Not all music needs to be Mozart, but doesn't mean there are not some truly awful songs out there that deserves some ridicule.
Inversely, Transformers(see deep wang) aren't straight up action fantasy and thus shouldn't be compared to those....yet here we are. You keep bringing up 'alot of people on these boards' and such... Alot of people on these boards find this forth film better than the last three yet looking at the RT score... Here's me shrugging my shoulders at 'alot of people'.
Here's what I think about the critics and alot of people. Alot of us grew up watching that TMNT 90's movie and really really loved it(I know this cause I have to hear from the purists every few days about it, there are alot of them). The critics absolutely **** on that movie. Why is this? Why is it something that legitimately spoke to millions of people across everywhere didn't meet the standards of these 300 or so people? Maybe, that's because it's just 300 vs millions of millions of people. No matter what the artist creates there will always be a group of '300 people' that it doesn't speak to. What's more, and this is key. Turtles wasn't designed to fill up the hearts of 30 year old film buffs. It was for other kinds of people and it worked in doing so.
As far as Mozzart, the point wasn't that all art is exempt from criticism. It was that more people need to start grading things for what they are aiming to be. If a DJ is trying to create something for a specific crowd of ravers and they end up thinking his work is the greatest piece of house raver pulp ever. There is accomplishment in that worth celebrating. Especially as an artist. Now imagine that same scenario but instead of some 2 hundred ravers, it's millions and millions of people across the globe after 3 albums with a consistent and or increase in audience each time? Yes some art deserves to be criticized but then again, what is art if not defined by the taste of the greater audience? Just look at how the standards have shifted in the last 40 years let alone 3000. It's ever evolving to the times and because of these you have geniuses like Pollack that have to be **** on when they produce something that goes against the current convention. If a 4 year olds crayon drawings started selling for millions all accross the globe and became the most loved pieces of art ever do we really then fall back on the words of 300 or so critics to tell us they lack form and structure and colour theory, or do we simply acknowledge them as effective art that touches the world. I vote the latter.
Back to the point about grading things for what they are aiming to be. I'm here suggesting the films are daring enough to aim to blur the lines between action and comedy succeeding in attaining a specific genre blend into itself. Something that is often imitated but almost never sees this level of success for it's hard to duplicate successfully. You then go on to explain how the film isn't a comedy and thus can't be judged as one, then you go on to question why leo sptiz is even in the film. This is why I'm talking about perhaps grading a film based on what it's trying to be. Maybe your right, maybe I'm right but there is some sort of disconnect happening cause the masses are validating it consistently(with an A- minus this last time) yet there are constant voices of dissent. Ergo my attempt to answer your question from before. Maybe it's a matter of people not grading on what it actually is but rather what the deem it is.
Ever stop to think just how many things a director can do with his film that will earn critical favor but detour an audience away? Or do you think these things go hand in hand? If you accept the former, you might appreciate bays situation a little more imo.
When Iron Man 1 gets way better reviews then any of these films, you can chalk it up to the critics just being haters or just being mean to Michael Bay for no good reason or you can see whether they are pointing out some real flaws in these movies.
I can point out just as many times when a worse film(imo) got better reviews than a better film(imo). All it really proves is that when 300 or so people try to come to a consensus on something, it isn't an science. It's a matter of preference just about every time. I think T1 bot better reviews than T2..
My real criticism comes by way of double standard. If you are going to dissect a film, you would be wise to do so into itself and keep the agenda against vfx driven this or low ball humor that to a minimum. This is usually when films seemingly get picked on for things other films get a pass on.
And Into Darkness is an okay film, IMO. It has some flaws, but it has good points to and easily far better then anything Michael Bay has ever made.
Goes without saying that that second part is simply your opinion, but why are you mentioning this film right now? Not that I have any issues with bringing up references but did I mention it or something? Seems random.
Really you don't think character arcs are important? Would Star Wars be the same film series if Luke learned nothing and never really changed through out the film series?
And yet Sam is whiny selfish entitled A-hole for the rest of the...
My problem is that you don't really seem to be applying what I'm saying correctly. Before you ask if I think star wars would be any less of a film if it was a different film(rather no chapter linked arcs), you should note that I said not all stories(self contained or otherwise) inherently need character arcs to work. Why this then led to star wars I'm not sure. This isn't supposed to be the part where you look to a film that is designed around such things but rather you look to one that isn't! For example that movie 'Surf's up', in which the lead(shia evidently) has no real arc whatsoever but rather the world around him changes. A similar paradigm as seen in the first avenger in which Rogers is very much the same throughout(when it comes to goals and motivation and such)...that's what I mean when I say that it's not some rule that characters have arcs.
As for this other stuff, I do think the marvel films(Ironman/Avengers) have a tendency to restart their characters very similar to the way these TF films do. You may find excuses as to why stark reverts back to a place he seemingly didn't end the previous film in but that doesn't change the idea that he does. Same with thor. I wasn't referencing phase two btw.
That's no doubt because these films aren't as connected as LOTR, and there is wiggle room to do such things. There is an element of self containment that a more linked trilogy doesn't have.
Anyways as time progresses characters change, sometimes they even revert, what you revert back into speaks to who a character really is deep down, after proverbial dust has settled. If these films take place 20 years between sequels, this would be far more obvious. That doesn't change the idea that it happens.
Moreover, going to college can be just as life changing and stressful as anything depending on the person.
As for Sam's reversion; Like I said, in the first film he is endlessly selfish and very much a coward. I'm not sure if you saw the same third film I did but shia isn't actually a coward any more, if anything he's fully proactive in trying to get back into the game of saving the world but has been excommunicated by the powers that be. He even has to fight his way in to warn the heroes of stuff. As for being selfish, he seemingly wants to be contribute to society and doesn't actually still desire petty materialism... These films never made the promise that he stopped being an impish clown that wants to be a somebody or have a normal life, if anything he justifiably think he's earned just that.
The idea is that he's not an out and out selfish coward any more. One that would sell his mothers ring at a funeral if given the chance. He never goes back to that. He's just never stopped being entitled, same as stark never stopped being entitled, he's just an entitled hero now. Or does Steve Rogers have to tell us that about Sam the way he did Stark in an avengers crossover for it to register?
As for this idea that Mikaela was replaceable cause she was eye candy and such, this is the part where I start referencing a bunch of other films in which similar took place between sequel to sequel yet no such accusation was made(double standard and all that). Like Bond films or Batman films etc, all having legitimate romance within themselves and then scrapped in the next chapter. It happens, but that's actually beside the point. Turns out the script for TF3 was written with Mikaela in mind but the plan had to be reworked due to extenuating circumstances.
Also how many Autobots had any sort real personality, let alone a character arc. What were say Ironhide's or Ratchet's personality? Most of both the Autobots and Decepticons get very little personality.
This would be like arguing why not give the dino's in Jurassic Park more personality(in a logical way that is). The answer being, cause it's not about them nor is it needed. The film is about who it's about. It's a matter of how much is needed for it to work for audiences to follow and enjoy. Again notice all the fodder mutants in DOFP. Seems to me like Ratchet had more dialogue in any one film than Bishop did....before we riot in the streets, perhaps we should look at who the film was actually about and if that worked.
Instead of saying "Its Bay's vision, just don't question it", why don't you tell me why some of these things were good decisions in the first place, how do they make the story better?
I never said you couldn't question or offer up alternatives to anything. I said you aren't speaking to any sort of improvement other than to make the film more enjoyable for yourself(and those like you). Unless you actually start explaining how your vision of prime is objectively better(not sure that's even possible). As for not questioning bay himself, all I said was that there is a writer....you know like how David Goyer get's all that flack for mos cause he was the writer. Just saying there are several people involved here(including hasbro and paramount). It lends some perspective to all this 'well bay thought, and bay thinks prime is...etc'
As for why I think it makes the story better? I don't. I think it makes the story better for me. That's the fundamental difference between you and I. When it comes to these sorts of things I tend to speak for myself, occasionally pointing to figures that suggest the greater majority has embraced it. You come with 'well my idea would be better based on my complaints and these other people that agree with me'. As for why I think it's better, I don't, I think it's different and for me that inherently adds to my experience. I eat 50 apples a day for 50 years, when given the option to eat another apple vs one orange for the first time ever, there is inherent value in the fresh experience. That's what I get with this surprising turn with prime. I also think no one has ever betrayed prime the way sentinel has and with that, Optimus' arc has been given a solid catalyst..there are other reasons but why bother, it's a matter of preference like I keep saying.
So you see my point, that Prime is becoming a monster because he is fighting other monsters? Do you see why some people think Prime is very unsympathetic in these films, that he works better as a villain who used to be a hero? Because I find a lot of online articles that will say the same thing, Prime doesn't work as a hero in these films, he is not sympathetic.
And there it is again. Do you think prime, due to his action is any less sympathetic than Wolverine in his movies? What has he done or said that's been worse? Ignoring the scale of his accomplishments and time dedicated to serving and saving the galaxy(maybe universe) along with willingly dying as well as offering his life up on several other occasions. Just why is Prime getting these articles proclaiming um sympathetic and wolverine isn't? Why is it wolverine can be seen as heroic but Prime not so much? My point being, why the double and unfair standard? Why does prime have to be sooo much better just to get the same level of sympathy? Please tell me it has nothing to do with source material cause you know what will come next.
sorry for the length