Scenes in the movie that made go "Uhhh really?"

Discussion in 'Transformers: Dark of the Moon' started by Rock Sexton, Jul 8, 2011.

  1. Marvin

    Marvin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    19,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    And we know he didn't go back to his trailer set up for more tech a second time how? We know he has access to the axe while the jet pack is still on how? Honestly he could have had two blades, it really doesn't matter. I mean in the perfect world, the first reaction to the scenario presented is to put the pieces together. In the modern (forum) world it's nothing of the sort.

    The same thing happened When Singer pretty much made the effects of Kryptonite a plot device. Nerd rage was all about calling bs on what they were seeing whilst the general audience was simply accepting that that was how Kryptonite worked in singers movie. If Optimus couldn't cut himself down, why not accept that he couldn't cut himself down? Honestly. Ask yourself, what makes more sense, that he couldn't or that he forget about his trusty go to weapon.

    If batman was tangled in his own bungie lines, upside down and in chicago, I'd be right there saying the same thing to people who would scream plot hole, for batman has tons of cutting equipment in his belt.

    Michael Bay has this effect.

    Which auto bots are laugh out loud idiots, all I remember of them is killing machines, especially in the last movie.

    As for their battle with star scream, he tends to have the advantage...for obvious reasons. I love the part when Iron hide warns everyone of his arrival.

    Outside of the clear showing and not telling Sentinel gave the audience in just about all of their scenes together. Bay even staged their civil scenes in such a why that Sentinel was the clear power holder of the scene.

    Again, outside of the house scene in the first, I've personally only ever seen the autos as decent to great fighters. Especially Ironhide.

    Optimus put on a better showing, the second time. it's as simple as that.
    Moreover the terrain wasn't littered with innocent people,
    Moreover he was past trying to reason with Megatron at that point in their character journey.
    Moreover he had alot more conviction in that particular conflict.

    fighting tends to work on these principles.

    Again, why not put the pieces together as opposed to trying to find holes.

    That's interesting, I wonder if you speak for everyone round these parts.
    I ride a mule thank you very much.
     
    #101
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2011
  2. Marvin

    Marvin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    19,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    that is pretty interesting.
    not as interesting as questioning the happenings of megatrons plotting in beastwars.
    (source material is sacred though)

    I like the part where it says: "neither of these plans work if the preceding one succeeds."
    Yea that's kinda how contingencies usually go down.

    At what point during the whole space race was motivated by the ark landing did you start questioning how accurate the lunar landing facts would be...I guess never.

    Marvel universe (which TF was part of at some point) is only about 3x as revisionist as Hasbro's, which is 2x as revisionist as ours. Nazi's didn't have laser powered canons in world war 2 by the by.


    aha...eh....eh.
    :yay:
    just a matter of time.

    I gotta admit, at this point I just do it for the lol's.
    it's fun. It probably would have been more fun if the movie bombed like some were hoping though.
     
    #102
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2011
  3. TheZink

    TheZink Rocket Man

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not at all. If instead of the Dark Side of the moon we went to a deep crater or somewhere NEAR where we did actually explore I wouldn't be so up in arms about it. But the fact is we could not have possibly gone to that side of the moon on the landing. It could have been any director or writer making the same mistake and I'd be calling BS. That part would have stuck out like a sore thumb and made me ill. Yes, I knew that going into the movie, I was hoping it would have been the worst mistake, sadly I was wrong.

    Armageddon was much worse in this particular area. The shuttle lifting off from the asteroid is laughable. Both cases show me laziness or just not caring for what is physically possible with our technology (and we have big giant transforming robots, I know). It seems like the writers and directors went with the easiest tools they had and didn't try to make something a bit more believable to those that know better.

    It's not picking on Bay, I'd rip apart any director with the same lazy plot. I hated a number of scenes from the new Star Trek that fell in the same category (Space Jump, wtf!?! and jettisoning the core into the time rift :doh:). The Star Trek ones I forgive because the story and writing around them prop them up.

    Bay does what he wants and the hell to anyone else.
     
    #103
  4. Thundercrack85

    Thundercrack85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    21,675
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well the underlying problem is that you can't have both storylines (Revenge of the Fallen and the Dark of the Moon) in the same universe. The fact that they got the wrong side of the moon is funny though.
     
    #104
  5. Marvin

    Marvin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    19,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've just never really seen film as documentary, if they say nasa has a space craft that can do ground to air lift offs from the surface of a comet, i chalk it up to science fiction and i'm done with the matter. Especially in a disney movie. Now when all if said and done, they went and said based on a true story that would be another matter.

    Just about all the jargon in even the best of star trek is made up science fiction so I can't even begin to imagine where one would logically start to cry foul. I thought that space jump was dope, almost as cool as the wing suits actually. (I think bay ripped it off but one up'd it in the process so it's all good).

    Personally I think a movie about a shuttle landing on the moon collecting samples and trying to get back to earth is more creatively lazy than a revisionist history with 80's kids properties to boot. However well done it is.

    It's an interesting dilemma the responsibility a filmmaker has to follow rules when dealing with pure sci-fi, or anything for that matter. Should these same rules apply to fantasy as well, like LotR or Potter...which one of those is just lazy for not following the magic logic and would they be better for it, because as it stands they just do whatever the hell they want and "to hell with anyone else." It's a doozy.
    The minute it's not fantasy it does seem to have an effect on some people. dr Degrasse Tyson wont shut up about it.
     
    #105
  6. Vid Electricz

    Vid Electricz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,845
    Likes Received:
    0

    Hmmm...I think it's not so much abiding by "rules" per se (rather than the ones the movie itself sets in place), but rather the "suspension of disbelief". As in, how much do we as the audience need to suspend our reflex to not believe what is happening on the screen to accept it in the story.

    Here's a nice explanation (funny enough, there's an example for Armageddon and Star Trek):
    http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/sci-fi1.htm

    When it's science fiction, any number of outlandish things can be made up (Star Trek, Spider-Man, etc...) and we as the audience accept the logic of the situation as long as the story, from that point abides by it's own set of logic and doesn't deviate. War of the Worlds comes to mind, where all electronic devices were knocked out by an EMP but somehow someone got video footage of an alien transporting to it's craft underground. So the movie wasn't following it's own logic it had previously set up. I thought the movie was OK otherwise and things like that are generally nitpicks.

    In movies that are based in our world that purport to abide to our laws of physics and science, with no supernatural or outlandish points or elements in the story, the suspension of disbelief still stands but it becomes more apparent when the movie pushes the boundaries (apparently ships lifting off from asteroids:huh:) I haven't seen Armageddon in like 11 years, so I don't remember all the inconsistencies or whatnot.
     
    #106
  7. TheZink

    TheZink Rocket Man

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    0
    My problem is, if you are going to use an event that is well known and documented and use the moon landing which is very well known and the science behind it is well known, why change it to something that is impossible with the technology available at the time? How hard would it have been to just have the craft land in a crater on this side of the moon? Or was Bay set on the "Dark of the Moon" title?

    Couldn't have said it any better. I loved The Rock. Maybe it's because I didn't know crap about biological warfare or Alcatraz prison.

    I loved the first Bad Boys, the second got annoying when the movie could have ended 45 minutes earlier than it did.

    Armageddon was good the first time I watched it. After I got into aerospace engineering and really learned about the space shuttle, propulsion and rocket theory, I realized how much BS the movie was full of.

    Bay just doesn't seem to try and sell the unbelievable. He puts it out there without explanation and either you buy it or you don't.
     
    #107
  8. Marvin

    Marvin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    19,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you can make a fun film about it probably. apply your question to Xmen first class, apply it to watchmen and then conclude with the same point...

    Cause you're not making a documentary, you're making an entertaining experience.

    Bay and the rest of the people involved, including the people with more say than even he, probably thought it would be cool yea. In hindsight it's a pretty engaging twist.

    I'm sure someone out there would argue that all the stuff that happened in that film is bull **** as well...in fact I'm sure of it. But here you are with an opportunity to see the other side.
    (the dark side if you will)

    Nasa signed off and lent themselves fully to the production(if I recall correctly). They don't do that often...they probably thought it was a fun film for the whole family and left the docu stuff for the ron howard film. I honestly don't think most people are bothered by problems of that nature.

    Actually he's one of the few that tries to get more things on point than anyone. It actually annoys a lot of people.

    Military operations is a big one.
    Real stunts..that bore real film lovers...

    Buddy cop movies defy just about every logical pathway of a police procedural, I'm starting to wonder if cops hate them.
     
    #108
  9. Marvin

    Marvin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    19,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's an obvious theory.
    I don't think the TF series has really overstepped it.

    the shuttle walking on Armageddon was a nice catch though.
    Spiderman getting those powers pretty much spits in that theories face lol.
     
    #109
  10. TheZink

    TheZink Rocket Man

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    0
    So a movie can be technologically and historically accurate and entertaining? Gotcha.

    X-Men first class changed the whole Cuban Missile crisis. I understood that. I am sure history buffs rolled their eyes. I am sure people who are not intimately involved with the Space Shuttle or Apollo Missions didn't mind the changes to Armageddon and DoTM. I did mind.

    How is it a twist? How much different would it have been if instead of the Dark Side of the Moon, it was a cavern or cave on the front side? Just how different would it have been? None. It would have kept the same story and added a sense a tangibility. Instead of changing history, you add to it.

    I am sure, but I stand by above. I know of many directors that do their homework on their films. They try to learn as much as they can about the subject so they don't get called out on BS.

    NASA the people making decisions don't speak for the workers who leave and breathe the shuttle or did for the Apollo missions. NASA is now run by bureaucrats and suits with the almighty dollar as the bottom line. I am sure Bay sold them the idea and $$$ was all they saw. I've worked with NASA people. They all say the same thing. "Yeah, it was fun, but full of unbelievable BS."

    I guess what bothers me is how these inconsistencies seem so...easy to avoid. If someone just sat down and THOUGHT about it for 15 minutes you could get around it or add something to explain it. I don't need everything spelled out for me, but something to show me the director said "You know what, a space shuttle doesn't fly and take off like a giant plane, we need to address that for the get away from the asteroid."
     
    #110
  11. Vid Electricz

    Vid Electricz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,845
    Likes Received:
    0

    Spider-Man is a perfect example of suspension of disbelief. It's a story where we accept that a man gains powers by being bitten by a radioactive spider (for the sake of the story). The comic/movie establishes why and how he gained these abilities and though they are outlandish, they still seem to be treated as though they are within the realm of possibility. That's the key. From that point on, as long as his abilities are treated consistently and abide by the rules they have constructed within the world that has been created for the comic/movie, we as an audience have no problem accepting it.

    The problem starts when there is inconsistent or poor storytelling. Someone might act totally out of character or a plot point might be totally nonsensical, but this is not an excuse for suspension of disbelief. The excuse I hear most often is: "It's a movie about a guy who crawls on walls/robots from space/a guy from krypton, how much realism do you expect?"

    The problem with this is that when the writer/film maker oversteps the boundaries of absurdity and outlandishness past what they had established, the audience will disengage and take notice of this.
     
    #111
  12. Marvin

    Marvin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    19,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, this is mostly all agreeable believe me, however they already present the world of spiderman as a realistic place and they already show that radiation does what it's supposed to do, the minute he gains powers, they(stan lee) technically changed the rules to his universe.

    Obviously the movie kinda change this to a more acceptable genetics landscape and the problem is actually dealt with...it's the source material(and possibly the new movie) I'm poking holes in.
     
    #112
  13. Marvin

    Marvin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    19,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    ok?

    You asked what the point was of shoehorning in a historical event into a revisionist plot. I implied that it adds relevance to the story and pointed to xmen and watchmen. I not questioning weather people do or don't have problems with them(i'm sure they do).

    How is it a twist? because it changes the story of the moon landing...if that's what your asking.

    I'm sure they could have made it a cave, they probably would have had to deal with cries of why no one had seen it for all this time(even with a kids telescope) guess an alien ship sitting just on the other side of our moon was just too appealing (to bay) to pass up. I they just figured their audience wouldn't harp on the logistics. Personally I wouldn't have enjoyed the film any more or less and it probably shows in the revenue.

    Most just have good writers that solve all their issues for them. I do know the few writer directors tend to deal with all issues presented most of the time. Not sure about Quinton T.

    Again, you must know bay is not alone in all this (selling)... Secondly if I asked someone about a comedy and they said "yea, it was fun, but full of unbelievable BS." I'd roll my eyes deeper than they probably can roll theirs lol.
    I personally see action comedies in this vain.

    I'm a big fan of hong kong films.
    There's actually a nasa feature video about this production floating around.

    Hey, that's understandable.
    You've gotta know that probably did put in about 15mins into solving a bunch of problems that you probably aren't complaining about now though. To suggest that these people don't put any THOUGHT into their work is somewhat obtuse to say the least.
     
    #113
  14. TheZink

    TheZink Rocket Man

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, should have read "can't be technologically and historically accurate and entertaining"

    Watchmen was an alternate reality completely and still tried to remain somewhat "realistic" Trust me, the movie (and the comic) had its fair-share of plot holes (Dr Manhattan's creation for one).

    I didn't ask why use a historical event, I asked why change it drastically for no real reason? And change to something that couldn't have possibly happened?
    If they had told us "Hey, a spaceship crash landed on the moon and we went to investigate" I could buy that. If they added "Landed in a deep crater and is covered by moon rock and debris, making it barely visible by use of telescope" I could believe that.

    Saying "It landed on the dark side of the moon, all you know about orbital mechanics, communications with the Apollo mission, etc etc means jack ****" I don't buy it.

    Exactly, so why not do something that makes...sense?

    I'm sure they do think it through, but how much of their work is then changed by producers and directors? And is it really hard to make things consistent from movie to movie, or hell at least throughout ONE movie?

    There's glaring inconsistencies in each of these movies (RotF being the worst). Do they just not care, or are we just that good at pointing them out?
     
    #114
  15. Rock Sexton

    Rock Sexton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    9,139
    Likes Received:
    0
  16. Marvin

    Marvin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    19,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    sure and TF3 tried to be "realistic" as well...if you're going to ask why did they do it for TF3 one would answer, the same reason Moore did it with watchmen, because it's interesting and it has an audience. People like revisions, especially of american history. TF1 probably owes a lot of it's appeal to the approach. But like you go on to say in your next stanza, that's not really your issue. I just don't like leaving questions unanswered(plot holes)

    The reason being that it's new, fresh, different and has a tangible hook. That first teaser communicated to the laymen intrinsically what otherwise would have just been another movie about a crash landing and it's subsequent investigation(involving transformers). I assume this dark of the moon concept has never been done before? For good reason I'm sure.

    In the film the crash itself is detected by everyone who's looking, but how often has is the far side of the moon actually been walked, let alone seen?(I know some slingshot missions have seen it). But it's pretty much a mythic un-ventured frontier that's so close it's haunting. You ask the point? Well as a producer, making a hasbro movie are you going to use the high concept selling point of the celestial undiscovered land that's a cultural milestone or the lesser ship in a creator angle? Especially when your source material derives from a saturday morning toy commercial from the 80's that only 12 year olds watched even though many say different.

    Speilberg didn't make the film with the purpose of having any aerospace lab coats that happen to have some free time on their hands pull out their check list and give the film a passing grade on accuracy. He made it for the same people that gave all the b.s. in his Indy movies the thumbs up. That's literally why, and I hate assuming peoples intentions.

    Wasn't there a plot point about the Russians taking photos but never actually visiting themselves? Probably for the same reasons they haven't ever in real history...

    I don't by Nolans dream tech in Inception.....many do.

    1. Because the former concept is a better sell than the latter
    2. Because it doesn't matter if it makes technical sense...not when it's fiction.

    I take it you've seen Sunshine.

    Alot, but not for lack of you unappreciating their effort...
    and it's harder than you think yes.
    Just ask Jim Cameron.

    Most movies have inconsistencies, they're usually non issues and when they're not they become cultural discussions for it.
     
    #116
  17. TheZink

    TheZink Rocket Man

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see us changing our thoughts or opinions on the matter. I can appreciate the TF franchise for what it is. Mindless thoughtless fun. I would love for a bit more thought provoking better written story, but alas that will have to wait IF we ever get another.

    Bay does what Bay does, and he makes hundreds of millions while doing it.

    Still good discussing and debating with ya :up:
     
    #117
  18. Marvin

    Marvin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    19,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    [YT]BFHM8qpVrFo[/YT]
    A lot of people can appreciate a lot of movies for what they are...
    With TF there's a certain bile when people actually say that.

    peace
     
    #118
  19. spider_rob

    spider_rob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2011
    Messages:
    499
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anyone notice how Bay made all the new Autobots into *****? It seems they're always insulting, threatening, or saying something sexual. Prime examples would be the two little bots that Sam keeps as pets and the bots guarding the space shuttle. At least in the first movie, we had Ironhide and Rachet, who seemed to be pretty well rounded.
     
    #119
  20. Mace Dolex

    Mace Dolex Powerful User

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,593
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most of the complaints here seem just nitpicking but if I'd have to pick a scene it's when Sam and Lennox are swinging on a cable attached to Starscream when he could've just easily kiled them by swatting them against the wall or something.
     
    #120
  21. def28

    def28 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Messages:
    12,593
    Likes Received:
    2
    Just a few scenes really got me going wtf.

    1. Not showing how the Autobots got captured. One minute Bee was with the humans then in the next hes all of sudden captured with all the other bots. Made zero sense. I dont ask for much with these films but I felt I missed something somewhat important.

    2. The most powerful character in the movie gets stopped by wires and needs three Autobots to get him down.

    3. Starscream Vs Sam. Scene was not that cool, a waste for Starscream and it went on too long. Should have been an epic bot battle.

    4. Shockwave Vs Humans. Should have been an epic bot Battle.
     
    #121
  22. Rock Sexton

    Rock Sexton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    9,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...... but yours somehow isn't?

    Give me a break. Knit picking would be if we blasted what colored shirt Shia was wearing.
     
    #122
  23. El Bastardo

    El Bastardo Literary elitist

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Messages:
    6,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    It should have been pink! :cmad:
     
    #123
  24. Rock Sexton

    Rock Sexton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    9,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually with Bay's sensibilities (or lack thereof) it should've been some obnoxious shirt like "F.B.I. Female Body Inspector" ....
     
    #124
  25. Marvin

    Marvin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    19,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    Go watch horrible bosses ya'll, you'll hate it for all these supposed reasons and more, doubt it though.
     
    #125

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"