Is it pointless to hope for a better script than the first movie?

[Vile]

It's a movie about a toy commericial with giant flying robots that change into cars.

Honestly...you were expecting Shakespear? It certainly wasnt the greatest written film of all time but it gave about as much as it could give...I was happy with it.

[CEREBRAL....]

Originally Posted by Vile

It's a movie about a toy commericial with giant flying robots that change into cars.

Honestly...you were expecting Shakespear? It certainly wasnt the greatest written film of all time but it gave about as much as it could give...I was happy with it.

To me this is just a dumb lazy approach or an excuse about a movie..and "Lord of the Rings" was about some make-believe trolls who knew magic and were chasing a ring that gave them power, "Dark Knight" was about a man in a blk custom crime fighting, spider man as well...like i have said before to someone else...anything could be dumb'd down..it's up to the people who u put these things in their hands to come back and make something worth wild....plain and simple...it wasn't (TF) to alot of us...we expect more in general and for the next coming flick.

[The Lizard]

Originally Posted by S.A.A.D

Dude,you're the one who put a freaking sad face near the name of this thread that you concocted. I just think you're blowing the situation out of proportion. I couldn't be bothered to skim through each post to find examples from you about why you think the direction was so bad for Transformers. Here's an idea for you,concentrate on let's say the good thing's this movie has going for it. You're not letting yourself see past the cons,from one Transformers fan to another,I think you owe it to yourself to do what is necessary.

On the contrary, I think I've done a rather good job at getting past the cons in my general enjoyment of the film. As I said, I WAS entertained overall by the 2007 TF movie in the theater. In fact, after I saw it, I made more than a few Spidey fans around here upset by saying that I was more entertained by TF than I was by Spider-Man 3. And I'm a big Spidey fan too.

But.....while Spider-Man 3 disappointed on many levels, it wasn't nearly as howlingly bad in the script and dialog department as TF. The sheer sloppiness and laziness of the characterizations and human scenes in TF make the film hard to sit through in repeat viewings. There's a reason why such a technically advanced, whiz-bang fun movie still ended up with a "rotten" rating on Rottentomatoes.com.

I'm perfectly capable of turning off my brain and enjoying a silly, light, pointless movie. Hell, I've loved Godzilla movies for years. But, when a blockbuster movie is dumbed-down to a certain point just because the writers and directors obviously think they know what we, the pea-brained masses of moviegoers find funny and engaging, it can get really annoying.

And to respond to the claim that Transformers is off the hook for its stupidity due to being "meant for the kids", I must point out the PG-13 rating as well as the comparative writing in other "kids movies" made by Pixar as a rebuttal. Where is the lazy, broad, infantile dialog in Pixar "kids movies"?

I found about 25% of Transformers awesome, but the remaining 75% eye-rollingly bad. I would just like to close the gap between those two extremes a little bit and I don't think that's unreasonable.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by The Lizard

On the contrary, I think I've done a rather good job at getting past the cons in my general enjoyment of the film. As I said, I WAS entertained overall by the 2007 TF movie in the theater. In fact, after I saw it, I made more than a few Spidey fans around here upset by saying that I was more entertained by TF than I was by Spider-Man 3. And I'm a big Spidey fan too.

But.....while Spider-Man 3 disappointed on many levels, it wasn't nearly as howlingly bad in the script and dialog department as TF. The sheer sloppiness and laziness of the characterizations and human scenes in TF make the film hard to sit through in repeat viewings. There's a reason why such a technically advanced, whiz-bang fun movie still ended up with a "rotten" rating on Rottentomatoes.com.

I agree with most of this except for the "rotten rating" part, reading all of those(and i read a good chunk) reviews, the amount of time's bays name and his movie making sensibilties and the offended-ness the critics said they had experienced in the past from bay films....again show a bias, half those reviews are fair, for in about half of the reviews, only about half of the review is about the film itself..

Moreover

on the subject of rotten tomatoes
go look at the review these critics gave the original "90 minute toy commercial"(not my words)
that fan standby so diligently an then compare it to the 2007 version(which did get a higher review i think)

never stood a chance...in fact...critics. lol

I'm perfectly capable of turning off my brain and enjoying a silly, light, pointless movie.

It's interesting that you say this cause in your next little part u kinda contradict yourself a little bit based on an assumption about the filmmakers intent.

Hell, I've loved Godzilla movies for years. But, when a blockbuster movie is dumbed-down to a certain point just because the writers and directors obviously think they know what we, the pea-brained masses of moviegoers find funny and engaging, it can get really annoying.

don't know about your theater I assume they were booing and mooning and laughing at how dumb the film was, cause where i happened to be, everyone seemed to be enjoying themselves and laughing at the jokes
A friend of mine went with another friend of mine and they were screaming and chanting when the movie was "kicking ass" only to meet back up at school and join in the mass contempt for the movie...
I found it odd at the time...now not so much.

And to respond to the claim that Transformers is off the hook for its stupidity due to being "meant for the kids", I must point out the PG-13 rating as well as the comparative writing in other "kids movies" made by Pixar as a rebuttal. Where is the lazy, broad, infantile dialog in Pixar "kids movies"?

Something about Mary was Restricted where i'm from and it was the dumbest take on a love story ever...(when you know compared to things like Casablanca and the notebook and even let the right one it..)

Disney movies have story time tested source material on their side(same with kubrick who only did movies based on strong books)

its not about what age group the movie is for, its about who the audience is.

I found about 25% of Transformers awesome, but the remaining 75% eye-rollingly bad. I would just like to close the gap between those two extremes a little bit and I don't think that's unreasonable.

well put

[Vile]

Originally Posted by CEREBRAL....

To me this is just a dumb lazy approach or an excuse about a movie..and "Lord of the Rings" was about some make-believe trolls who knew magic and were chasing a ring that gave them power, "Dark Knight" was about a man in a blk custom crime fighting, spider man as well...like i have said before to someone else...anything could be dumb'd down..it's up to the people who u put these things in their hands to come back and make something worth wild....plain and simple...it wasn't (TF) to alot of us...we expect more in general and for the next coming flick.

I've heard this argument before and it doesnt hold water. The Batfilms and Spidey films have been around for years with hundreds of 'tones' to choose from. Look at the Batfilms! It essentually covers all the major Batman eras from the craptastic 60's to the NOW.

LOTRs? You're kidding right?

Transformers has ALWAYS been a one dimensional kid television show. Two sides going after the same object almost every episode. Why is Prime a good guy? Because the show says he is. Why is Megatron bad? Because the show says he is.

These characters have no depth. We didnt watch this show to see intense relationships between characters! We wanted to see the robots fly, shoot lasers and transform into trucks.

Anywho who seriously went into Transformers thinking Bay was going revolutionize the characters, story, EVERYTHING and make it some deep, emotional Apocalypse Now/Private Ryan-with-robots tale was deluding themselves.

You want to know what to expect in the sequel? The same as Transformers 1 only more robots, more robots kicking ass and more explosions. Dont get your hopes up on anything else.

[Dotten]

I basicly hope for the same as in the first one. The whiners will whine no matter what, I'm just glad I'm lucky enough to love the first and hope I can love the second.

If anything, give me more Prime-time. But that they have promised, so this is looking good

[The Guard]

I don't think it's pointless to hope for a better script. I tend to believe that that's what we'll get on most levels. The whole "natural resources" theme isn't deep. It's part of Transformers lore, but it isn't anything particularly clever. Maybe in the 80's it was insightful, but now...now it's just "been done". Robots that transform into vehicle are cool, but again, not deep. So what's left to add depth to the concept? I think the only thing you can do to add a level of seriousness to the franchise and take it out of "robot soap opera" land is to approach this from a real world perspective. How would the world react if Transformers arrived? How would the Transformers react to humans? And so forth. Those are the elements that made the first movie successful, along with the basics, and those are the elements that need to be handled well in the second film.

While I like the concept of The Transformers as characters in their own rite, I'd rather see them from the human's POV on film, through the eyes of a species that has no experience with these beings, than from their own, as a race for whom this stuff is just normal. It adds an element of "uniqueness" that otherwise wouldn't exist so much. That's not to say we can't visit the Transformers on their own.

In TF2, I'd basically like to see Sam and whatever her name was grow up. I'd like to see The Transformers evolve in their interactions with humans, and evolve their relationship with them, and I'd like a little bit more dramatic weight given to dramatic events (Jazz's death, for example) and a few less random subplots (the Hacker thing, which wasn't awful, but did take up time that could have been used on the Autobots), but I wouldn't mind a film with a similar basic tone. Maybe a few less random jokes. I do understand why the entire movie isn't featuring the Transformers, though. That would be ridiculously expensive. Even moreso than the film already is.

[dark_b]

i think not every movie needs to be serious. of course it doesnt have to be on the same level as an Uwe Boll movie. but its fun to watch a movie like crank,transporter,transformers,.....

[CEREBRAL....]

Originally Posted by Vile

I've heard this argument before and it doesnt hold water. The Batfilms and Spidey films have been around for years with hundreds of 'tones' to choose from. Look at the Batfilms! It essentually covers all the major Batman eras from the craptastic 60's to the NOW.

LOTRs? You're kidding right?

Transformers has ALWAYS been a one dimensional kid television show. Two sides going after the same object almost every episode. Why is Prime a good guy? Because the show says he is. Why is Megatron bad? Because the show says he is.

These characters have no depth. We didnt watch this show to see intense relationships between characters! We wanted to see the robots fly, shoot lasers and transform into trucks.

Anywho who seriously went into Transformers thinking Bay was going revolutionize the characters, story, EVERYTHING and make it some deep, emotional Apocalypse Now/Private Ryan-with-robots tale was deluding themselves.

You want to know what to expect in the sequel? The same as Transformers 1 only more robots, more robots kicking ass and more explosions. Dont get your hopes up on anything else.

So it's an one dimensional kid show, the characters lack depth??......WHAT WERE THE COMICS ABOUT? ALSO HOW U HAVE A SHOW ON FOR 4 YEARS (OR HOWEVER LONG THE SHOW WAS ON TO) and the animators never develop the characters???????

also if the characters lack depth..then y do most fans know BB is the beloved one, why do they know(the fans)s the constant battles between megs and starscream...how is it possible for fans of the show to have their favorites????

[CEREBRAL....]

Originally Posted by The Lizard

On the contrary, I think I've done a rather good job at getting past the cons in my general enjoyment of the film. As I said, I WAS entertained overall by the 2007 TF movie in the theater. In fact, after I saw it, I made more than a few Spidey fans around here upset by saying that I was more entertained by TF than I was by Spider-Man 3. And I'm a big Spidey fan too.

But.....while Spider-Man 3 disappointed on many levels, it wasn't nearly as howlingly bad in the script and dialog department as TF. The sheer sloppiness and laziness of the characterizations and human scenes in TF make the film hard to sit through in repeat viewings. There's a reason why such a technically advanced, whiz-bang fun movie still ended up with a "rotten" rating on Rottentomatoes.com.

I'm perfectly capable of turning off my brain and enjoying a silly, light, pointless movie. Hell, I've loved Godzilla movies for years. But, when a blockbuster movie is dumbed-down to a certain point just because the writers and directors obviously think they know what we, the pea-brained masses of moviegoers find funny and engaging, it can get really annoying.

And to respond to the claim that Transformers is off the hook for its stupidity due to being "meant for the kids", I must point out the PG-13 rating as well as the comparative writing in other "kids movies" made by Pixar as a rebuttal. Where is the lazy, broad, infantile dialog in Pixar "kids movies"?

I found about 25% of Transformers awesome, but the remaining 75% eye-rollingly bad. I would just like to close the gap between those two extremes a little bit and I don't think that's unreasonable.

bravo!! Bravo....well said but yet u type this out...and someone wants to call you a hater or think you are basically asking for to much..i just dont get it..great post thou.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by CEREBRAL....

So it's an one dimensional kid show, the characters lack depth??......WHAT WERE THE COMICS ABOUT? ALSO HOW U HAVE A SHOW ON FOR 4 YEARS (OR HOWEVER LONG THE SHOW WAS ON TO) and the animators never develop the characters???????

also if the characters lack depth..then y do most fans know BB is the beloved one, why do they know(the fans)s the constant battles between megs and starscream...how is it possible for fans of the show to have their favorites????

if you applied the same energy in finding the "depth" and "substance" that you put in the original

into the 2007 movie, you might trip over your own feet.

[terry78]

I think when it comes to comic books, video games, tv shows and what not being turned into "serious" live action movies, you can either go too far trying to take itself serious or too far into parody. You have to strike a balance. I think the first flick was well done, but the makers also knew what they were working with, which is, in fact, regardless of how much canon is behind it, a 1980s cartoon/toyline. Most of our own parents felt the same way when we told them about this movie or if they watched it with us, but I think Bay did a decent job the first time around.

As far as this time around, if they can establish a greater since of urgency and dread due to the Fallen, as well as an uneasy alliance between the two factions, I'm cool with that, but in the same breath, don't forget your roots in the somewhat campy world that TF inhabits. Every single incarnation of the universe has had some humor and in-jokeyness, regardless of it being the comics, a tv show, an anime, fanfic, whatever.

[WeaponXProject]

I don't think that its foolish to think the script will be better than the first movie. As I recall about 30 minutes of the first movie had pointless laughs with Anthony Anderson. Not to mention the hot australian girl who knew that transformers were in fact an alien life form that is robot organism. I think if the focus was more on Sam and not goofy side characters than this film will be alot better than the last. THe way Bay adds corny laughs into his movie is the only complaint I had about the first. If it would focus on what fans want to see, more transformers in action and less humans then it will be fantastic.

[Vile]

Originally Posted by Marvin

if you applied the same energy in finding the "depth" and "substance" that you put in the original

into the 2007 movie, you might trip over your own feet.

Exactly.

So it's an one dimensional kid show, the characters lack depth??......WHAT WERE THE COMICS ABOUT? ALSO HOW U HAVE A SHOW ON FOR 4 YEARS (OR HOWEVER LONG THE SHOW WAS ON TO) and the animators never develop the characters???????

also if the characters lack depth..then y do most fans know BB is the beloved one, why do they know(the fans)s the constant battles between megs and starscream...how is it possible for fans of the show to have their favorites????

Get over it, dude.

[CEREBRAL....]

Originally Posted by Vile

Exactly.




Get over it, dude.

^^aka...i have nothing to counter point..thnkx

[CEREBRAL....]

Originally Posted by Marvin

if you applied the same energy in finding the "depth" and "substance" that you put in the original

into the 2007 movie, you might trip over your own feet.

u bore me......

[S.A.A.D.]

Originally Posted by The Lizard

On the contrary, I think I've done a rather good job at getting past the cons in my general enjoyment of the film. As I said, I WAS entertained overall by the 2007 TF movie in the theater. In fact, after I saw it, I made more than a few Spidey fans around here upset by saying that I was more entertained by TF than I was by Spider-Man 3. And I'm a big Spidey fan too.

But.....while Spider-Man 3 disappointed on many levels, it wasn't nearly as howlingly bad in the script and dialog department as TF. The sheer sloppiness and laziness of the characterizations and human scenes in TF make the film hard to sit through in repeat viewings. There's a reason why such a technically advanced, whiz-bang fun movie still ended up with a "rotten" rating on Rottentomatoes.com.

I'm perfectly capable of turning off my brain and enjoying a silly, light, pointless movie. Hell, I've loved Godzilla movies for years. But, when a blockbuster movie is dumbed-down to a certain point just because the writers and directors obviously think they know what we, the pea-brained masses of moviegoers find funny and engaging, it can get really annoying.

And to respond to the claim that Transformers is off the hook for its stupidity due to being "meant for the kids", I must point out the PG-13 rating as well as the comparative writing in other "kids movies" made by Pixar as a rebuttal. Where is the lazy, broad, infantile dialog in Pixar "kids movies"?

I found about 25% of Transformers awesome, but the remaining 75% eye-rollingly bad. I would just like to close the gap between those two extremes a little bit and I don't think that's unreasonable.

1) Ugh,look at 3).


2) You certainly didn't shut your entire brain down to enjoy Transformers..no one need's to shut their brains off to enjoy a movie. That is a piece of crazy and strong logic there,you're just projecting that belief on the movie.

3) This "I found about 25% of Transformers awesome, but the remaining 75% eye-rollingly bad"=what the fudge? You are contradicting yourself,you seem misguided.
Interesting.

4) Speaking of laziness,most of your post consists of Spiderman 3 movie talk and a sprinkle of Godzilla 1998 talk. As far as I am concerned you are a completist,and guess what? Not every single movie you will watch that you haven't can provide you all you want. You must come to that realization. You want Transformers movies to be Shakespeareish,I am for good storylines and good dialog from Transformers movie,but come on. It would ruin the spirit and tone of the Transformers if it was entirely like that(Shakespeareish). It is necessary and vital that a balance is struck,and quite frankly I think it was nailed and think it will be nailed again and onwards.

[LightningFlash]

Originally Posted by CEREBRAL....

u bore me......

If he bores you, STOP arguing!!!!!

But noooo, you just have to keep telling your side of the story.

Damn

[terry78]

I'll put it like this...in no way could I see the gritty take of TDK in the TF world. It just wouldn't mesh. Nolan managed to filter out all the garbage that Batman stories have had over the decades and struck pay dirt, but with Transformers, the concept in and of itself is outlandish, which is why we like it.

[LightningFlash]

First people compare TDK to Spidey.

And now Transformers.

Yay.

Thanks Nolan.

[CEREBRAL....]

Originally Posted by LightningFlash

If he bores you, STOP arguing!!!!!

But noooo, you just have to keep telling your side of the story.

Damn

Wait a min. i dont remember calling your name or seeing how u fit into this..i was having a convo with another poster and he decided to drop in his two cents..(just like how u are doing..) sooo... onless i was speaking to you....plz stay out of it..thanks i'm sure he doesn't need a father on these boards....thnkx

[baerrtt]

Originally Posted by CEREBRAL....

So it's an one dimensional kid show, the characters lack depth??......WHAT WERE THE COMICS ABOUT? ALSO HOW U HAVE A SHOW ON FOR 4 YEARS (OR HOWEVER LONG THE SHOW WAS ON TO) and the animators never develop the characters???????

also if the characters lack depth..then y do most fans know BB is the beloved one, why do they know(the fans)s the constant battles between megs and starscream...how is it possible for fans of the show to have their favorites????

Just because a bunch of comics tried adding depth to the TF canon doesn't mean that the actual material is worthy. Do you really need 'depth' and 'grittiness' to enjoy something which wasn't created(or adapted when it went to tv) for those purposes?

Your average joe knows that Batman has been portrayed as a darker character since at least Burton's BATMAN over the last 20 years or so whilst LOTR is one of the most acclaimed novels of the 20th Century. You want TF to be something it never has and never can be?

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I'm not about to take sides on this but I will say this.......

With claims like..... "the comic tried to add depth to TF canon" or "Transformers were originally a 30 minute toy ad" or "Transformers has ALWAYS been a one dimensional kid television show" you would think that the G1 cartoon was the "FIRST" medium in which the TF fiction was told.

And the truth of the matter is......... The G1 cartoon didnt come first.

So the comic didnt add depth to TF canon the cartoon stole it.

[Chris B]

I don't really understand the criticism that some people make about critics of TF1 about them wanting some Shakespearian plot. I think those people realize that Transformers has never been that deep of a franchise. I think all they wanted was some thing like Iron Man, Spider-Man 1, the first three Indiana Jones films, etc. A combination of a lighthearted tone and a solid storyline.

For the record, I enjoyed TF1 and will probably enjoy ROTF when all is said and done. But as TF fan, I can't deny that TF film franchise leaves a lot to be desired in its current state.

[The Lizard]

Originally Posted by S.A.A.D

1) Ugh,look at 3).


2) You certainly didn't shut your entire brain down to enjoy Transformers..no one need's to shut their brains off to enjoy a movie. That is a piece of crazy and strong logic there,you're just projecting that belief on the movie.

3) This "I found about 25% of Transformers awesome, but the remaining 75% eye-rollingly bad"=what the fudge? You are contradicting yourself,you seem misguided.
Interesting.

4) Speaking of laziness,most of your post consists of Spiderman 3 movie talk and a sprinkle of Godzilla 1998 talk. As far as I am concerned you are a completist,and guess what? Not every single movie you will watch that you haven't can provide you all you want. You must come to that realization. You want Transformers movies to be Shakespeareish,I am for good storylines and good dialog from Transformers movie,but come on. It would ruin the spirit and tone of the Transformers if it was entirely like that(Shakespeareish). It is necessary and vital that a balance is struck,and quite frankly I think it was nailed and think it will be nailed again and onwards.

Wow, you totally failed to grasp what I was saying.

I didn't mention "Godzilla 1998", I was talking about Godzilla movies in general. But you did bring up an interesting point. The 1998 American Godzilla movie had better special effects than any of the original Japanese Godzilla movies. But today, the US Godzilla movie is dismissed as a dorky attempt at an overhyped blockbuster that ultimately failed to generate enough interest to even justify a sequel, while the low-tech Japanese Godzilla is still a beloved pop icon.

Anyway, back to Transformers....
The TF cartoon was indeed limited in its scope and depth considering that it was a toy-based cartoon. I freely admit that (since I am not a "completist", whatever that means in regard to Transformers). But, I also don't remember the cartoon having dorky dog piss gags or wacky racial stereotypes aimed at the same crowd that thought Eddie Murphy's Meet Dave movie was hilarious.

If you think everything about the first TF movie was "nailed", and there's no room for corrections, well that's fine for you. Despite the fact that I love giant robots beating the crap out of each other, and I realize it's "not Shakespeare" I'm apparently a bit more demanding with regard to how a sci-fi film speaks to my intelligence level.