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

[Marvin]

You're right as we've had summer blockbusters (and i'm not talking about TDK, WALL-E, FORREST GUMP, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN etc which all were concerned with far more than delivering a 'fun' ride) who had no other mission statement to deliver just that. And these were films that turned out to be genuinely great(JAWS, STAR WARS, RAIDERS, ET et al were all nominated for Best Picture) despite being (on paper) 'inconsequential'.

'Fun' doesn't and shouldn't mean hollow.

Oh btw I think he's referring to Jerry Bruckenheimer when he says JB which doesn't matter anymore as Bay's no longer his glorified director for hire. And yet he's still the same filmmaker he was under JB's so called 'restrictions'. Says a lot.

critical acclaim is great and all, but it really doesn't speak for an audience
and that's who films are for

I find the fact that the mtv audience voted for it for best film, kinda says something about the way the audience it was intended for recieved it

fun doesn't mean hollow and none of bay's films have been hollow
any of bays films weather they're about a family crisis in the middle of an asteriod threat, or about a failed love during a significant moment of american history or harvesting clones with souls for body parts...or a boy and his first car...

again go watch transporter three, write down what it's about in a sentence and then we can compare levels of hollowness

JBs restrictions are present in all of his non bay movies...

he's not the same filmmaker without JB, sure he shots with just as much impact, but go read a review of the island and you'll find someone surprised at that "bay is actually telling a story that asks questions"
TF is a movie based on a toy line

 

[Marvin]

Hehe, maybe. Like I said, Bay will never give me a life altering experience like the maestros I mentioned (I also love Chaplin, Eastwood, Hitchcock, Lynch and Nolan), but no one gives me more fun at the big screen then Bay. Maybe except for Spielberg.

And I'm often stamped as the "film elitist" because of my love for film auteur. I watch more black and white these days then color. I doubt there are many at my age (29) or younger who have seen more films.

The Bay-hate seems more based on political bias then anything else, but that's just my opinion. I have no problem with what people look upon as bad directing from Bay, but from my point of view those things make the film better not worse. Bays stile is not good for drama or "action grounden in reality" (god I hate that worn out "grounded in reality"), but he's the best at what he does. Transformers was great, I absolutely loved it. And I was one who read the script before and complained (I think I did it on these boards come to think of it).

But Bay prooved me wrong. I felt like an 8-year old again and I thank him for that. I hope I can take a trip back to that in the sequel.



I am taking this seriously. Excuse me for having another opinion then you, I'm not fond of the sheep-mentality.

This is a normative discussion, not a descriptive. There is no right or wrong, just different opinions. So please show some tolerance and peace out

good for you dotten
at least your honest about why your in line for the movie

a hypocrite you are not

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

nope, but they would have the exact same substance, for directors shoot scripts..

But I doubt that bay would have been able to show case that same substance.

the lack of substance in bay flims is the lack of substance in bay scripts

I doubt thats always true.

so you assume the director who's shot (his own) scripts with alot to them is good(and is good at bringing the good out of....the good)

and the director who's shot scripts with a little to them is bad(at pulling substance out of thin air)

seems like an obvious disadvantage

an no I "that much" of a bay fan, i appreciate his work...
in any discussion I really am bothered by some or anyone being mis represented

and plus i have a soft spot for music vid directors.

marty mc fly acted realistically?

I think so....his actions seemed to fit naturally with his personality.

i'm sorry but if i found out i was back in time I would crawl in fetal position

I wouldnt.

if i learnt i was trapped i would craw into fetal position

I might.....if I ended up in the hippie era

playing the rock song infront of everyone...i'd probably lay low
the list goes on

All you proved is what you would do.

And its no more or less realistic then what Marty did.

Me I would seek out collectible items that I knew would be worth something and find a place to hide then for when I get back to my own time.

but for some marty was just doing the normal thing, I found his actions to be outlandish
then again, i'm a brother

I'm a cuzin

 

[Marvin]

Not nearly as much as movie makers would like to think...

Again not as much as the movie maker would like to think.These movie depend far to much on the fact that the viewers arent expecting the best.

And thats a shame.

The viewers expect the film to be entertaining...and box office and viewers choice structured awards attest to that

The approach wasn't....but the execution was.

And again that falls to Bay not the script.

whatever your personal gripes are with the way the director fertilized the characterization from script full of weak characters, no matter the obvious disadvantage to a many directors adapting word for word screenplays from books that are decades old and celebrated for their story and character achievements is your observation as to why bay movies "fail"

my observation as to why people come say they don't like them is because the stories are over the top tent poles with cheesy subject matter and, racial sterotypes, and objectification of women.

we'll discuss in ciricles but really that's what it comes to,

maybe bay should work harder at making lemons out of lemonade...but at some point ppl should acknowlegde that he's working with lemons
and that the audience that has has generated figures in the billions, might actually be into what he's selling...

could it be better?
TDK could be better.

in a script there is a character that is a stereotype of say hispanic origins and this buddy cop ACTION COMDEY is a production costing somewhere north of 100 mill

now bay the director slash acting coach should say
"ok hernado, i want you read the lines with so much conviction you break the stereo type..."

sorry but it's just not so cut and dry

i appreciate that that example wasn't a fair take on what you've argued fairly graciously, but even within the last 3 pages of this very thread
someone has brought up that bay did his usual stereo typical approach to characterization and racial satire...

you say call for a re-write, i say go do some research on wolverines production

JB, unlike wb's batman producers, has his nose clean of **** stains. (that was pretty grimey lol )

Not really.

The characters in "Mary" had as much presence and personalty to suit the films purpose then the characters of "Gone with the wind" did.

I really don't think so, but if YOU think so i won't tell you how to absorb performances
funny enough i found a good chunk of the characters in not only TF but in other bay films to have just as much and more character and conviction to character then Camron Diaz (when she used to be pretty) in that film

Pretty much the whole cast of armageddon had personality and presense, and if not all of them(as i'm sure you'll attest to) then more than one
(buschmi)

Beckinsale Will Smith and Martin Lawrence the clones, Alec Baldwin, jon voight as Rosvelt etc...

if you're going to akin you definition of character to what she did in that film, then it's a little more then subjective now, it's almost biased.

Well to be honest I was complaining on how the TF's had no character.

I see, well I honestly don't think bay tired to give them any...they were like the fodder character in Roger Rabbit

the Robots he did focus on did resonate tho
enough for you and everyone else on these boards to remember who and what optimus was to this day...

ish???

****

And again how are you debunking my allegation that Bay failed to deliver????

As stated my complaint isint that Bay created those elements or wrote them in....its that Bay cant bring them to life with a sence of realizem in his films.

they didn't work on paper

its the same as reading a book and it getting a bad review.
now that book that got a bad review because they simply said dumb, unreasonable crap and found themselves in fun but ridiculous situation, is made into a movie...

I won't look at David leans work on Bridge of a River and say compared to that, bay really can't direct good characters.

I agree acting an bring another dimension to simple dialogue, in fact it can make or break the simple phrase "I love you"
but an entire script with a poorly written character will not be saved by a directors coaching of an actor

i don't think we'll convince each other on this

perhaps instead of giving me an example of directors harvesting good character work out of good actors with good scripts to read from...you try giving someone that has made lemonade of of the lemons bay makes money out of...

Wonderfully???

You got to be kidding me??

Almost None of it rang true in Armageddon.

wonderfully meaning a lot of fun
harry and his blue collar contemporary's at nasa for instance...
wonderful stuff
I assume the audience you seen it with was booing the whole time...

Thats BS and you know it.

If the failures on paper its his job to have it re-written to suit his vision.

And the fact is, in this case, most of the failur was not in the script but in how it was filmed.It was Bays job to coax the right preformance from the actors.

Granted thats not always possible with the cast of some films but the actors in Armagedon are perfectlly capable of delievering in those roles.

Even Ben, who I only like in supporting roles, was ideal for his part...and Bay failed to make him seem real, to make you feel like you were in his shoes.

Bay brought the right "vision" to armageddon...the fact that it did as well as it did and it's now a criterion(i think)
attests to that...on paper it's a laughable movie.

if you want me to work within your realm of fairness, and director responsibilities fine...

over a year ago, when the TF script was leaked...many a fan boy and non fan boy alike said it was a complete failure..not just to capture the spirit of the g1 ilk but as an entertaining movie or even a coherent one...pointless human characters, and not one robot that has any ties to the spirit of the original series..

Spielberg hires bay and somehow it's a world success in the 3 quarters of billion mark(that's alot of people who must want their money back)

Robots in disguise in a way live action cinema has never done(another original concept from bay)

best movie from the award show voted on by it's audience

and shia praised for his work...by the "dumb audience" and critics alike
plus his career lunched

bay succeeded...the script was weak...he made the movie an event

David lean is my favorite director and all his films were critical hits long before he touched them

Again BS.

If he cant fix the issues durring shooting it only proves that he's incabable of dooing so.

not if the issues stem deeper then just line delivery

go to three people you hate bay(should be too hard)
ask them for 3 exact reasons they hate his films

u'll get stuff like
over the top action
weak stories
pretty actors
i don't like men
i like the dark knight
his movies don't make you think
i miss you more then bay missed the point when he made pearl...
flames on optimus
lips on optimus

you might get some about acting, or characters not being convincing

but of that list(the serious ones), not that much concern how a director coaches a performance out of an actor..

between Shia/Burce Willis/Will Smith/Martin lawrence/Joe pantanliano(sp)/Bernie mac...

there is plenty of conviction to character...plenty

as far as your idea of a "free" re-write...what makes you think another writer, re writing something that's been written by 5 people and pleases the powerful producer who himself has made billions on films of the same ilk (including part one), will fix the inherent problems?

why didn't berg fix TF's script..he's one of those filmmakers you claimed bay will never be as good as...

berg technically paid for the script..

I'm not sure what "JB" stands for but I see your tring to say that at the stage of his career he couldnt just put his foot down....well by the time he was working on TF he could have.And yet he didnt.

The film fails in the same ways his other films fail.

you said why not just change the movie from bad boys into something good, like the wire..
well be cause JB is a powerhouse producer and he wanted bad boys(bays first movie)

later on, i'm sure there were confrontations(bay has split from him)...but i'm not afraid to say bay sold out to a formula that garners profit...

its like asking yourself why will smith did the bad boys movies...and why he'll do a third...

if i could i would...

that's what that camp was all about...and the first thing he did when he broke free was shoot a script with plenty of substance...you say he failed at realising it, i say look what happened after he left JB.

six huge fun movies, out of the 40 films some directors make,
bay is taking a different approach to success

one can't believe he's going to make the same kinda fun movie for his whole career
then again, business wise maybe he's the most successful in the biz...

I have no problem with films that are written for kids.

then go watch a cartoon this saturday and see if you don't find any characters that act and talk like the secondary robots in TF

They do hate them if they dont have enough high's and lows or doent go fast enough....and thats the eqivelent of substance in a roler coster ride.

well anyone that's been on a movie ride(or ride film) will notice that the "ride film" has speed and it has high and lows...and it has something bay films don't "story"

compared to straight forward roller coaster "rides"...."ride films" are rides with story and substance

now why do you gotta go and hate the ppl that just want the roller coaster that's traditional pointless fun

i find that analogy more relevant in that you'll often hear ppl say they just want a film that's a simple fun time...

brain off high energy summer fun...that's they the parks open in the summer

I know many that do.

well everyone here seems to remember 13 years of bay films
weather they liked or hated them the experience which you claim is forgettable apparently is not

unless you mean it's so forgettable that it's unforgettable

anyone here forget TF let alone why they hate it?

Which is the problem

With all the money we spend going to see these films they all should at least have the intent to make a "Great movie".

That way if they fail, like Bay tends to do, it can be said that "at least they tried to make a "Great film"

nope

with all the money we spend on films they should at least try to give us our money's worth

who are you to tell ppl what satisfies them...
you mean all those ppl that voted 46% best film 2007 don't know what their money's worth

I like my twix bar thank you very much
don't offer me fine chocolate and tell me it's worth my money

lets say your right, and pp didn't get their money's worth last time
i guess that means no one will actually go see the direct sequel now will they.

it's self centered to think that way.

I liked that film

I can write 3 pages of banter as to why you shouldn't... as to why it's not worth your money

but a hypocrite I am not

(insert TF smiley)

I will be shocked if he ever is capable of making a "Great" film.

The Island was ,in his own words, his attempt at making a great,thought provoking Sci-fi film......and he faild to deliever on his task.

by dictionary definition your already wrong

he'll do it at some point...
as far as the island, it was thought provoking and it was sci-fi
was it successful, to some..
but then again war of the worlds wasn't and it wasn't the bergs first attempt at the genre

he made a decent sci fi action flick...many good directors have..

If he progresses as a director then fine I'll give him the credit due.

But for now all he deserves is credit for making good action shots.

a director by your definition of the term
he's already renown in the world of technical directing and photography...

and I wouldn't make the composition of good action sound easy to do...it's probably hardest

consider for a good drama all i need to do is place a tripod infront of daniel day lewis and have him talk about what oil means to him.

You picked out the Only one to have a fimlur design.

None of the rest did, not even Bumblebee.

considering they have alternate modes that are recognizable liberties can be taken in the name of functionality..
and honesty

if you line up the original cast of cartoons
with their movie counterparts in random order, it would be pretty easy to figure out whose who...

personally bale really doesn't look the way such and such artist draw batman...but that's what happens when things switch into live action

as far as i'm concerned bay's TF's are real, and they may or may not look exactly the same as the artist who drew them for animation...

I'm not sure why your still on the sound since I agree.

because it's in relation to the mentality of G1 fans

adherence to source material is all it takes to please them...they hear the sound in the movie, it's score point no matter how stupid it is

same goes for the designs

but i see you agree

Not as effective as you might think.

I can site a great many way that a "inbetween look" could have served the move far better then the "look" bay chose.

same with TDK, but we don't care in that instance

some would say because the story was soooooo good...
i would say, bucause bay is hated...

i agree that face plates for instance could have been modeled closer to their cartoon counter parts...and if that's where all the design hate was coming from it would have ended along time ago

people talk of business, people talk of claw feet and bird legs...

honestly like i said the new cartoon has taken liberties, toy lines over the years have...

hasbro the makers of the toys worked very closely with the film and they approved the NEW designs

I don't see why these designs can't just be accepted as the 2007 versions

(bay)

I dont know about that.

I dont think his style would take on films like Super bad or Borrat

sorry
I mean camron on genre filmaking

They would have suffered under Bay because he has issues making he characters likeable.

I'll admit he's getting a bit better at it [compareing Armagedon to TF character wise] but he's still failing in that department.

not sure about everyone else but smith and lawrence are the draws for me in bad boys...i "like" them haha

i was charmed by the clones

and i honestly enjoyed the time spent with the drillers in armageddon...

i don't think likable is the word

as far as robot character direction in TF, i think the pointless and fan boy hated lawn scene in tf was a testament to shia and bay with it comes to conviction of character.

Most scripts are 2 dimensional and the characters have to be coaxed out of the script.

Bay doesnt know how to do that.

Yet.

go read the script for Gladiator...the character is already fleshed out there
American beauty is script with wonderful character work

armageddon...is not.

And Camron could have done better even with that script.

he'd write his own



with all this talk of awards and how TDK is a summer film that is earning oscar buzz

where is Spiderman 2's oscar?
it did the opposite of bay for a summer film
X2 even

the academy and it's friends voting for friends and politics is so not relevant here
the fact that TF didn't win sound editing or mixing(from scratch by the way) and bourne did... golden compass and the coca cola polar bears took best cgi...
politics

i wonder who will win best supporting actor..hmm

 

[Marvin]

I think so....his actions seemed to fit naturally with his personality.


I wouldnt.


I might.....if I ended up in the hippie era


All you proved is what you would do.

And its no more or less realistic then what Marty did.

Me I would seek out collectible items that I knew would be worth something and find a place to hide then for when I get back to my own time.

I'm a cuzin

my point being whose to say mcfly has more or less realistic reactions then Sam

not you or me...seeing as how we can't agree on how to act ourselves

(insert TF smiley)

anyways it's been fun going back and fourth with someone that's can back up their OPINION in a respectable way

i haven't had the chance to do so in a long time
i may have learned more about this ******ed hate bay seems to generate(lol)

but i have way too much school work to do now..holidays are over...it's been a fun waste of time

i'll read your response but don't wait up

perhaps someone else of some sense will champion the cause of sensibility

peace

(go watch Revenge of the Fallen, make bay and myself happy so he makes more lol)

 

[Marvin]

my point for living

[YT]_fehzXhH4g4[/YT]

grown men and summer movies about toys
i love it

 

[The Guard]

Fanboys are bastions of hyperbole. When I hear things like "TRANSFORMERS has no story", I want to laugh. TRANSFORMERS has as much story as most movies do. It has the relevant "connections", twists, etc, that one associates with "story". Could it have more depth? Sure. The issue should be that TRANSFORMERS does not have the KIND of story that people wanted. They didn't want a story about glasses, robots searching for glasses, a sexy hacker, and the mechanics of these story elements that resolved this issue, taking up rather a lot of the screentime from what actually mattered. However, in the context of the story of TRANSFORMERS, you don't just have glasses, you've got a whole bunch of "We have encountered robot organisms, here's how we're going to respond as a country" angle, the stuff with Sam and Mikaela, the budding friendship between Sam and Bumblee, and the Transformers. That's not "no story" on any level. It is a bit haphazard here and there, but then, it all fits together fairly well.

*****ing about cliche or stereotypical characters in Hollywood is understandable, but also downright silly. Stereotypes exist in real life, and so that's often what Hollywood presents.

As for how the characters are portrayed in the context of realism...80's characters are just as "annoying teen" as Sam was. Just in an 80's way, not a 2006/2007 way.

To say that there's no "character" to the characters in TRANSFORMERS is absurd. Do they have deep, far reaching backstories? No, but why should they? Sam's not a man who had his parents killed and went around the world training, but he has a family legacy, a relevant teenage issue, and an epic adventure, as well as a love story and a story about finding himself. Is it deep?

No.

Neither is "It's not who I am underneath...but what I DO...that defines me".

And PEARL HARBOR isn't a great movie on any level, but the events at Pearl Harbor involved war, did they not? So having relevant war action in the movie makes sense, doesn't it? That said, if you look at it, you can find emotional depth in Pearl Harbor. It's just very melodramatic and overdone. Like most truly epic in scale war/romances have been. There was a time when people wanted that.

When you look at films that are considered adventure classics, like GHOSTBUSTERS, INDIANA JONES, JURASSIC PARK etc, you can see that while the scripts are intelligently written, they aren't exactly depth laden. It leaves me wondering why people expect that from TRANSFORMERS.

 

[baerrtt]

Fanboys are bastions of hyperbole. When I hear things like "TRANSFORMERS has no story", I want to laugh. TRANSFORMERS has as much story as most movies do. It has the relevant "connections", twists, etc, that one associates with "story". Could it have more depth? Sure. The issue should be that TRANSFORMERS does not have the KIND of story that people wanted. They didn't want a story about glasses, robots searching for glasses, a sexy hacker, and the mechanics of these story elements that resolved this issue, taking up rather a lot of the screentime from what actually mattered. However, in the context of the story of TRANSFORMERS, you don't just have glasses, you've got a whole bunch of "We have encountered robot organisms, here's how we're going to respond as a country" angle, the stuff with Sam and Mikaela, the budding friendship between Sam and Bumblee, and the Transformers. That's not "no story" on any level. It is a bit haphazard here and there, but then, it all fits together fairly well.

*****ing about cliche or stereotypical characters in Hollywood is understandable, but also downright silly. Stereotypes exist in real life, and so that's often what Hollywood presents.

As for how the characters are portrayed in the context of realism...80's characters are just as "annoying teen" as Sam was. Just in an 80's way, not a 2006/2007 way.

To say that there's no "character" to the characters in TRANSFORMERS is absurd. Do they have deep, far reaching backstories? No, but why should they? Sam's not a man who had his parents killed and went around the world training, but he has a family legacy, a relevant teenage issue, and an epic adventure, as well as a love story and a story about finding himself. Is it deep?

No.

Neither is "It's not who I am underneath...but what I DO...that defines me".

And PEARL HARBOR isn't a great movie on any level, but the events at Pearl Harbor involved war, did they not? So having relevant war action in the movie makes sense, doesn't it? That said, if you look at it, you can find emotional depth in Pearl Harbor. It's just very melodramatic and overdone. Like most truly epic in scale war/romances have been. There was a time when people wanted that.

When you look at films that are considered adventure classics, like GHOSTBUSTERS, INDIANA JONES, JURASSIC PARK etc, you can see that while the scripts are intelligently written, they aren't exactly depth laden. It leaves me wondering why people expect that from TRANSFORMERS.

Which is what some people are asking for. Not depth (as to reiterate to me the source material didn't have depth) but a story intelligently written that doesn't rely on overblown melodrama or easy stereotypes because of the 'setting'.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

The viewers expect the film to be entertaining...and box office and viewers choice structured awards attest to that

The viewers hope for a "Great Movie"...we settle for what we get.

Thats what the box office and the awards really attest too.

maybe bay should work harder at making lemons out of lemonade...

Thats the other way around

but at some point ppl should acknowlegde that he's working with lemons

Maybe they would....if he did his best to make lemon-aid out of those lemons insted of just covering it up with flashy scenes and explosions.

and that the audience that has has generated figures in the billions, might actually be into what he's selling...

Thats true enough.

could it be better?

Bays films need to be

TDK could be better.

But it didnt "NEED" to be

in a script there is a character that is a stereotype of say hispanic origins and this buddy cop ACTION COMDEY is a production costing somewhere north of 100 mill

now bay the director slash acting coach should say
"ok hernado, i want you read the lines with so much conviction you break the stereo type..."

sorry but it's just not so cut and dry

Well I dont take issue with sterotypes.....I find them to be a reflection of our world today.

you've argued fairly graciously

Thank you very much.

,you say call for a re-write, i say go do some research on wolverines production

Can you give me a reason for the comparison???

Camron Diaz (when she used to be pretty)

She's still pretty.....just not as much

Pretty much the whole cast of armageddon had personality and presense, and if not all of them(as i'm sure you'll attest to) then more than one
(buschmi)

Yes they did....but it was all "1 dimensional".Every character was predictable.

Even Buschimi's character....and he [the actor] most of all is capable of far much more in his roles.

Shame on Bay for not utilizing that talent.

if you're going to akin you definition of character to what she did in that film, then it's a little more then subjective now, it's almost biased.

Actually what I'm saying is that it suited the film in question.I tend to hold comedies to a different standard.

I see, well I honestly don't think bay tired to give them any...they were like the fodder character in Roger Rabbit

Which is a shame.

the Robots he did focus on did resonate tho

Barely

enough for you and everyone else on these boards to remember who and what optimus was to this day...

And thats due to Peter Cullen reprizing his role as Optimus Prime.

If "lets say" Liam Neeson had voiced Optimus Prime I highly doubt that his character would have resonated with any of the fans.

And keep in mind that the choise of useing Peter Cullen was forced on Bay....if he had his way Peter wouldnt have been Prime.

So Bay cant take credit for Primes "characterazation" in the film.

they didn't work on paper

I doubt thats always the case and again its his job to improve whats on paper [on his own or by calling for a re-write] and bring it to life.

but an entire script with a poorly written character will not be saved by a directors coaching of an actor

True but a directors coaching can save a film when the script has a minium of "likeable" characters.

And I've read a few of the script of Bays films....and at the very least some of the characters were likeable on paper but not so much on film.

i don't think we'll convince each other on this

Your right

perhaps instead of giving me an example of directors harvesting good character work out of good actors with good scripts to read from...you try giving someone that has made lemonade of of the lemons bay makes money out of...

To be honest I dont tend to read the scripts of every "Great" film I see just to find out if the script was as good.

But.....look at the movie "Traitor".

Bad script
Bat casting
Not the best director/screanwritter [Jeffrey Nachmanoff]

But a wonder actiong preformance from Don Cheadle.

Despite all the flaws, Cheadle does a great job at providing the right degree doubt and personal tragedy for his character. His preformance was believable and understandable, even if everything else aboutthe film wasnt.

And I credit the actor for that because Cheadle wasnt right for the role.

wonderfully meaning a lot of fun

I see...but like I've said.

Funs not enough.

I assume the audience you seen it with was booing the whole time...

No not at all....

But people are to willing to settle......

Bay brought the right "vision" to armageddon...the fact that it did as well as it did and it's now a criterion(i think)
attests to that

As I said way above it only attest to the fact that people are willing to settle for what they can get.

bay succeeded...the script was weak...he made the movie an event

That he did.

But that has no bearing on my argument.

go to three people you hate bay(should be too hard)
ask them for 3 exact reasons they hate his films

u'll get stuff like
over the top action
weak stories
pretty actors
i don't like men
i like the dark knight
his movies don't make you think
i miss you more then bay missed the point when he made pearl...
flames on optimus
lips on optimus

Them not me.

you might get some about acting, or characters not being convincing

Thats my complaint.

but of that list(the serious ones), not that much concern how a director coaches a performance out of an actor..

Well I feel that the bad acting and poor characterazations are a result of not coaching a better preformance out of the actors.

between Shia/Burce Willis/Will Smith/Martin lawrence/Joe pantanliano(sp)/Bernie mac...

there is plenty of conviction to character...plenty

On the strengthens of the actors not Bay.

With the exception of Shia [because I havent seen him in much yet] it would be close to impossible to get a bad preformance from any of those actors these days.

Even when the films arent great those actors still deliver a great preformance.

as far as your idea of a "free" re-write...what makes you think another writer, re writing something that's been written by 5 people and pleases the powerful producer who himself has made billions on films of the same ilk (including part one), will fix the inherent problems?

There has to be someone with enough talent how can.But I cant suggest anyone right now.

why didn't berg fix TF's script..he's one of those filmmakers you claimed bay will never be as good as...

I never said that.

And I cant tell you why Berg didnt fix the script.

Could be he didnt know enough about the scource material to see the inherant flaws.

you said why not just change the movie from bad boys into something good, like the wire..

When did I say that????

then again, business wise maybe he's the most successful in the biz...

Who knows.......you may be right there

then go watch a cartoon this saturday and see if you don't find any characters that act and talk like the secondary robots in TF

How does that pretain to my argument???

I know there's not much of a difference between cartoon characters and Bays characters....thats my complaint.

I was hopping for better from the TF films robots and I didnt get it.

I waited almost 25 years to see TF's brought to life and all I got was a CGI "Lifelike" looking cartoon character

now why do you gotta go and hate the ppl that just want the roller coaster that's traditional pointless fun

I dont hate on the people that "want" that...I hate on the people [movie makers] that only cator to that demographic.

unless you mean it's so forgettable that it's unforgettable

Maybe thats it

nope

with all the money we spend on films they should at least try to give us our money's worth

Not in my opinion.

They should try their best to make lemon-aid.

lets say your right, and pp didn't get their money's worth last time

I'm not really saying that....I'm saying they could have gotten a little more for their money.....like some character from the robots.

by dictionary definition your already wrong

How is that???

he'll do it at some point...

We can hope

a director by your definition of the term

Not just mine

But its is subjective

he's already renown in the world of technical directing and photography...

True....and its the extent of his "renowness" at this time

and I wouldn't make the composition of good action sound easy to do...it's probably hardest

I wouldnt agree....I'm not saying its eazy but........

consider for a good drama all i need to do is place a tripod infront of daniel day lewis and have him talk about what oil means to him.

Haha

considering they have alternate modes that are recognizable

I was talking about the robot modes.....and even their altmodes werent that reconizable, but I wasnt expecting them to be sine with every serries they get new altmodes

liberties can be taken in the name of functionality..

Too many were taken....at the risk of not reconizing the characters.

It was almost the equivalent of putting Batman in a pink suit.

and honesty

if you line up the original cast of cartoons
with their movie counterparts in random order, it would be pretty easy to figure out whose who...

No way.

You need your eyes fixed buddy

Movie Jazz, Ratchet, Ironhide, Starscream, Frenzzy,Baricade, Blackout,Megatron and most of all Devestator looked nothing like their Gi Counterparts.

i agree that face plates for instance could have been modeled closer to their cartoon counter parts...and if that's where all the design hate was coming from it would have ended along time ago

Actually the faces and a bit on the bodies would have been enought for me to stop complaining.

people talk of business, people talk of claw feet and bird legs...

That didnt bother me as much.

I've been a fan of all the toy lines and thats not un-heard of.

hasbro the makers of the toys worked very closely with the film and they approved the NEW designs

I hate to say this but they would of anything to make them money.

I don't see why these designs can't just be accepted as the 2007 versions

Because they suck

not sure about everyone else but smith and lawrence are the draws for me in bad boys...i "like" them haha

Because of their acting skills.

fan boy hated lawn scene in tf

I liked that scene

he'd write his own

Not the point.

Even if he didnt he would have done far better.

with all this talk of awards and how TDK is a summer film that is earning oscar buzz

where is Spiderman 2's oscar?
it did the opposite of bay for a summer film
X2 even

the academy and it's friends voting for friends and politics is so not relevant here
the fact that TF didn't win sound editing or mixing(from scratch by the way) and bourne did... golden compass and the coca cola polar bears took best cgi...
politics

i wonder who will win best supporting actor..hmm

Award shows suck.....for the most part anyway.

anyways it's been fun going back and fourth with someone that's can back up their OPINION in a respectable way

Again thank you very much....and if I havent said so its been a pleasure debating with you.

i haven't had the chance to do so in a long time

Same here....many would rather insult and flame then debate in a civil manner.

but i have way too much school work to do now..holidays are over...it's been a fun waste of time

Good luck with the school work.

peace

of pie?????

(go watch Revenge of the Fallen, make bay and myself happy so he makes more lol)

I'll watch it....I just hope its better then the first film.

my point for living



grown men and summer movies about toys
i love it

Ha!!!!

 

[The Lizard]

When you look at films that are considered adventure classics, like GHOSTBUSTERS, INDIANA JONES, JURASSIC PARK etc, you can see that while the scripts are intelligently written, they aren't exactly depth laden. It leaves me wondering why people expect that from TRANSFORMERS.

Not looking for "depth", just something remotely resembling the (relatively) intelligently written scripts present in those other movies. It certainly wasn't in the 2007 TF movie.


It's really not that complicated -- I don't know why people seem so puzzled by what I'm hoping improves in the sequel.

 

[The Guard]

Which is what some people are asking for. Not depth (as to reiterate to me the source material didn't have depth) but a story intelligently written that doesn't rely on overblown melodrama or easy stereotypes because of the 'setting'.

In my mind, it's kind of silly to whine about the drama in a movie where the Earth is attacked by giant robots being "overblown". Overblown melodrama...such as...

Most of the key emotional elements of TRANSFORMERS were fairly "real".

Not looking for "depth", just something remotely resembling the (relatively) intelligently written scripts present in those other movies. It certainly wasn't in the 2007 TF movie.

Like anything else, TRANSFORMERS had intelligent elements. I've never found any of the "classic" movies to be particularly amazingly well written (INDIANA JONES, STAR WARS, etc). They're decently structured, and fresh, but mostly just fun and well executed. I mean, you'll find very similar "melodrama" in those films as well. You'll also find quite a bit of cheese and yes, cliche.

 

[The Lizard]

Like anything else, TRANSFORMERS had intelligent elements. I've never found any of the "classic" movies to be particularly amazingly well written (INDIANA JONES, STAR WARS, etc). They're decently structured, and fresh, but mostly just fun and well executed. I mean, you'll find very similar "melodrama" in those films as well. You'll also find quite a bit of cheese and yes, cliche.

Sorry, but I'm having a really hard time recalling any intelligent or witty dialog from Transformers. I maintain that those other films featured much better scripts.

 

[AnorexicBatman]

The problem is that Micheal Bay never ever aims high in terms of depth of plot
He's a wonderful action director, maybe as good in action as Zack Snyder (Le Gasp!)
but he could put a little more effort in...

I mean this is a movie that Steven freaking Spielberg wanted to do himself
If you can make a movie about a man in a rubber bat suit serious you sure as hell can make a movie about alien transforming robots serious

In fact, I think he dislikes the Transformers franchise (He once said he found the concept stupid) and is just in it for the money...
That's why we have talentless eye-candy like Megan Fox next to genuinely talented and having potential for greater things like Shia LaBeouf

Also bad dialogue...
Sam: I think it's Japanese!
really? not alien? not military? japanese?

Biggest victim of the first film was my man Starscream who got horribly shafted
At least he kicked ass. I think Blackout and Mr. Screams role's should have been switched. Movie starts with a Starscream attack on a military base complete with maniacal electronic laughter? ORGASM!

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Sorry, but I'm having a really hard time recalling any intelligent or witty dialog from Transformers. I maintain that those other films featured much better scripts.

Agreed. Even the supposedly intelligent people in TF were dumb as ****.

 

[Overman27pj]

Holy long posts batman.

 

[Jake Cassidy]

The 'Japanese' line was a joke. The TFs were originally created in Japan. How could you not know that?

 

[Jake Cassidy]

edit

 

[Doctor Jones]

They can cut down on some of the bad too much Bay like jokes. But other than that it was fine.

You people who think this needs a script with somber seriousness and intelligence and complexity is on pot. This is a film based on a TOY LINE of giant robots beating the crap out of other giant robots. Which is what the main thing that was in the show and the film. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Fanboys are bastions of hyperbole. When I hear things like "TRANSFORMERS has no story", I want to laugh. TRANSFORMERS has as much story as most movies do. It has the relevant "connections", twists, etc, that one associates with "story". Could it have more depth? Sure. The issue should be that TRANSFORMERS does not have the KIND of story that people wanted. They didn't want a story about glasses, robots searching for glasses, a sexy hacker, and the mechanics of these story elements that resolved this issue, taking up rather a lot of the screentime from what actually mattered. However, in the context of the story of TRANSFORMERS, you don't just have glasses, you've got a whole bunch of "We have encountered robot organisms, here's how we're going to respond as a country" angle, the stuff with Sam and Mikaela, the budding friendship between Sam and Bumblee, and the Transformers. That's not "no story" on any level. It is a bit haphazard here and there, but then, it all fits together fairly well.

*****ing about cliche or stereotypical characters in Hollywood is understandable, but also downright silly. Stereotypes exist in real life, and so that's often what Hollywood presents.

As for how the characters are portrayed in the context of realism...80's characters are just as "annoying teen" as Sam was. Just in an 80's way, not a 2006/2007 way.

To say that there's no "character" to the characters in TRANSFORMERS is absurd. Do they have deep, far reaching backstories? No, but why should they? Sam's not a man who had his parents killed and went around the world training, but he has a family legacy, a relevant teenage issue, and an epic adventure, as well as a love story and a story about finding himself. Is it deep?

No.

Neither is "It's not who I am underneath...but what I DO...that defines me".

And PEARL HARBOR isn't a great movie on any level, but the events at Pearl Harbor involved war, did they not? So having relevant war action in the movie makes sense, doesn't it? That said, if you look at it, you can find emotional depth in Pearl Harbor. It's just very melodramatic and overdone. Like most truly epic in scale war/romances have been. There was a time when people wanted that.

When you look at films that are considered adventure classics, like GHOSTBUSTERS, INDIANA JONES, JURASSIC PARK etc, you can see that while the scripts are intelligently written, they aren't exactly depth laden. It leaves me wondering why people expect that from TRANSFORMERS.

Great post The Guard, you put my thoughts into words perfectly, I was actually surprised by how much character and emotion we got the in the movie, the stuff between Sam and Mikaela, Sam and Bumblebee, Sam and Prime and even Mikaela and Bumblbee was all great stuff.

 

[Travesty]

Shia pretty much sums up my thoughts of the script.

HAHA, I never noticed that. This is just as funny as the Schwarzenegger "freeze" video that was made on college humor.

 

[terry78]

I give Bay a pass on Pearl Harbor because I think he was honestly trying to capture that 1940s style with the acting, the three extremely pretty leads, etc.

 

[Travesty]

I mean this is a movie that Steven freaking Spielberg wanted to do himself
If you can make a movie about a man in a rubber bat suit serious you sure as hell can make a movie about alien transforming robots serious

When I think of Transformers, I don't think, "damn, I need an air-tight script, with amazing actors, and a sense of realism".

NO! When I think of Transformers, I think of me being 5-7 years old, and wanting to see vehicles transform and have fights. I don't care to much about plot, cause all I want to do is sit there, see action, and go "weeeeeeee", just like I did when I was young. Micheal Bay did this, with a bit of an update to the settings, but I'm still there having a good time.

Batman can be taken seriously, cause he is a serious character. He has seen a few campy moments, sure, and some of them may have been fun, but for the most part, his roots are set in a serious tone. The Transformer roots are set in a campy, "lets have fun" kind of mentality. Just because most of you were fans when you were 5-7 years old, doesn't mean a new movie needs to conform(become serious) to the age group it once started at. Get popcorn, have fun, and slip into a time machine for a second, and become 5 again. Is it really that hard to ask for?

 

[The Lizard]

NO! When I think of Transformers, I think of me being 5-7 years old, and wanting to see vehicles transform and have fights. I don't care to much about plot, cause all I want to do is sit there, see action, and go "weeeeeeee", just like I did when I was young.

But here's the thing -- there's a LOT of the first TF movie that didn't have vehicles transforming and robot fights.

Why should all the non-robot parts be so lame and stupidly written? being based on a cartoon about robot toys has no bearing on crappy dialog and lame jokes. It's OK to expect a movie, even a movie based on a toy line, to treat you like you have a triple-digit IQ.

 

[Travesty]

But here's the thing -- there's a LOT of the first TF movie that didn't have vehicles transforming and robot fights.

Why should all the non-robot parts be so lame and stupidly written? being based on a cartoon about robot toys has no bearing on crappy dialog and lame jokes. It's OK to expect a movie, even a movie based on a toy line, to treat you like you have a triple-digit IQ.

Good god, bro. Think in perspective for a second. The animated series was 30 minutes long, maybe 18-20 without commercials. Even in the animated series you saw loads of "crappy dialog and lame jokes" WITHOUT transforming robots. Thats the way it has always been presented, yet, all of the sudden, now that you're 20-30 something years of age, it has to conform to your deep "understanding" or "intelligence" of a movie?

Take it for what it is, and what it was setup to be: ie. robots, with crappy/easy storylines, that have loads of action.

I swear, you guys complain about the hotties in this movie, as if you *********e to the old cartoons more then you do seeing Megan Fox in a short skirt. Get over yourselves, its a friggin children concept! What do you expect?

 

[GregComicFan]

The only thing I didn't like about the Transformer's script was all the goofy humor. I hated John Turturro's entire character. Every time he was on screen, he reminded me I was watching a movie intended for little kids....

Greg