I can't speak for any fans, I'm not sure what they would 'all' say about the twins. I do know plenty of toys were sold so
some 'portion of the films audience' seemed to like/connect with them. I wonder which non important portion of the audience that was. Then again, I can't speak for all fans, that's the job of detractors.
Never said two words about how much money the TF films make in turn meaning that 'jar jar is now an interesting and well liked character'. If anything, I said these films success mean they are doing something right for the GA(it doesn't even mean they are quality but rather that they are effective). 'Bad comic relief can ruin the serious parts of an action movie...' and then you go on to explain mis-explain just what it is the TF movies are, rendering your assessment irrelevant. TF are action comedies not action films. The raid is an 'action film' by convention. You are looking at a movie in which the gov't agent is an academy award caliber tuturro that does nothing but show up in full ham fisted mode and chews up scenery for all of his interactions(vs the antagonist in the raid), same deal with malkovich, and then declaring that this is a failed action film instead of what it actually is, an action comedy first. Next you will be saying
this is an action film as opposed to what it is.
Best wars had low brow humor, now we are getting in to the game of deciding if it evened it out more by quoting intelligent fiction(cause these films aren't littered with intelligent allusion). Your beef as stated was that these films have the presence of low brow lowest common denominator what not. The simple presence of it. Now it's, 'well that's fine that it's in the source material but the, my actual issue is that it has too much(cause there is a measure) and well it needs to also tell a better story in conjunction...' sorry but this is picking and choosing. I could argue the merits of the story telling in these films but I feel I have already pointed out the flaw in your argument. Low brow isn't beyond the source material and even if it was, how close something sticks to the source isn't the measure as I already described. Some of the most celebrated japanese anime is full of 'low brow' lecherous material. It's not inherently a flaw. Maybe your beef should actually be, these films aren't clever enough, that seems to be what you keep getting at with you apologetics(of the source material).
The cartoon didn't actually do all that character defining in just 2 hours. That's first of all. Second of all, the film sets out to define the group of characters it wants to tell a story about. Nowhere does it say a film has to define every single character that appears on screen and/or is on the team. Sometimes a football movie only defines and develops the 4 leads and 2 antagonists. Sometimes the xmen movie ignores whole slabs of the team(especially if they are from the future in which they just do their attacks like these supporting autobots) in service to whom it wants to tell it's story. The film tells the story of a group of characters, you wanting more of the autobots is another matter, better served in another medium. I've seen movies work where all the focus is on one character again Godzilla...
Yes, says you. You and yours think don't think these films should be action comedies(with heavy comedy), you think they should be more serious(ala Ironman). There are legions of people that are perfectly happy with this level of tone. Who is right? Seriously who is right in this? Ergo,
says you.
Just because something is popular(on it's merits mind you and not because it's attached to star wars like jar jar was), doesn't mean it's quality, but who ever said it was quality? I said it's working and people like it en mass, I say the same things about ID4. The statement should actually be, just because a minority of people don't like something, that doesn't make it the wrong direction.
Lastly, I defined it as action comedy. Curious, in a 'dedicated' comedy like 21/22 jump street, do you find any of the drama holds true? You know, in spite of the out and out comedy and gags littered throughout the film? I would hope so given how many people defend those films. And yes, the hangover actually did strive for moments of drama, even the third one in which the goof ball learned himself self destructive and alone.
Beverly Hills cop: buddy cop action film, lots of laughs and gags with serious action and moments drama where you are supposed to feel and emotionally react, even death. This film is still very much an action 'comedy' in a way 'heat' isn't. Ask yourself for all the gags and jokes in the rush hour movie, did it never ask you to put appreciate the tone of the kidnapped girl and what it meant when they all but sentenced her to death? Oh but now it's not an action comedy anymore? Now it's a failed drama. The minute the put all those half naked women in it and the racist asian jokes and...etc. To that end I answer your question plainly, of course you weren't supposed to laugh when optimus died, or chicago fell, you were supposed to laugh when they were making jokes and executing gags. Like any other action comedy.
That's great that Chappelle has clever material, but he also has low brow humor at the outset. His visual gags in particular.
'Bay is not funny and he should stop.' I assume this is another opinion and worth looking past. I would point to the fact that tons and tons of audiences find themselves check into the humor in his various films(particularly bad boys) but then again, just because something is popular and all that..doesn't make it quality. What it means if I got you correctly is that the opinion of a few can define what is effective art.
