Dark of the Moon Michael Bay has killed Transformers for me

[Marvin]

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.

The point was shouted from the roof tops of mothers houses all over middle america. "Transformers is a film with no character(s)...blah blah...just action.." in this very thread if I cared to look for it.

The truth is that the film has lots of it, if it weren't for only the blinder effect of the "fans"

Ya'll made an overeaching statement, it's being opposed. Maybe ya'll will specify next time.

As for the other characters, they're present but not all that much screen time is given to the study of them nor is any complexity. However I do know bumblebee's character from watching the film. And I can see where he's coming from when making alot of his decisions. For example, why I wonder did he let himself be captured to save sam? Would he do it again? Would he betray optimus? Enough characteriztion to get through a story.

However, would bumblebee betray optimus to save Sam? That would be a complexity I would like to see studied, but I'm not going to fault the film for not pleasing my personal needs.

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.

See Griffith Observatory scene.
See forest scene
See hanger scene
See many scenes where he speaks and acts like the optimus prime of fable.

what you people seem to incur is that Optimus narrates the movie and then makes a speech at the end of the film before the credits and that's that.

He said and acted the way he did in the show, in fact the films have layered that with how optimus deals with human politics and if anything I understand the character moreso.

but that's me, and the other is you.
characterization in itself I suppose.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

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

Do you really need me to answer that question??

Such things are measured in a "case by case" bases.Theres no universal answer.

You must see the totality of the work then assign credit.

Case in point, the Bad Boy films.The only reason those films were enjoyable was because Smith and Lowrance have so much personalty you cant help but like the characters.

But with out them, both films had nothing going for them.

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."

I actually didnt like The Rock.

nah, it's just a misconception

Hardly.

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.

Funny, but no.

The film failed to deliver that message to its fullest.It really came off more like the cocky guy that doesnt think he has anything to learn from anyone whos trying to bang the boss'es daughter.

many are.

Which amounts to diddly to me.

I don't think you are.

You "think" wrongly

A good story perhaps has that, but a good movie can be many things.

A good movie can not be with out a good story.

A good story can not be with out good characters/characterizations.

That being said if like me you define characterization 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.

And far easier to debunk that argument.

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

Not necessary, I tire of this.

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

actually I think that's silly.

So you think the same way...and think its silly??

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

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.

Some of us might not be around by then.

 

[Hotwire]

Some of us might not be around by then.

Not sure you're going to make it another nine years?

 

[Marvin]

I'm not comparing Pixar to Ghibli though am I?

Will in keeping with the theme/trend of unfounded comparisons, I am.

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.

The Pixar audience and the Michael bay audience are not one in the same. There is an spill over, but I don't often see charaters from michael bay movies in the disney story. But that's beside the point.

I would agree that the pixar story teams craft "better" stories than the scriptwriters that have worked bay. However, again, intentions are getting crossed here.

Before me go making unfound claims, I'd need some examples of this alleged "misogynistic depictions of women."

"jingoism"
actually, outside of pearl harbor(with it's circumstances) bays films are actually anti "jingoism"
but then again, everything optimus prime says or does in these films falls on deaf ears.

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.

I know many who say different. and how many of these poor souls are going to be lured into a trap for the 3rd time just to complain that they were tricked again.?

A good friend of mine is always saying that when TBS does its armageddon replays, he and his family tune in time again again...but when Superman Returns comes on...they can't be bothered. But surely Returns is a better story and a "better filmed movie"
It's there where I personally understand what bay does.

Chaplin, who you baffingly bring up, made lighthearted films with a purpose...that's why they're, and he, are remembered as great today.

Chaplin like many is more remembered for his impact during the time of some political movement than the craft of his actual films. His purpose was evident in some of his films, even such films as "gold rush" had it social commentry, mainly due to the times, however figthing a man in a bear outfit while running around a cabin is hardly comaprable to hitch***** ability to "tell a story."

still if you're educated enough to see the subtext in a chaplin film, you're probably smart enough to ignore the subtext in the transformers movies.

Bay does nothing but give popular cinema a bad name.

Same has been said about Tarantino. Opinions are fun.

If I May

David Gordon Green, the touted prodigy of Malick and the director of that award winning "george washington."

the trailer for his new film;
I wonder, what does this film tell us about his ability to tell a story, how does it compare to the pixar lot? does it have any potty humour? Is that James Franco, soon to be academy award nominated actor and winner? Is that Natalie portman bending over in a skimpy outfit(a thong) less dressed than when megan fox did? What is the commentary this film is making on our society?

http://www.slashfilm.com/red-band-movie-trailer-your-highness/#more-92621

How quick are we to call this film a light hearted embarassment to cinema?
How quick are we to compare this directors story telling to that of pixar?
where are the claims of misogyny? or drug use promotion?
etc.

oh that's right, it's only funny when it doesn't offend fanboys.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Not sure you're going to make it another nine years?

Dude, I'm shocked I'm alive now.

I need a kidney transplant.

 

[Marvin]

Do you really need me to answer that question??
Such things are measured in a "case by case" bases.Theres no universal answer.
You must see the totality of the work then assign credit.

yea, if you hate bay it's one result and if you like him the other.

Case in point, the Bad Boy films.The only reason those films were enjoyable was because Smith and Lowrance have so much personalty you cant help but like the characters.
But with out them, both films had nothing going for them.

one could argue the same about beverly hills cop and any/every other entry
into the genre.

lest for Kevin Smith's most recent work.

I actually didnt like The Rock.

I actually figured as much, but our feelings aside, it actively debunks said arguement.

The film failed to deliver that message to its fullest.It really came off more like the cocky guy that doesnt think he has anything to learn from anyone whos trying to bang the boss'es daughter.

right...and the first toy story is about a arrogant unlikable possesvie doll that that's trying and fails to eliminate his competition...
how we see movies usually comes down to how we project ourselves onto them. (no offensive of course)

A good movie can not be with out a good story.

A good story can not be with out good characters/characterizations.

your definition, and you're entitled to it.
I respect that.

And far easier to debunk that argument.

I doubt it.

So you think the same way...and think its silly??

No, I just think it's a silly view point.

But given how I feel about the new batman films I can relate to wanting more of the character source material on screen...
but it's a subjective measure.

Hundreds of people that didn't watch the original G1 have learned all they need to know about optimus prime from these movies and that's undeniable.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

yea, if you hate bay it's one result and if you like him the other.

Thats not the case at all.

Truth be told, I originally blamed the writters of the film with the same level.

And while I still dont like their writting, after seening Star Trek I can see how even a bad script from writters can be made into a fairly decent film.

And thats not saying that the Trek film was better written.

one could argue the same about beverly hills cop

I think that film was well written.

I actually figured as much, but our feelings aside, it actively debunks said arguement.

Your "likes" hardly address'es the argument, much less debunks it.

right...and the first toy story is about a arrogant unlikable possesvie doll that that's trying and fails to eliminate his competition...

...and by films end the character has grown, learned asnd is likeable.

Aflects character started out a D-bag and ended an ass.

how we see movies usually comes down to how we project ourselves onto them. (no offensive of course)

none taken.

your definition, and you're entitled to it.
I respect that.

As I do yours.

I doubt it.

I'm sure you do

Hundreds of people that didn't watch the original G1 have learned all they need to know about optimus prime from these movies and that's undeniable.

I'm not sure I would agree.

While I dont agree with those that claim Primes character was "shattered" in the films.

I still feel there was a lot not brought to the plate about his character and motivations.

 

[ChicageauxTiger]

Transformers isn't killed for me. I still dig seeing big robots on screen. I just think a fresh set of eyes on this franchise would be cool.

 

[Hotwire]

Dude, I'm shocked I'm alive now.

I need a kidney transplant.

I see. I'll be over there, under that rock.

 

[Overman27pj]

Seeing robots fight is cool, unfortunately there has not been enough of that feeling.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I see. I'll be over there, under that rock.

Sorry but I dont get it.

 

[baerrtt]

Will in keeping with the theme/trend of unfounded comparisons, I am.



The Pixar audience and the Michael bay audience are not one in the same. There is an spill over, but I don't often see charaters from michael bay movies in the disney story. But that's beside the point.

I would agree that the pixar story teams craft "better" stories than the scriptwriters that have worked bay. However, again, intentions are getting crossed here.

Before me go making unfound claims, I'd need some examples of this alleged "misogynistic depictions of women."

"jingoism"
actually, outside of pearl harbor(with it's circumstances) bays films are actually anti "jingoism"
but then again, everything optimus prime says or does in these films falls on deaf ears.



I know many who say different. and how many of these poor souls are going to be lured into a trap for the 3rd time just to complain that they were tricked again.?

A good friend of mine is always saying that when TBS does its armageddon replays, he and his family tune in time again again...but when Superman Returns comes on...they can't be bothered. But surely Returns is a better story and a "better filmed movie"
It's there where I personally understand what bay does.



Chaplin like many is more remembered for his impact during the time of some political movement than the craft of his actual films. His purpose was evident in some of his films, even such films as "gold rush" had it social commentry, mainly due to the times, however figthing a man in a bear outfit while running around a cabin is hardly comaprable to hitch***** ability to "tell a story."

still if you're educated enough to see the subtext in a chaplin film, you're probably smart enough to ignore the subtext in the transformers movies.


Same has been said about Tarantino. Opinions are fun.

If I May

David Gordon Green, the touted prodigy of Malick and the director of that award winning "george washington."

the trailer for his new film;
I wonder, what does this film tell us about his ability to tell a story, how does it compare to the pixar lot? does it have any potty humour? Is that James Franco, soon to be academy award nominated actor and winner? Is that Natalie portman bending over in a skimpy outfit(a thong) less dressed than when megan fox did? What is the commentary this film is making on our society?

http://www.slashfilm.com/red-band-movie-trailer-your-highness/#more-92621

How quick are we to call this film a light hearted embarassment to cinema?
How quick are we to compare this directors story telling to that of pixar?
where are the claims of misogyny? or drug use promotion?
etc.

oh that's right, it's only funny when it doesn't offend fanboys.

If you're telling me right now that you can't see that one element present in Bay's work there really is no point in debating further with you.

 

[marvelman2006]

I liked certain aspects of both movies but then there are some I hate. the first movie had too much humans and unneeded humor and it took entirely too long to get to the bots. the second was such a mess and why did it have to be 2 and half hours long? the sotry really made no sense and yet again we were treated to unneeded humans and humor, ex: the entire college scene of sam and his parents. what did his mom getting high have to do with the story and the fallen?

 

[chaseter]

That is Bay's modus operandi: throw in a bunch of un-needed humor and if they are sex/genital/body jokes then double points.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I actually feel the Transformers concept is a solid foundation for some decent sci-fi.

An alien race create living machines, seperated into two classes: a military class and a worker class. The military class over time try to take over and set up a tyrannical regime and the workers revolt. They fight a civil war that last millions of years. Desperate for new energy sources they end up on Earth where the military class tries to suck the planet dry and enslave humans while the worker class tries to protect the planet and humans. Throw in some iconic characters and some cyber punk-space opera and you have sci-fi that would rank up there with some better sci-fi movies.

Think about it if humans developed artifical intelligence to the point where they thought for themselves, would they be considered living things like Transformers? How much would their personalities and struggles mirror humans? Wouldn't some try to dominate humans while others tried to protect us?

Interesting concepts that could be explored inbetween the repetitive robot wrestling matches. In most sci-fi robots are evil (The Matrix, Terminator) . Transformers takes it to another level where evolving robots are divided into tyrants and protectors. Solid sci-fi concept.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I actually feel the Transformers concept is a solid foundation for some decent sci-fi.

An alien race create living machines, seperated into two classes: a military class and a worker class. The military class over time try to take over and set up a tyrannical regime and the workers revolt. The fight a civil war that last millions of years. Desperate for new energy sources they end up on Earth where the military class tries to suck the planet dry and enslave humans while the worker class tries to protect the planet and humans. Throw in some iconic characters and some cyper punk-space opera and you have sci-fi that would rank up there with some better sci-fi movies.

Think about it if humans developed artifical intelligence to the point where they thought for themselves, would they be considered living things like Transformers? How much would there personalities and struggles mirror humans? Wouldn't some try to dominate humans while others tried to protect us?

Interesting concepts that could be explored inbetween the repetitive robot wrestling matches. In most sci-fi robots are evil (the Matrix, Terminator) . Transformers takes it to another level where evolving robots are divided into tyrants and protectors. Solid sci-fi concept.

Agreed.

 

[Jake Cassidy]

That is Bay's modus operandi: throw in a bunch of un-needed humor and if they are sex/genital/body jokes then double points.

The funny thing is Bay's other movies didn't have any of that, or very little.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

The funny thing is Bay's other movies didn't have any of that, or very little.

It's just an indication of what Bay really thinks of Transformers.

It's a frat boy's view of a "silly" cartoon.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Also an evolving robotic planet with robotic alien life forms is a solid sci-fi concept.

 

[Marvin]

If you're telling me right now that you can't see that one element present in Bay's work there really is no point in debating further with you.

no, I don't.
I do infact see the hive minded statements that are common place around these parts.

care to elaborate?

 

[chaseter]

The funny thing is Bay's other movies didn't have any of that, or very little.

Oh yes they do. Watch Bad Boys 2. Why did we need to see rats missionary style humping? Armageddon is full of sex jokes.

The Island and Pearl Harbor are about the only 2 Bay movies were he toned down his Bayisms to a tolerable level.

 

[knowsbleed]

The point was shouted from the roof tops of mothers houses all over middle america. "Transformers is a film with no character(s)...blah blah...just action.." in this very thread if I cared to look for it.

The truth is that the film has lots of it, if it weren't for only the blinder effect of the "fans"

Ya'll made an overeaching statement, it's being opposed. Maybe ya'll will specify next time.

No need to specify, if the characterization is not there... why the need to look for it. You talk as if the audience should search for characterization when movies that have good characterization make it seem effortless. You seem to have found hidden meaning in the characters' development where I doubt the filmmakers intended to have it.

In fact, you are probably the only person I've heard from who seems to say that the Transformers in these movies have enough character development.

See Griffith Observatory scene.
See forest scene
See hanger scene
See many scenes where he speaks and acts like the optimus prime of fable.

what you people seem to incur is that Optimus narrates the movie and then makes a speech at the end of the film before the credits and that's that.

I was speaking more about the 2007 movie. He did pretty much what you said in bold in the 2007 movie. I don't really recall too much of the 2nd as I've only seen it once and it was a convoluted mess.

He said and acted the way he did in the show, in fact the films have layered that with how optimus deals with human politics and if anything I understand the character moreso.

but that's me, and the other is you.
characterization in itself I suppose.

Garbage, if you are inferring that a person's own character comes to play when they see how much a character is developed on screen, I would have to say that your pretentious opinion about a half developed character is really grasping for straws that aren't there.

 

[Marvin]

No need to specify, if the characterization is not there... why the need to look for it. You talk as if the audience should search for characterization when movies that have good characterization make it seem effortless. You seem to have found hidden meaning in the characters' development where I doubt the filmmakers intended to have it.

Shia lebouf's character is the protagonist. at the begining of the film he is riddled with obvious flaws(for example he's selfish) and he's in a certain place in his life. By the end of the film his character has grown, arc'd and is in another place in his life. Any fool can see this. I didn't have to search in pretentious areas of film analysis to find it. He's the protagonist (films/stories only need one by definition) and he has plenty of supporting players. it may piss off fans, but the aliens in these films are the supporting cast. Obi wan in a new hope doesn't have any sort of ark, he's just a threshold guardian that helps the protonist get somewhere. Two of the transformers could be considered this...but I digress

Now the other transformers have plenty of "character," As for their characterization, it's minimal, but like in Inception, it's not necessary(to anyone but the fanboy that wants to see their favourite toys in more scenes).


-Arthur(inception), the point man. motivation to help cob reach his goals, willing to risk his life to see this achieved. very skilled at such and such. We don't really ever learn any more that that about him.

Bumblebee(and pretty much most of the tranformers...could be comparable in characterization.

point being objectively speaking all boxes are checked.

In fact, you are probably the only person I've heard from who seems to say that the Transformers in these movies have enough character development.

Every film could use more. What I'm saying and what I've always said is:

1. The films are not as void of character as some like to claim.

2. Like dozens of light hearted summer fare (mainly in the comedy area), films should be measured by what they aim to do and not anything else. I often ask why no one ever brings up the lack of "character" study in the Hangover, yet feel so compelled to complain about a toy line* summer film aimed at a much less astudious audience that is clearly there for spectacle and laughs over though provocation.

*yes, toy line. neither Inception nor Terminator nor Walle have hasbro or equivalent in the opening credits.

I was speaking more about the 2007 movie. He did pretty much what you said in bold in the 2007 movie. I don't really recall too much of the 2nd as I've only seen it once and it was a convoluted mess.

Every word(literaly) that spewed out of his mouth that didn't pertain to the garden scene was akin to the optimus of the source material...Right up to the point where he was actively willing to give up his life to save the planet. Seems pretty clear.

Garbage, if you are inferring that a person's own character comes to play when they see how much a character is developed on screen, I would have to say that your pretentious opinion about a half developed character is really grasping for straws that aren't there.

sure thing

 

[Jake Cassidy]

Oh yes they do. Watch Bad Boys 2. Why did we need to see rats missionary style humping? Armageddon is full of sex jokes.

The Island and Pearl Harbor are about the only 2 Bay movies were he toned down his Bayisms to a tolerable level.

I never said his movies didn't have any. Just not as much as ROTF.