Okay, this is getting tedious, so I'm going to try to focus here. With regards to the "Here's why it's not like the cartoons" comments: I referenced the cartoons to illustrate a point about characters being the strength of this franchise, not because I want zillion dollar movies to take script and format cues from a show I liked when I was seven. Please understand that and move on.
Pretty sure I expressed that in the last post. Kind the whole idea behind my "I get why you..."
That being said, the franchise is as big as it's ever been. Whatever it's biggest 'strengths' are, one could argue that they reside in the hear and now. For, simply having '
characters' doesn't always yield success with this brand.
Now, to the heart of the matter:
You argued earlier in this thread, that this film depicts engaging CGI characters in a cast mixed with live action performers. You are also telling me that my request that these films depict a cast of more engaging CGI characters mixed with live action performers is somehow not possible because of the medium.
Do you see the problem I have with that?
Now, I'm hoping this isn't what you mean, but really, it sounds like you're trying to tell me this is the best we can do in terms of depicting the Transformers as interesting, important characters in their own movies. If that's what you're trying to say, we might as well stop now, because I will never believe that.
I argued that anyone that proclaims who these films don't have engaging cgi characters is making a hyperbolic and inaccurate statement. If you can't find one cgi character that is engaging throughout this entire adventure,
hero or villain, then you're being obtuse. It's a measure of scale. Someone could watch the last fast/furious film and say the same thing about needing more engaging and development from the characters. I'd tell that person that there is plenty(moreso from the leads). We'd both be right. Those films too could have more, but whose to day they don't have enough. And this is where we split I suppose.
Of course there could be more. Such a thing applies to any analysis of any film. You clearly want 'more' of this thing. As I stated on the last page when you said I wasn't qualified to speak on what you want. You're right, however I'm speaking on the words you are writing here. You want more than what is present, clearly. Which is your prerogative, and to answer your question, there could be more if they designed it right, I'd also argue, limitations should be challenged when there is a need to do so and I'm not so sure the growing audience for these films have communicated that need, I digress though. I'll answer your initial analogy with another: Simply put, there could be alot more
interesting, important characters in the Raid films, and until then they could also be said to 'suck'. Perhaps those producers should take a cue from the GoG trailer as well, or perhaps they can continue to do what's working for them and avoid some of the hyperbole and prerogative thrown their way.
I get what you are saying and if you think guardians of the galaxy with robots is what's needed for this film to stop sucking as you said, then you're entitled to that.
I personally think these films appeal to the exact same demographic they appealed to back when they got their big start and because of that, they don't 'suck'. One day the kids that grew up with these films will be sharing their opinions in these various forums. Till then, I suppose this anecdote about the youthful experience will have to do.
[YT]aPxlpMDyvVY[/YT]
