Age of Extinction Transformers 4 is going to be AWESOME. - Part 1

[The Chris]

Are you talking about the part in the 3rd film? I don't remember the bits in the building being all that "wtf" inducing, i just remember them being impressive.

I meant it in a good way. I just remember seeing them run and you hear tyrese yell jump out the window, and i said "wait, what?' and then they all jumped out the window and start sliding down. I thought that was insane, and awesome. I think that whole building sequence is some of the best work Bay has ever done.

 

[Marvin]

I start shaking my head with glee because the bayhem is so unapologetic in its awesome insanity. When the people just jumped out of the window and started sliding down the building i just said "what" and started smiling. Like bad boys 2 when they started throwing cars. I'm shooting an intense short film right now, and i'm glad that transformers comes out because i really need that fun.

Some people call it over compensating for lack of story telling, others see it as producing engaging cinema without the help of a script. I don't think there are many directors that can produce consistent returns with the same scripts bay's been given.

I remember that wonderful sequence in the first film when ironhide races up the street opens up and then leaps over some missiles and a women in a blue dress whilst the sound design goes into full diegetic mode. The reality is that he's making less traditional films and more something akin to those 3D rides at the theme parks. So far the audience seems to dig it, youngsters especially.

I thought prime running on the rooftops in the first film was pretty slick.

Really living in an action scene is what I'd describe his style as. The spinning camera take in BB2 for example. It's a unique style of palpable action you don't really see that many places. He also get's alot of energy out of his actors and when he happens to land the more charismatic ones(will smith/connery) it makes for a great result imo.

 

[Liam_H]

Off-topic but her costume in the last airbender photo looks nice, maybe I should watch that movie, I never bothered to see it because I read everywhere that it sucked.

The weird thing is that you might think 'this movie isn't that bad' when you have no knowledge of the animated series. So you might enjoy it on that level. But fans of the series in general hate it with a passion because of how poor of an adaptation it is.

Usually you're suppose to take each medium as itself but IMO the movie is so useless even in that regard that there's no point to it. So I have no problem telling anybody the movie is a pos.

 

[samsnee]

I'll admit that they are quite the spectacle but beyond the action, these movies have no replay value. Even when they're on tv I skip it. His earlier work like Bad Boys and The Rock had good action and humor that wasn't so juvenile in my opinion.

 

[Marvin]

I'll admit that they are quite the spectacle but beyond the action, these movies have no replay value. Even when they're on tv I skip it.

I get that these are all opinions but if you simply state that first part as 'no replay value to you' it would be all the clearer. Opinions about the state of things or the masses are still opinions but they aren't about oneself.
What's more, the films probably do have a high replay value given how they perform and such.

His earlier work like Bad Boys and The Rock had good action and humor that wasn't so juvenile in my opinion.

His earlier work wasn't based on an 80's saturday morning toy commercial. What's more, people seemingly enjoy juvenile movies..not really a bad thing.

 

[TheVileOne]

These movies are dumber than dodo birds, but they are big events for audiences. Kids love them especially. They don't care that the writing is bad or that the characters are paper thin or stereotypical, they just want big honking fighting robots.

They are basically like big budget porn films that everyone can watch. Even though there's been a lot of insane material in these movies that is quite inappropriate for kids. But it just goes to show how hypocritical parents are that they will allow their pre-teens to watch Transformers movie but having anything approaching mature content in daytime cartoons is horrendous.

 

[Marvin]

These movies are dumber than dodo birds, but they are big events for audiences. Kids love them especially. They don't care that the writing is bad or that the characters are paper thin or stereotypical, they just want big honking fighting robots.

Guess these films need to take the compliments where they can get them, even buried in the bottom of accusatory sentences such as these. As I've said before. Good film making isn't about 'good writing' or thick characters, countless well received comedies prove that. It's about presenting something for an audience to engage with on whatever level they deem appropriate.

No critic walked out of the hang over and said, 'this movie is dumber than a dodo bird...it has bad writing and the characters are paper thin...' they simply gave that film a rating based on it's intent and ability to entertain the audience.

They are basically like big budget porn films that everyone can watch. Even though there's been a lot of insane material in these movies that is quite inappropriate for kids. But it just goes to show how hypocritical parents are that they will allow their pre-teens to watch Transformers movie but having anything approaching mature content in daytime cartoons is horrendous.

The films are rated according to what's appropriate for the audience. The only hypocrisy would be that of the mpaa.

More accurately, it would be if someone had a problem with how said group rate one film but completely excuse how they rate others...

PG13 films have all sorts of things one could decide are inappropriate for kids. Such as maids being shot in the head to curse words and bloody deaths...

 

[The Endless]

The first Hangover didn't have paper thin characters though. Neither did the Jump Street films. Schmidt and Jenko's relationship in 21 Jump Street is more believable and well written than anything in any Transformer movie.

 

[The Overlord]

Guess these films need to take the compliments where they can get them, even buried in the bottom of accusatory sentences such as these. As I've said before. Good film making isn't about 'good writing' or thick characters, countless well received comedies prove that. It's about presenting something for an audience to engage with on whatever level they deem appropriate.

No critic walked out of the hang over and said, 'this movie is dumber than a dodo bird...it has bad writing and the characters are paper thin...' they simply gave that film a rating based on it's intent and ability to entertain the audience.

The Hangover is a comedy, not an action film, the standards are different for those 2 genres. Also on the surface, the Hangover seemed stupid, there was some cleverness to the jokes, jokes that are completely stupid usually are not funny.

But look at the Hangover sequels, the second one reused all the jokes from the first one, while the third one just was not funny. Transformers movies have same problem, there is no real cleverness anywhere, so the stupid stuff is just stupid, rather being a back drop for some clever ideas.

 

[Marvin]

The first Hangover didn't have paper thin characters though. Neither did the Jump Street films. Schmidt and Jenko's relationship in 21 Jump Street is more believable and well written than anything in any Transformer movie.

Do you really believe that?
Cause I don't. I see a character like Bruce Wayne in batman begins having some thick stuff to work out in the traditional/conventional sense. I see Caesar in the apes movie...

Then I see the boy and his car and the basic arc from selfish to selfless in the first TF movie. He's selling family heirlooms during a personal book report, his biggest goal is to be driven into the high end car dealer, he likes the girl but only superficially...by the end all that changed as far as his motivations, It's thin but it's very much there. I say it's thin in relation to Caesar...
I actually see alot of joseph campbell in the second film(if only over long and convoluted), but again, very much there.

For some reason these clowns in the first hangover film are said to be more in the category of the former films and not the later? There is a clear compromise of standards when it comes to how people are appreciating character study and detection of dramatization in the case of the(very self aware) Jenko arc as it compares to Caesar, but that same compromise is not afforded to what Sam goes though from the top of the story into the resolution.
Sorry but I don't agree. That's great that TF's character work is in a lesser category than Caesar but I'm not going to pretend these various other films listed aren't. I'd even toss Godzilla in there with them.

Fortunately not all films enjoyment is measure by this thing. Tons of people love the hell out of say; the Raid, and that's no doubt because it does various other things well as it pertains to film enjoyment.

As for believable, I don't see any of that in 21/22, hangover or avengers, then again that has nothing to do with how I personally measure how good a time I have. Can't speak for everyone though.

 

[Marvin]

The Hangover is a comedy, not an action film, the standards are different for those 2 genres. Also on the surface, the Hangover seemed stupid, there was some cleverness to the jokes, jokes that are completely stupid usually are not funny.

But look at the Hangover sequels, the second one reused all the jokes from the first one, while the third one just was not funny. Transformers movies have same problem, there is no real cleverness anywhere, so the stupid stuff is just stupid, rather being a back drop for some clever ideas.

I think people run into trouble when they start proclaiming what it is that makes comedy work outright. I would imagine such a thing is the most subjective art from there is, if not one of the most. That being said, jokes don't need to be 'clever' to work. Sometimes it's about slapstick or randomness or story telling or performance or irony or any number of things(see 3 stooges).

I personally remember huge laughs when that dude got ran though his grandma's window and into the pool for example. Or even the ladies man 217..I digress.

Secondly both the hangover and the jump street films have pretty elaborate plot reliant action set pieces, as does TF. They both also have basic stories and lots of humor. The latter simply happens to have more sci fi elements and 'stronger action' imo.
Deciding which genre each falls into and then further deciding what the requirements/standards are after the fact is short sighted imo. Just a way to control the discourse. The requirement is that of engaging the greater audience, some of these films do that better than others.

When shia sits down for job interview, I don't expect some 'real' scene. I expect some gag that actually further along's the story. The same exact deal with the 21 jump street guys talking to their chief or ice cube or whatever. This isn't failed drama, it's effective comedy.

 

[DA_Champion]

There are very few action movies with "strong characters".

 

[Marvin]

There are very few action movies with "strong characters".

Those days are gone

 

[DA_Champion]

That was a great damn scene !!!

 

[dark_b]

Bay

 

[dark_b]

IDK if this has been posted, but the BBFC confirms that the runtime is 165 minutes.
And it is rated 12A for moderate action violence, infrequent strong language.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/transformers-age-extinction-2014

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

120 min is 2 hours. 165 is 2 hours and 45 minutes. withouth credits this is over 2 hours and 30 minutes.

in the name of Bay.

 

[TheVileOne]

LOL Marvin, are you like the champion of the Transformer movies' quality or something?

Also why are you comparing The Hangover to Transformers? It's not even on the same wavelength.

Also not every critic liked The Hangover either, while the first film got generally good reviews. You seem to be upset because of some perceived pass that critics give to the first Hangover unlike just about every Transformers film.

Feel free to defend Mudflap and Skidz while you are at it.

 

[TheVileOne]

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

120 min is 2 hours. 165 is 2 hours and 45 minutes. withouth credits this is over 2 hours and 30 minutes.

in the name of Bay.

It's insane, each movie is like longer than the first, with even less plot and less coherency. Usually a longer movie you would think would allow for more character development and fleshing out the plot. Just for example, some of that deleted footage from Avengers that was removed to ultimately give us our 143 minute gave us more Captain America adjusting to present day, more of Loki and the Other, more of Maria Hill, more Loki and Hawkeye, plus the waitress, but that should've been gone anyway. What I'm saying is that footage gave us some more plot insight and character centric moments, besides the additional unfinished action beat for Cap that was glimpsed in the marketing materials.

Bay just uses all that extra time for more cacophony. More dorky humor, and more insane characters whose actions make no sense.

 

[Lord]

I doubt anyone thinks the characters in Transformers are weaker than the ones in most other movies, in least i doubt the GA in general does, a lot of people actualy seem to like these characters.

Bay always had a way of making the GA care, while critics and us on the web always find them paper cut and annoying, it's why Armageddon is often listed as one of the films that make "men cry"

 

[The Endless]

To be fair, Armageddon had some great characterisation. That little 10 minute montage where the feds are tracking down Harry's men then they do all those test on them showed great insight into their characters. Plus it was genuinely hilarious.

Compare that to the Transformer films. Apart from Sam and Turturro's characters... do we know anything about the others beyond the superficial? I mean the first one had a hint of characterisation for Duhammel's character, showing his wife and baby. But now he's just archetypal bad ass military leader #3.

 

[Supernova]

Bay has gone down in quality for me in years. Since 2005 he has really only turned in 2 great films, Transformers 1 and the Island. Pain and Gain was good for a smaller movie but its not up there with his best. Sure his directing of an action scene is superb but now is become a parody of sorts and he has too much of the same shots that look the same. Ive watched every trailer and tv spot for age of extinction and it looks like deleted scenes from dark of the moon.

 

[terry78]

Even when someone else is writing it, Bay pretty much does take over whatever they've written, haha. I would like to see how he'd go about directing a SW flick out of my own morbid curiosity though. Not even an episode but like a spinoff.

 

[Donut]

There's not an end credits scene is there ? The movie is long enough as it is

 

[Marvin]

To be fair, Armageddon had some great characterisation. That little 10 minute montage where the feds are tracking down Harry's men then they do all those test on them showed great insight into their characters. Plus it was genuinely hilarious.

What you are doing right here^
Is the position many people find themselves in as it pertains to these TF films. It's really that simple. There is a legion of critics and internet folks that can pick apart what you are saying about the substance and effectiveness of humor in that film. If I could say nothing else I'd leave you with that thought.

This is why I forever 'champion' the simple point of subjectivity over self importance when it comes to judging the 'good time' level of a film.
TF is that for a lot of people and they don't need the high and mighty if you will telling them it's not a nolan film. They want what they want, like what they like, and the consistent and increasing numbers speak to that. So few films out there have proven to be as critic proof as these for this very reason. If an Xmen films comes out and get's 30% on rt, it's kinda over...I digress.

"To be fair" is how I hypothetically start off every post. If only more people did.

 

[Marvin]

LOL Marvin, are you like the champion of the Transformer movies' quality or something?

Also why are you comparing The Hangover to Transformers? It's not even on the same wavelength.

Also not every critic liked The Hangover either, while the first film got generally good reviews. You seem to be upset because of some perceived pass that critics give to the first Hangover unlike just about every Transformers film.

Feel free to defend Mudflap and Skidz while you are at it.

I'm not really the champion of anything in particular, I just find myself in various sections questioning why said section is filled with people that seemingly hate and see no value in the films in question. Not that I'm telling people where they can and should go, rather that I find myself in this role often in these forums. It's not even that I personally like all these films that much. When it comes to films I don't like, well let's just say I avoided the nolan bat section in it's entirety, as I tend to with the marvel CU films. In short, I've seen what the internet is like and I try and speak for and to the fans, in their own sections. Highlighting merit and combating things I don't agree with in the face of what the 'talkbacks' are known for these days.

As for the hangover. When it comes to substance and story telling and all these things people swear up and down are important to a, quote on quote 'good' or 'engaging film', that film had just as much if not less than the first TF film. Ergo my argument that one film is getting a pass whilst another isn't. Enter this cop out that one is supposed to be silly(comedy) whilst the other one is supposed to be what exactly....character study? Like I always say; 80's toy commercial released at the peak of the summer season. Judging films for what they are aspiring to be, not what they simply aren't. It's like looking at some modern art piece and saying it's bad cause the faces don't have the proper lighting or anatomy. Yea, that's cause it's a pollack in it's intent and people seemingly like pollack.

As for mudflap and the other one, I personally care little but I don't see too many kids having a problem with them. I've seen similar levels of complexity on saturday mornings let alone R comedy movies, I've even seen this level of complexity in the odd disney comic relief character. I also don't actually find them racist, rather that they speak towards the stereotypes certain individuals see in minorities. I often wonder why people see black in the fact that one has a gold tooth for example, sure I guess. I also wonder how racist people found that '******' in the we're the millers movie for he's doing the exact same thing. Or that the lady from friends is dancing around naked, or that kids genitals are exposed...then again, it's not a bay film.

Tropic Thunder had black face, literally.