's a great little comedy. I'm personally tired of people missing this point. Bad boys is a great Buddy Cop movie in the Action/Comedy Genre. It's not a failed Serpico

John Tururro, John Malkovich, Frances McDormand all great actors, but all putting on their comedy faces for this as they have in times before. Yet people act like the "Acting" is bad in this one instance. Intent goes along way.

Avengers and dark Knight are not perfect, but they do not have as many problems as the TF films.

That's debatable.
For example (external link due to some language)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFqynqZIcoQ

It's a long 5 parts, but then again, there is alot of crap to cover. You might like it though, it asks the very same question you did above. Just because something is successful doesn't mean it's good. However, Batman isn't based on an 80's Saturday morning toy… it's a film that sent out "for your consideration ads. I ponder why be hard on an admitted romp yet no as hard on a critical study....as many’s like you do.