G.I. Joe Rise Of Cobra possibly in huge trouble

[CelticPredator]

Ooooh.

 

[Timstuff]

Wrong. BlackLantern already explained it well enough in one of his posts on this page.

Once again another throw around term that most people don't know the meaning of.

Noooo! Hau dar U take away one of the internet's favorite misappropriated buzz words!

 

[Ace of Knaves]

People need to be relieved from their ignorant bliss!

 

[BlackLantern]

if people want to dump on Bay or Sommers, that's fine...just do it correctly is all....

 

[The Guard]

Well the cartoon and comics had characters that were distinguishable from one another.

So does the movie. You can't sit there and tell me with a straight face that it's any harder to tell, say, Ironhide and Jazz apart in the movie than it would be for someone to tell the comics versions apart. The average person would be confused regardless, but there are marked differences between the characters.

It had themes of anti-imperialism

Do does the movie in some sense. Definitely from Prime's character and the military. .

and environmentalism

True, but it was, after all, the 80's.

it wasn't just a cheap army commercial/monster movie. At least Bay could have the Decepticons raiding the Earth's oil rigs for power.

Meh. I mean, I get they turn it into energon and whatnot, and that the "resources" theme can potentially be compelling if explored at length or over the course of a series, but...meh.

It had characters who paralleled human society and human questions regarding loyalty, life creation, misplaced trust, endless war, innate ancestral wisdom, innate allegiance, nationalism, the nature of life itself, ambition and legacy.

True, but the comics and cartoons also had dozens and dozens and dozens of stories to explore these things. This is, so far, a pair of two-hour films.

I would say the Transformers movies (based on what we know about the second movie at this point), while they don't exactly parallell human society (and they never entirely did, there were always military angles to events), certainly deals with some of these elements in some fashion,

Transformers conveyed these themes through their interactions with each other and with humans. Bay has made a monster movie where the machines lack any parallels to humans.

"Were we so different?"

I wouldn't say they lack "any" parallells to humans.

The origin of Transformer society is more interesting than anything Bay has attempted. Autobots were a worker class who rebelled against the military class (the Decepticons) because they wanted live autonomous lives. Why would Bay ignore this? Because he identifies with the "military class".

Because it's irrelevant to a story about the Transformers arriving on Earth. Bay and the other creators are clearly more interested in telling the Transformers story from the human perspective.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Wrong. BlackLantern already explained it well enough in one of his posts on this page.

Once again another throw around term that most people don't know the meaning of.

lolz, his definition is no where close to the actual definition. You don't know what the hell your talking about. You just picked the definition that suited your argument without backing it up.

Hack
–noun 1. a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits, for money, his or her creative ability or training in the production of dull, unimaginative, and trite work; one who produces banal and mediocre work in the hope of gaining commercial success in the arts: As a painter, he was little more than a hack. 2. a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment: a political hack.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hack

 

[BlackLantern]

lolz, his definition is no where close to the actual definition. You don't know what the hell your talking about. You just picked the definition that suited your argument without backing it up.

Hack
–noun 1. a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits, for money, his or her creative ability or training in the production of dull, unimaginative, and trite work; one who produces banal and mediocre work in the hope of gaining commercial success in the arts: As a painter, he was little more than a hack. 2. a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment: a political hack.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hack

and its application is largely subjective....it is your OPINION that his work is dull or unimaginative...it is not FACT...

and what's wrong with wanting to make some money??

and Bay has never said he's trying to change the world with his movies....he makes no bones about his movies and exactly what they are

 

[TheVileOne]

What? I said he can't be called a hack just because because he is a crap artist. Because crap doesn't = hack. Like what messiahdecoy was saying.

He is a hack because he used to copy other peoples stuff and claim it was his original works.

I was using it to demonstrate that you cannot compare Liefeld and Bay. Because Bay doesn't copy other peoples work and claim it as his own. You can call Bay crap, but you can't call him a hack.

You don't know what hack means:


hack
2  /hæk/ Show Spelled [hak] Show IPA
–noun
1.a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits, for money, his or her creative ability or training in the production of dull, unimaginative, and trite work; one who produces banal and mediocre work in the hope of gaining commercial success in the arts: As a painter, he was little more than a hack.
2.a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment: a political hack.
3.a writer who works on the staff of a publisher at a dull or routine task; someone who works as a literary drudge: He was one among the many hacks on Grub Street.

In other words Ace, your makeshift definition of HACK is ********. A hack artist is traditionally an artist that produces mediocre work in order to make money.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Mediocre is subjective.

The other definition on that thing you posted, the one I was talking about, is not.

 

[Timstuff]

Exactly. You can call anyone a hack, but it's stil la subjective term. A lot of people like the work of directors like Sommers and Bay, so that means that the opinion that they are "hacks" is hardly a consensus. Now, someone like Uwe Boll on the other hand... You won't find many people who would argue against labeling him a hack.

Point is, with Bay and Sommers it's a buzz word. They make commercially successful films that many critics and a lot of internet people seem to despise, but are generally well liked.

 

[Timstuff]

Exactly. You can call anyone a hack, but it's stil la subjective term. A lot of people like the work of directors like Sommers and Bay, so that means that the opinion that they are "hacks" is hardly a consensus. Now, someone like Uwe Boll on the other hand... You won't find many people who would argue against labeling him a hack.

Point is, with Bay and Sommers it's a buzz word. They make commercially successful films that many critics and a lot of internet people seem to despise, but are generally well liked.

 

[TheVileOne]

Mediocre is subjective.

The other definition on that thing you posted, the one I was talking about, is not.

No it isn't. You are saying a hack is someone that copies other people's work and makes it their own. That's NOT a hack by definition.

If so, then Quentin Tarantino is a hack.

 

[TheVileOne]

Exactly. You can call anyone a hack, but it's stil la subjective term. A lot of people like the work of directors like Sommers and Bay, so that means that the opinion that they are "hacks" is hardly a consensus. Now, someone like Uwe Boll on the other hand... You won't find many people who would argue against labeling him a hack.

Point is, with Bay and Sommers it's a buzz word. They make commercially successful films that many critics and a lot of internet people seem to despise, but are generally well liked.

From the dictionary:

one who produces banal and mediocre work in the hope of gaining commercial success in the arts: As a painter, he was little more than a hack.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

So does the movie. You can't sit there and tell me with a straight face that it's any harder to tell, say, Ironhide and Jazz apart in the movie than it would be for someone to tell the comics versions apart. The average person would be confused regardless, but there are marked differences between the characters.

lol. You guys keep using Jazz as an example because he's the only Bayformer with a human like face and visor.

Do does the movie in some sense. Definitely from Prime's character and the military. .

Because of their rebellion the autobots started their own military to fight the decepticons.

True, but the comics and cartoons also had dozens and dozens and dozens of stories to explore these things. This is, so far, a pair of two-hour films.

4 hours if you include the first movie. Plenty of time to explore some of the more compelling themes in Transformers.

I would say the Transformers movies (based on what we know about the second movie at this point), while they don't exactly parallell human society (and they never entirely did, there were always military angles to events), certainly deals with some of these elements in some fashion,

The parallels come from the Transformers on an individual bases. They had human-like struggles and aspirations when it came to their civil war.

Because it's irrelevant to a story about the Transformers arriving on Earth. Bay and the other creators are clearly more interested in telling the Transformers story from the human perspective.

In the first movie Optimus explains the origins of the war. They could've easily fit the real origin in there. Why the Transformers fought for millions of years is relevant to the story.

 

[Timstuff]

From the dictionary:

That's not a consensus though, it's an opinion. At best you could claim that the consensus is that Michael Bay and Stephen Sommers are controversial, but to say they are hacks is just opinion. I could say Quenton Tarantino is a hack since I don't like his movies, but there are plenty of people who would disagree with me.

 

[CelticPredator]

Soul less G1 fanboys.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

No it isn't. You are saying a hack is someone that copies other people's work and makes it their own. That's NOT a hack by definition.

If so, then Quentin Tarantino is a hack.

2.a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence

That to me basically means copying or not having their own individual style.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

All criticism is subjective but that doesn't make Bayformers above criticism.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Soul less G1 fanboys.

rosebud.

If a Bay apologist has a soul then so does a G1 fanatic.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

and what's wrong with wanting to make some money??

and Bay has never said he's trying to change the world with his movies....he makes no bones about his movies and exactly what they are

When artful storytelling a creativity suffer then greed is a problem.

 

[BlackLantern]

2.a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment:

...but Bay has never said that his films were meant for some higher purpose...he likes action, that's what he does....if he had started out claiming that he was going to make the next great American film and then churned out Transformers then yes I could see the argument....but he's made no apologies for the movies that he puts out because he knows EXACTLY what they are....

 

[TheVileOne]

2.a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence

That to me basically means copying or not having their own individual style.

Yeah you are kind of reaching there.

 

[BlackLantern]

also....Hasbro OK'd the story for the first film....if you listen to the commentary on the first film he said when they were done with the script they went to Hasbro and laid out what they were going to do and Hasbro gave it the thumbs up....and Transformers is their property

 

[TheVileOne]

...but Bay has never said that his films were meant for some higher purpose...he likes action, that's what he does....if he had started out claiming that he was going to make the next great American film and then churned out Transformers then yes I could see the argument....but he's made no apologies for the movies that he puts out because he knows EXACTLY what they are....

Yes he has. See Pearl Harbor. And then see his open disappointment in having to do Bad Boys 2.

 

[TheVileOne]

also....Hasbro OK'd the story for the first film....if you listen to the commentary on the first film he said when they were done with the script they went to Hasbro and laid out what they were going to do and Hasbro gave it the thumbs up....and Transformers is their property

Hasbro doesn't give a **** about the integrity of the material. They just want a big ass movie that will make a ton of money they can put their names on.

Look at GI JOE.

Akira Toriyama toured the set of DBE and had a great time and told fans to see the movie and he's the creator of Dragon ball.