Dark of the Moon Michael Bay has killed Transformers for me

[Nathan]

At least they didn't overdo it in the first movie. I still like to watch that occasionally. The worst thing in there is Bumblebee peeing on Turturro. But after watching ROTF once, I said to myself, never again.

 

[Marvin]

Its really got nothing to do with "fan boy" vision.

Lack of characters/characterizations is quite common in Bay films.

And it was an issue in the first TF film.

most "bay films" aren't about character or characterization even.
some have been and some of those have failed miserably, some haven't.

to score a film low in something it's not trying to be is simply put, not good.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

most "bay films" aren't about character or characterization even.
some have been and some of those have failed miserably, some haven't.

to score a film low in something it's not trying to be is simply put, not good.

The few Bay films that provided good characters /characterizations I credit to the actors in the films.

Every film, except maybe documentaries, should have and be about characters and have decent characterizations.

To score a film low in something it should have is simply put, the appropriate thing to do.

This is not porn where its not necessary.

 

[gkokujin]

Thats an irrelevant question since Bay's films plots werent exactly taken from any of the TF toyline.

The point is, the creators of Toy Story took a bunch of un-related toys and told a great story.

Are you suggesting the same could not have been done with Transformers because of the original cartoon??

Again thats weak.

The original G1 comics told some great stories.

The Beast Wars show told some great stories.

TFAnimated told some great stories

Even Beast Machines told some great stories.

All based on single toylines.

Not only that, but the Transformers themselves had PERSONALITIES. They were characters who each behaved a certain way and we knew what to expect from each character and people grew to love those characters.

sometimes i question the logic of people who say "its based off toys and doesn't need to be XYZ or ABC" because when you present them with evidence its ACTUALLY MORE than that, they deflect, get offended or ignore it.

 

[gkokujin]

still eh.

The original G1 was a saturday morning cartoon, those almost by definition were made to stimulate toy and cereal sales and all but a few were anything more than simple stories. The original Transformer movie was a glorified toy commercial with fans not seasoned enough to call the creators on their bs. Along comes 2007 and we all see it for what it really it. Some accept it some hate themselves for it, the rest hate the producers.

there was no internet back then nor connected fan base to do such.
and i don't know what movie you saw, but i don't recall to much being wrong with TF:86

 

[Marvin]

The few Bay films that provided good characters /characterizations I credit to the actors in the films.

ofcourse

Every film, except maybe documentaries, should have and be about characters and have decent characterizations.

To score a film low in something it should have is simply put, the appropriate thing to do.

This is not porn where its not necessary.

With the exception of pearl harbour and perhaps the island(which has it's circumstances) bays films have plenty of legitimate characteriztion. This is of course a subjective measure but it would be easy to say that BadBoys for all it's negative reviews has just as much if not more "character" than the critically acclaimed Evil Dead.

"good" comedy films seem to get great scores eventhough they lack traditional story structure and or thought provoking circumstances, they get these good reviews because for some reason (some) critics score them for what they do and and not for what the don't do, or rather try not to do.

saying the 6 or so bay films that have been made suck as character studies would be analogus to saying the six or so nolan films that have been made suck as comedies. It's an obvious statement sure but in context it's pointless.

Everyone does something, weather they do that something well is the issue.
Or should be start reExamine Hitch***** career.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

ofcourse

Which shouldnt be the case.

With the exception of pearl harbour and perhaps the island(which has it's circumstances) bays films have plenty of legitimate characteriztion.

I'm sorry bud, your welcome to your opinion but that just not the case.

saying the 6 or so bay films that have been made suck as character studies would be analogus to saying the six or so nolan films that have been made suck as comedies. It's an obvious statement sure but in context it's pointless.

Thats actually a pretty poor analogy.

As far as I know, Nolan is not trying to tell a "comedic" story.

And its not like we're saying Bay scores low in making an "action" film.What I'm saying is that his films lack character and characterization.Something all films need no mater the type of story.

The most significant factor of any good movie is the characters of the story. Without them there would be no story and no plot. Wether its an action film, comedy, drama, fantasy/Sci-fi.... Characters should be such, that the audience likes them. Be it a positive character or negative one. They should have some qualities to which the people can relate.

 

[Marvin]

Which shouldnt be the case.

sarcasm...we love to pick and choose as to what to give credit to director for these days...
it's just awfully conveniet on the forum scene.

I'm sorry bud, your welcome to your opinion but that just not the case.

I suppose you're welcome to your opinion as well.

Thats actually a pretty poor analogy.

As far as I know, Nolan is not trying to tell a "comedic" story.

bays not making films of substance.
This reminds me of a quote of del toro's when he was making blade 2. He said if you want character development, go watch Gosford Park. I'd akin Bays intentions to something similar to blade 2, atleast when he's making films about toy lines or buddy cops.

And its not like we're saying Bay scores low in making an "action" film.What I'm saying is that his films lack character and characterization.Something all films need no mater the type of story.

The most significant factor of any good movie is the characters of the story. Without them there would be no story and no plot. Wether its an action film, comedy, drama, fantasy/Sci-fi.... Characters should be such, that the audience likes them. Be it a positive character or negative one. They should have some qualities to which the people can relate.

To say a film has no character is a very bold statement in my opinon, Armageddon was about the father and son archtype and had alot of character from the two of them...the development was rudimentary but my point is, it's an overstatment applied in the critique of the film. I'd rather not get into all of the films but it's a similar outlook(the rock, badboys even the island.) They all have characters and for the most part all the characters arc by the end of the plot. If anything Inception is a film with minimal character and character development in recent memory.... my opinion.

An interesting point brought up in my film class was the purpose of film in modern society. A film does not serve the same purpose as a novella. It's a visual and audio medium brought to us by way of a singular vision. Novels rely on the written word and our intrinsic vision. To say a film needs to meed the standards that a novel traditionally meets, by way of character and performance is a closed minded view of the medium. For example films don't need dialogue or even charcter interaction to be considered well made accomplishemts. Films such as "Baraka" champion this arugment. Cinema is a sensory experience and by that measure Michael Bay is one of the auteur's of this time in cinema history.

my opnion.

 

[.Rorschach.]

Bay messed up the films but I wont let that ruin a great childhood memory for me

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

sarcasm...we love to pick and choose as to what to give credit to director for these days...
it's just awfully conveniet on the forum scene.

Sorry, not sure of your point here.

bays not making films of substance.

Which is kind of irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Oscar winner or not, every films needs good characters and characterization.

To say a film has no character is a very bold statement in my opinon,

But a fairle accurate one wehen it comes to Bays films.

Armageddon was about the father and son archtype

Funny how the film failed to bring that to the forefront of the story.

and had alot of character from the two of them...

I disagree , I only saw some from Bruce.

If anything Inception is a film with minimal character and character development in recent memory.... my opinion.

Didnt see it so I cant comment.

Cinema is a sensory experience and by that measure Michael Bay is one of the auteur's of this time in cinema history.

my opnion.

The issue is that "sensory" alone is not what a good movie is made of.

A good movie should also stimulsate the mind and emotion of the viewer.

 

[baerrtt]

The best action/sci-fi/animated etc movies HAVE good characters and/or situations you should give a damn about irrespective of how silly the concept or source material is. James Cameron's writing may leave a lot to be desired (TITANIC, AVATAR) but having sat in the company of others in a theatre watching both those movies I appreciate that he makes movies that emotionally pull people in (well non cynical viewers anyway). The best movies in any genre, yes even the ones aimed for the mass public, transcend their genre.

Bay has a mission statement whereby he doesn't want to make his blockbusters deep and to me the results of that have been continually lazy and obnoxious movies.

 

[baerrtt]

still eh.

The original G1 was a saturday morning cartoon, those almost by definition were made to stimulate toy and cereal sales and all but a few were anything more than simple stories. The original Transformer movie was a glorified toy commercial with fans not seasoned enough to call the creators on their bs. Along comes 2007 and we all see it for what it really it. Some accept it some hate themselves for it, the rest hate the producers.

Next people are going to be going on about how Bay turned Ninja Turtles from henry the 8th to party of 5 with fart jokes. And speaking of that. The late (truly)great Beast Wars had solid forward movie plot and characters and righteous ideas but it also had it's share of mindless humor and FART JOKES.
Transformers 2007...forward moving simple story, characters, and fart jokes...

The idea of a jive talking autobot was around long before 2006, it was only hated after 2007.

Someone said Toy story was an amazing story? Please, pixar makes solid films but their not writing shakespere over there (compare a bugs life to kurasawa), it's simple cause and effect material with an overdose of sentimentility. Moreover how ridiculous to suggest that toy story was toy line before the films came out. Paramount had to deal with the cretive officers of the robots in disguise toy line they wanted to adapt, very much in the same way WB had to deal with the wizard "line" JK Rowling has with harry potter Or summit with twilight vampires/warewolves. Toy story just has toys, which is a lot more comparable to the simple concepts of wizards. Obvious really.

The industry, film critics (who are hard to please) and most audiences disagree with you there. Aside from yourself obviously do you really think movie history is going to be kinder to Bay than Pixar because you don't like their 'sentimentality'? As I've just posted it is not about 'writing Shakspeare' but actually trying to make good to great popullist movies and not cranking out the lazy, forgettable stuff Bay makes that makes people with actual good taste in movies shake our heads.

 

[chaseter]

Yup.

 

[Marvin]

Sorry, not sure of your point here.

bay casts good actors and the credits goes to the actors, what does that say about directors that only cast good actors...well those instances we'll just give credit to the director.
point being there's that double standard that comes into play whenever bay's involved.

But a fairle accurate one wehen it comes to Bays films.

no, just typical hyperbole.

Funny how the film failed to bring that to the forefront of the story.

actually it was the forfont of the story. It's the film sold other aspects as well. As a summer tentpole, you no doubt come away different things and not just the character study.

I disagree , I only saw some from Bruce.

well considering it pretty much started aflecks mainstream career, i figure someone somewhere saw something in his performance.

The issue is that "sensory" alone is not what a good movie is made of.
A good movie should also stimulsate the mind and emotion of the viewer.

You're treating film as if it were a genre. A good film is an experience the fact that many dozens of people pay good money to walk in and walk out of a comedy and give it good reviews is testiment that not all films need to for example bring the charcter study and dramatic emotion to the forefront.

If I payed 15dollars to see a 1hr stand up comedy show, and then my friend told me that for 15 dollars I could have seen a stage play with real actors and character study, I'd explain the same thing to him. Entertainment isn't a genre to itself. The successful summer bay films have an audience and it agrees with him...atleast to his face.

that being said, bay movies aren't simply visual, that was just a point to be made about the measure of medium. bays films to their fault actually push character and "emotion" to over dramtic levels. The just happen to do so in tent pole end of the world situations that make people raise their nose to the clouds while writing them up after the fact.

 

[Marvin]

The best action/sci-fi/animated etc movies HAVE good characters and/or situations you should give a damn about irrespective of how silly the concept or source material is. James Cameron's writing may leave a lot to be desired (TITANIC, AVATAR) but having sat in the company of others in a theatre watching both those movies I appreciate that he makes movies that emotionally pull people in (well non cynical viewers anyway). The best movies in any genre, yes even the ones aimed for the mass public, transcend their genre.

For starters, Jake Sully from Avatar I assume is one of these wonderfully fleshed out characters of which you speak. I fail to see how he is anymore realized a character than say the character of Sam in the transformer series. to the writers credit(i'm sure bay haters will point out) Sam has one of the most inspired Joseph Campbell character arcs since luke skywalker during the course of the series.

weather i'm overstating facts or not, the FACT that I can even entertain the thought is a testiment to the FACT that there is no grounds to the claim that "there is no character" in this or other bay movies.
it's the standard hyperbole run amok.

Bay has a mission statement whereby he doesn't want to make his blockbusters deep and to me the results of that have been continually lazy and obnoxious movies.

I assume Chaplin had a similar statement when he appraoched most of his lighthearted films as well. Yet we appreciated them for what the hell they were trying to be. They're is nothing "lazy" about directing a bay film. There is however a push to lighthearted popcorn entertainment for the portion of the audience that simple enjoys that.

(disclaimer, chaplin may be one of the greatest of all time)

The industry, film critics (who are hard to please) and most audiences disagree with you there. Aside from yourself obviously do you really think movie history is going to be kinder to Bay than Pixar because you don't like their 'sentimentality'? As I've just posted it is not about 'writing Shakspeare' but actually trying to make good to great popullist movies and not cranking out the lazy, forgettable stuff Bay makes that makes people with actual good taste in movies shake our heads.

The real critics are the people who pay for their tickets everyweek. I'm not about to argue that box office equals quality. But I will say if all the critics told you that icecream wasn't as good and filling as turkey, you'd tell them that they are entitled to their opinion.
When bay films stop selling...or better yet, when TF3 bombs next year, I'll consider him a failure. Till then he's a success, critical or not.

As far as movie history being kinder to bay, that depends on what aspect they look at. A studio vs one man's ability to generate revenue for example. If you know as much as you claim to know about bay, you'd know that he fights to deliver a quality piece of entertainment for his fans everytime out and he's anything but lazy, but the propagada will continue inspite of mine or anyone else's opinion so have at thee.

and yes Pixar makes "lazy" films when compared to say, what's being produced in the Eastern medium, for example in 2006 when pixar made cars, the east(ghibli I believe) made Paprika...but then again, Pixar caters to their audience and they do it well and to great success.

...it's the smart thing to do.

 

[TheShah]

Hmm I love how within the first page we already have people taking shots of haterade then blasting the OP.

I get what you're saying though.
Honestly though, I thought the first film was an entertaining adaptation.

It wasn't too far from the premise for me to picket-protest, and was enjoyable enough for me to like it. The silly humour was pushing it, but not too much... it humanized things I thought, made the 'formers more relateable.
Especially if you take into account non-'formers fans.

The second I thought was just pure ridiculi. No effort, no care, no story, the Transformers were decoration and backdrop to LeBeouf's inner turmoil plot... just a ******ed cash grab from a successful first film.
Not excited for 3rd one at all.

 

[TheShah]

good argument. You win. *explosion* the end.



^new michael bay movie.

lol

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

bay casts good actors and the credits goes to the actors, what does that say about directors that only cast good actors...well those instances we'll just give credit to the director.
point being there's that double standard that comes into play whenever bay's involved.

I can see where your trying to go with that but I dont agree with it.

Bay has casted some wonderful actors in other films and yet still no characterization.

Ewen McGregor
Cuba Gooding JR

Both great actors and nothing in those films.

The fact that some actors can make something great out of nothing is not to be credited to the director for casting them.

Its the actor's ability that made it great.

no, just typical hyperbole.

Face it, the shoe fits asnd Bay wears it proudly

actually it was the forfont of the story.

No, it really wasnt.

It bearly came off as an afterthought.

well considering it pretty much started aflecks mainstream career, i figure someone somewhere saw something in his performance.

Yeah, good looks and a great smile.

Sorry but I'm not a fan of Aflects acting,

You're treating film as if it were a genre.

No, I'm treating them like what they are.

A medium for telling stories.

Stories, that with out characters, are as good as nothing.

A good film is an experience

And a good movie has good characters/characterization.

bays films to their fault actually push character and "emotion" to over dramtic levels.

He try's but fails to accomplish that.

 

[knowsbleed]

Ehh... talk about Sam all you want... his characterization is not what I was concerned with...

It's the lack of character development with the title characters other than Optimus and Bumblebee... which, IMO, were still very minimal.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Ehh... talk about Sam all you want... his characterization is not what I was concerned with...

It's the lack of character development with the title characters other than Optimus and Bumblebee... which, IMO, were still very minimal.

No less, much of Optimus's character in the first film was "transplanted" by the fans of Peter Cullen.

I spoke to many omovie goes that werent already TF fans.They all commented on how they didnt understand Prime and his way of doing things.

They said they couldnt relate to him.

 

[knowsbleed]

I could see that, the voice was there... but I couldn't really admire him... whereas in the 1986 movie he epitomized what I envisioned an Autobot leader should be.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

I think the few minutes with the mecha robot in district 9 was a better approach to transformers than the actual bay movies.

 

[baerrtt]

For starters, Jake Sully from Avatar I assume is one of these wonderfully fleshed out characters of which you speak. I fail to see how he is anymore realized a character than say the character of Sam in the transformer series. to the writers credit(i'm sure bay haters will point out) Sam has one of the most inspired Joseph Campbell character arcs since luke skywalker during the course of the series.

weather i'm overstating facts or not, the FACT that I can even entertain the thought is a testiment to the FACT that there is no grounds to the claim that "there is no character" in this or other bay movies.
it's the standard hyperbole run amok.



I assume Chaplin had a similar statement when he appraoched most of his lighthearted films as well. Yet we appreciated them for what the hell they were trying to be. They're is nothing "lazy" about directing a bay film. There is however a push to lighthearted popcorn entertainment for the portion of the audience that simple enjoys that.

(disclaimer, chaplin may be one of the greatest of all time)



The real critics are the people who pay for their tickets everyweek. I'm not about to argue that box office equals quality. But I will say if all the critics told you that icecream wasn't as good and filling as turkey, you'd tell them that they are entitled to their opinion.
When bay films stop selling...or better yet, when TF3 bombs next year, I'll consider him a failure. Till then he's a success, critical or not.

As far as movie history being kinder to bay, that depends on what aspect they look at. A studio vs one man's ability to generate revenue for example. If you know as much as you claim to know about bay, you'd know that he fights to deliver a quality piece of entertainment for his fans everytime out and he's anything but lazy, but the propagada will continue inspite of mine or anyone else's opinion so have at thee.

and yes Pixar makes "lazy" films when compared to say, what's being produced in the Eastern medium, for example in 2006 when pixar made cars, the east(ghibli I believe) made Paprika...but then again, Pixar caters to their audience and they do it well and to great success.

...it's the smart thing to do.

I'm not comparing Pixar to Ghibli though am I? I'm comparing the fact that Pixar have the exact same aim as Bay to make lighthearted movies for a wide audience and actually go about it with much more heart and skill than a guy who gives us nothing but pretty explosions, jingoism and misogynistic depictions of women.

Almost no one I know(work colleagues, family etc) who saw PEARL HARBOUR, ARMAGEDDON or TF2 in theatres over the years had any good, constructive things to say about them afterwards. Instead they were lured by hype and promise of a fun Friday night at the movies (nothing wrong with that) and immediately forgot every detail about those pictures afterwards. Commercial success alone means nothing if anyone with a brain doesn't really respect the product/results. Chaplin, who you baffingly bring up, made lighthearted films with a purpose...that's why they're, and he, are remembered as great today.

Bay does nothing but give popular cinema a bad name.

 

[marvelman2006]

I dont know why were all complaining about these movies. If recent hollywood has tought us anything then we can surely expect a remake by 2019.

 

[Marvin]

I can see where your trying to go with that but I dont agree with it.

Bay has casted some wonderful actors in other films and yet still no characterization.

Ewen McGregor
Cuba Gooding JR

Both great actors and nothing in those films.

The fact that some actors can make something great out of nothing is not to be credited to the director for casting them. Its the actor's ability that made it great.

And so actors who make something great out of something great, like in most academy liked films, is that a credit to the Director?

The last time Bay had amazing actors in their strides with strong on paper material was in The Rock. And that was a "critical hit."
How often does that happen with bay?
How often does that happen for someone like nolan or eastwood?

the fact that bay makes hits out of his situation is a testiment to the middle man effect he has on the product.
maybe in Eastwoods next buddy cop comedy, he'll cast megan fox and we'll see another million dollar baby.

Face it, the shoe fits asnd Bay wears it proudly

nah, it's just a misconception...but bay is a proud man that much is true.

No, it really wasnt.

It bearly came off as an afterthought.

That whole film is about a man trying to prove his worth to the man who's daughter he's courting, and never being good enough. If you didn't see that I would suggest taking off the ear muffs next time.

Yeah, good looks and a great smile.
Sorry but I'm not a fan of Aflects acting,

many are.

No, I'm treating them like what they are.
A medium for telling stories.

I don't think you are.

Stories, that with out characters, are as good as nothing.
And a good movie has good characters/characterization.

A good story perhaps has that, but a good movie can be many things.
That being said if like me you define characteriztion as the process by which the writer reveals the personality of a character, then again it would be a very easy argument to prove that bay films...like a huge percentage of others, have this.
At least to the point that to say they lack any trace is hyperbole.

(I can describe them all to you to make the point)

No less, much of Optimus's character in the first film was "transplanted" by the fans of Peter Cullen.

I spoke to many omovie goes that werent already TF fans.They all commented on how they didnt understand Prime and his way of doing things.

They said they couldnt relate to him.

that's really interesting. I actually feel the same way as a Batman reader.

actually I think that's silly.