• Rings of Power

    Fantasy TV is now The Lord of the Rings!

  • We're moving

    Heroes are moving to the Movies sections!

Age of Extinction Transformers 4 is going to be TERRIBLE!

I know it didn't take a 'wall of text'(not sure you've actually seen one of those if that's your reading). That's why I started off with that lead in, specifically for you. I remembered you don't like seeing attempts at full arguments presented and referenced then supported with an example..etc. I'd rather be safe then sorry that I gave you a chance to not get me wrong. But again, the lead in was for you. You don't like reading, then don't.

Optimus grants freedom to prisoners. Then tells them to earn their freedom. Last time I checked, they attacked him first...I suppose he could have just let them go off and do their completely unpredictable crap on the planet. I mean Prime doesn't really care about humans anymore after all.

Ok here's the thing, again, this isn't 'YOUR OPTIMUS' as dictated by what ever preconception baggage you are dragging around here or into the film. It's a character into itself that is a product of his own story. A parallel dimension/elseworlds in which everything is the same, save for key(and recent) differences producing a different but legitimate characterization. For example, in this characterization, as far as we know he's never met Ultra Magnus/Alpha Trion..etc. This is my point about grading how much sense it makes without holding up some bible of lore over your head. In this, he's been battle hardened, in a way he wasn't in the first movie. And yes, the point is we are suppose to root for this guy, but the problem is that you can't. That's it. You explained your personal reasons and that's great. I personally have just as easy a time rooting for this so called blood thirsty prick as I do say, wolverine. That's probably cause I'm not tied down but all this "he's supposed to be" crap, and just taking in the story as I would and do anything thing. Into itself.

Here is the problem, a lot of people find movie Prime unsympathetic in general, if this was a completely new character, many people would dislike him for the same reasons.

He often acts like a villain, rather then a hero, that is the biggest problem, not previous perceptions about him. Did movie Prime have to be exactly like cartoon Prime from 1984? No, of course not. Would Movie Prime be better if he didn't come off as some neo con fantasy who executes defeated prisoners? Yes. That is the type of behavior you see from a villain, not a hero.
 
Here is the problem, a lot of people find movie Prime unsympathetic in general, if this was a completely new character, many people would dislike him for the same reasons.

He often acts like a villain, rather then a hero, that is the biggest problem, not previous perceptions about him. Did movie Prime have to be exactly like cartoon Prime from 1984? No, of course not. Would Movie Prime be better if he didn't come off as some neo con fantasy who executes defeated prisoners? Yes. That is the type of behavior you see from a villain, not a hero.

This is the problem. It's not really to do with accuracy to the source material. It's to do with the supposed "hero" being a ruthless executioner of helpless foes and who demands others follow him instead of inspiring them to follow him. Bay's Optimus is a Neo-Cons version of a "hero". He spouts off about freedom whilst trying to force others to side with his ideals.

Bay ramming his jingoistic neo con political slant into his characters doesn't help.

I mean, the very sight of the Autobots, the "heroes", doing black ops missions for the US military against blatant Middle Eastern "enemies" is just... disgraceful.

When people say these movies are just supposed to be loud, action packed kids movies about favourite robots of our childhoods beating each other up i'm like "if only they were".

Bay just can't help forcing his political ideals and cruel, misogynistic and borderline racist humour into the films.
 
Last edited:
This is the problem. It's not really to do with accuracy to the source material. It's to do with the supposed "hero" being a ruthless executioner of helpless foes and who demands others follow him instead of inspiring them to follow him.

Bay ramming his jingoistic neo con political slant into his characters doesn't help.

I mean, the very sight of the Autobots, the "heroes", doing black ops missions for the US military against blatant Middle Eastern "enemies" is just... disgraceful.

When people say these movies are just supposed to be loud, action packed kids movies about favourite robots of our childhoods beating each other up i'm like "if only they were".

Bay just can't help forcing his political ideals and cruel, misogynistic and borderline racist humour into the films.

If I knew nothing about Superman and nothing about Captain America and I saw both Man of Steel and Winter Solider, I would think Captain America is a thoughtful hero who put his ideals above short sighted objectives based on fear and I would see Superman as a well meaning but ultimately reckless dolt who caused a bunch of needless collateral damage.

Likewise if I knew nothing about Transformers before seeing these films, I would see Movie Prime as a brutal thug who murders defeated prisoners, he is not a very sympathetic character in general.
 
Here is the problem, a lot of people find movie Prime unsympathetic in general, if this was a completely new character, many people would dislike him for the same reasons.

He often acts like a villain, rather then a hero, that is the biggest problem, not previous perceptions about him. Did movie Prime have to be exactly like cartoon Prime from 1984? No, of course not. Would Movie Prime be better if he didn't come off as some neo con fantasy who executes defeated prisoners? Yes. That is the type of behavior you see from a villain, not a hero.

Like I said, you really can't speak for them or that. Setting a bar for just how pure and idealistic a hero has to be before 'the people' can get behind him. Take any character and place them in the barn situation. From being a half dead hunted and betrayed dog to the very second after grammer gave the kill order(under the barn footage of prime), choosing to help those that helped him is the mechanism that tends to latch an audience onto a protagonist. The audience's ability to root for someone isn't a measure of just how perfect they are, it can also be about who has been wronged, or trying to do what is seen as right, or being the under dog... To think otherwise would be like saying next to cyclops no one can possibly cheer for Logan, I mean he kills and is mean and wounded and gives out ultimatums. Even a villain can be a hero. That statement alone puts all this in context. And prime is hardly acting the villain, but then again, after all that was said about mos, I can't really be all that surprised.

What's more, you see plenty of war heroes do worse on the battle field. They build statues for them. The fallen for instance(who can teleport on a whim mind you) just near ended the solar system. I suppose a trail by jury is in order(a jag trail if anything). I wonder what the verdict will be.

@Endless, you gonna keep saying that stuff or are you actually going to address the counter points?(particularly about the military stuff).

And, just cause these films are for kids doesn't mean they don't have real world themes. T4 for and it's commentary on the steve jobs like industrial venture/blood diamond 'guy' alone.
 
Exactly.

Throughout most of these Transformers films there is a real mean spirited streak and tons of thinly veiled neo-con politics. It's like propaganda.
 
@Endless, you gonna keep saying that stuff or are you actually going to address the counter points?(particularly about the military stuff).

And, just cause these films are for kids doesn't mean they don't have real world themes. T4 for and it's commentary on the steve jobs like industrial venture/blood diamond 'guy' alone.

There is a scene in i think ROTF where the Autobots attack a Middle Eastern compound. It's a black ops mission at the behest of the US military.

So the Autobots work for the US military in these films. And the US military is awesome. Superior military firepower wins the day. Middle Eastern envoys need protecting by the US military.

It's all thinly veiled political ********. The US will save everyone, including people in the Middle East... as long as they adopt US ideals!

I don't mind allegories and commentaries on real world things. But Bay's slant is so obvious. He's a hardcore neo-con and he can't help but force his ideals into his films. I prefer it when stuff like that isn't forced onto me, but presented in a neutral way so that the audience can make it's own mind up.

But no, Neo-Con pro US world police ideals is the best way! Bay's Optimus is the very personification of this ideal. He'll save you, he'll grant you freedom... but you have to do what he says and share his ideals! Wow what a hero!
 
Like I said, you really can't speak for them or that. Setting a bar for just how pure and idealistic a hero has to be before 'the people' can get behind him. Take any character and place them in the barn situation. From being a half dead hunted and betrayed dog to the very second after grammer gave the kill order(under the barn footage of prime), choosing to help those that helped him is the mechanism that tends to latch an audience onto a protagonist. The audience's ability to root for someone isn't a measure of just how perfect they are, it can also be about who has been wronged, or trying to do what is seen as right, or being the under dog... To think otherwise would be like saying next to cyclops no one can possibly cheer for Logan, I mean he kills and is mean and wounded and gives out ultimatums. Even a villain can be a hero. That statement alone puts all this in context. And prime is hardly acting the villain, but then again, after all that was said about mos, I can't really be all that surprised.

By people I meant people I have talked to and people I have seen online make these complaints.

I said many people would have these complaints, not all people, not even most people, but I stand by my statement that many people would have these similar complaints, you can easily find people who make these complaints online.

This has nothing to do with making Prime perfect, the problem is Prime comes across as one of those cynical anti heroes from comics in the 90s, where the flaws instead of making the hero seem relatable, the hero comes across as unsympathetic jerk.

If having Prime kill helpless prisoners makes Prime seem like a brute to a lot of people, don't put him in that situation, him kill all his enemies in battle, rather when they are helpless on the ground. Its that simple.

What's more, you see plenty of war heroes do worse on the battle field. They build statues for them. The fallen for instance(who can teleport on a whim mind you) just near ended the solar system. I suppose a trail by jury is in order(a jag trail if anything). I wonder what the verdict will be.

.

The Fallen is supposed to be a villain though (a poorly defined villain, but the villain), Prime is supposed to be the hero of the piece, holding them to the same standard is rather silly, you expect the villain to do things that are very unsympathetic, not the hero.
 
There is a scene in i think ROTF where the Autobots attack a Middle Eastern compound. It's a black ops mission at the behest of the US military.

So the Autobots work for the US military in these films. And the US military is awesome. Superior military firepower wins the day. Middle Eastern envoys need protecting by the US military.

It's all thinly veiled political ********. The US will save everyone, including people in the Middle East... as long as they adopt US ideals!

I don't mind allegories and commentaries on real world things. But Bay's slant is so obvious. He's a hardcore neo-con and he can't help but force his ideals into his films. I prefer it when stuff like that isn't forced onto me, but presented in a neutral way so that the audience can make it's own mind up.

But no, Neo-Con pro US world police ideals is the best way! Bay's Optimus is the very personification of this ideal. He'll save you, he'll grant you freedom... but you have to do what he says and share his ideals! Wow what a hero!
Your assessment of who prime has been shown to be no doubt coming form more than one instance(that didn't happen on some random everyday tuesday) I'd imagine. Cause he seemingly didn't make the same threat to a certain mini decepticon turned auto a while back.

Pain&Gain very much argues the opposite about bay's neo con proclivities, only it was made by bay so..It even paints muscles in a silly light..

I don't remember any of that in Revenge of the Fallen. Particularly 'wet works'

On the issue of Dark of the Moon however, escorting political ministers through hostile territories and not actually looking for combat but for peace in hopes to avoid war, is hardly some crime of propaganda. I suppose since they are working with the US, it means bad things though. Again, ignoring just how the the avengers(cap/im) work, I still don't see how this is worth any sort of criticism. Prime said they are working to protect us from ourselves, as if mitigating some form of peace talk even would be seen jingo if it meant the US was involved(cause the US really wants none of that).

And yes the bots work with the us military at times. So does superman and the avengers(one in particular)...
In TF3 it's not the US military though, who'd have thunk.
 
Last edited:
3 years is realy not a big gap at all, i doubt that "interview" is real, sounds like a parody.

It is a parody. It is a fixture on that site, and quite funny to me. They did something similar for Man of Steel and Amazing Spider-man 2.
 
By people I meant people I have talked to and people I have seen online make these complaints.

If having Prime kill helpless prisoners makes Prime seem like a brute to a lot of people, don't put him in that situation, him kill all his enemies in battle, rather when they are helpless on the ground. Its that simple.
Yes, I see that you are speaking for the people that didn't like a certain direction. I can tell you about a bunch of people that didn't like things about TDKT or Gravity and how to 'fix' them to then appease said people(including myself). I thought you were speaking to something greater. I suppose we all have our tastes, I'm simply arguing to validate the direction for the many people that in fact enjoy it. To claim it doesn't work or it's not good goes beyond that. To suggest as to how they could change it for you(and yours), sure, makes sense. You want a different prime. I'd love it if Jack Sparrow was more like captain Ahab, that would make the movies better....for me. I could dissect as to he isn't as good for me as is, taking into account just how many people are actually in love with the current direction of the character and why. To each his own.

The Fallen is supposed to be a villain though (a poorly defined villain, but the villain), Prime is supposed to be the hero of the piece, holding them to the same standard is rather silly, you expect the villain to do things that are very unsympathetic, not the hero.
Wasn't my meaning to compare the two. I said the Fallen was a primordial and mass genocidal villain seemingly incapable of being held in a prison and having been responsible for evils accross eons along with plans to do more. In times of war, to suggest that Prime actually did anything wrong and not worth building a statue for would be...inconsistent.
In short, not sure what's so unacceptable about his decision in that instance.
One thing that has to be understood is that the autobots are in massively outnumbered refugee mode, without even a star ship. It's not like he can take the 'prisoner' back to the cybertronian tribunal with the honor guard and such. They are dealing with creatures with millenia of celestial scale 'crime' on their hands. Did he really deserve to live? In the middle of a war combat scenario at that?
 
Yes, I see that you are speaking for the people that didn't like a certain direction. I can tell you about a bunch of people that didn't like things about TDKT or Gravity and how to 'fix' them to then appease said people(including myself). I thought you were speaking to something greater. I suppose we all have our tastes, I'm simply arguing to validate the direction for the many people that in fact enjoy it. To claim it doesn't work or it's not good goes beyond that. To suggest as to how they could change it for you(and yours), sure, makes sense. You want a different prime. I'd love it if Jack Sparrow was more like captain Ahab, that would make the movies better....for me. I could dissect as to he isn't as good for me as is, taking into account just how many people are actually in love with the current direction of the character and why. To each his own.

Well unless you are going to start paying me, I'm not going to dedicate weeks on polling research into why people like or do not like these movies.

Here is an interesting question, why do think these movies do poorly with critics. Are almost all movie critics just haters who are obsessed with G1 Optimus Prime or are they pointing out valid flaws in the movie?

I think a lot of people, not everyone, but I have seen a lot of people on the net say Prime is an unsympathetic character. How many people complained about say Captain America in Winter Solider?

Let's look at some movies. How many characters in Transformers had a character arc? Did Sam Witwicky have an important character arc? Do you think Cade Yeager had an important character arc? Heck how many robots besides Prime, Bumblebee and maybe Megatron had any characterization?

Tony Stark had a character arc where he went from selfish A-hole to a somewhat responsible hero in Iron Man 1, Xavier had a character arc where he went from a self pitying hermit to a mentor character in Days of Future of Past. Sam Witwicky, despite being the main character in the first 3 films, so unimportant, he can disappear with a barely a reason given and be replaced by another group of generic humans, that is how unimportant the characters are.

You seem to be deflecting criticisms of these films rather then really addressing it.

I guess Optimus Prime had an character arc, where he degenerates into a more and more brutal thug over the course of the movies. Maybe he has had his mind destroyed by war and has become a cynical bitter violent shell of his former himself. That would make sense, if that is what Bay was going for. Prime makes for a better villain then a hero, someone who fought monsters for so long he has become one, but I'm not sure that is what Bay is going for.


Wasn't my meaning to compare the two. I said the Fallen was a primordial and mass genocidal villain seemingly incapable of being held in a prison and having been responsible for evils accross eons along with plans to do more. In times of war, to suggest that Prime actually did anything wrong and not worth building a statue for would be...inconsistent.
In short, not sure what's so unacceptable about his decision in that instance.
One thing that has to be understood is that the autobots are in massively outnumbered refugee mode, without even a star ship. It's not like he can take the 'prisoner' back to the cybertronian tribunal with the honor guard and such. They are dealing with creatures with millenia of celestial scale 'crime' on their hands. Did he really deserve to live? In the middle of a war combat scenario at that?

Well then here is a thought, don't put Prime in situations where he can kill enemies when they are helpless on the ground, only have him kill in self defense during battle.

I don`t have a problem with Prime killing the Fallen (except for the fact that the Fallen was such a wimp in the final battle), because the Fallen was killed during battle.

Sentinel Prime was killed while he was on the ground begging for his life. Do you see why one of these things is worse then the other?
 
Yeah him killing sentinel was the worst. Even him killing lockdown was acceptable considering the circumstances, and even him breaking his rule of killing humans. It's more his language in this film, of "kill them all" and "whoever did this is going to die, human or not". Totally out of character.

I think that was exemplified in him shooting a defenseless sentinel who was begging for his life in the 3rd film.
 
Prime makes for a better villain then a hero, someone who fought monsters for so long he has become one, but I'm not sure that is what Bay is going for.

That would actually be pretty interesting. But no, Optimus is clearly meant to be the hero of the piece.
 
Do you guys really think that if Prime gave Sentinel a second change in the third film he wouldnt try & kill Prime ? He had a goal just like Megatron. Sentinel would have no doubt attacked Prime if Prime let his guard down. Sentinel had 2 be put down. There was no reasoning with him
 
They are not real characters. They are dictated by the film makers and writers. They didn't have to write Optimus as an executioner.
 
Do you guys really think that if Prime gave Sentinel a second change in the third film he wouldnt try & kill Prime ? He had a goal just like Megatron. Sentinel would have no doubt attacked Prime if Prime let his guard down. Sentinel had 2 be put down. There was no reasoning with him

Well then don't Prime in that situation, have Prime kill Sentinel in battle, Prime would seem more reasonable.

Or if you insist on a execution do it differently. Don't have Sentinel beg for his life, have Sentinel say he his plans to slaughter and enslave humans will go forward no matter what and that any Autobot who doesn't approve of his plan is a traitor and should be killed. Then Sentinel states that Prime has no proper way of containing him, so there is no way to stop him. After all that, Prime regretfully executes this being who used to be his friend, who has gone to far around the bend and cannot be reasoned with. That would actually have pathos and emotion and would make Prime seem like something other then an emotionless psychopath. Show me he can't be reasoned with, don't have him beg for his life and then have Prime gun him down with barely an emotion.

I would prefer Prime kill Sentinel in battle, but if you insist on an execution, they could have done it better.
 
Here is an interesting question...
I’ll try and address all your points as in brief.

About criticism
Why do these films come under so much more criticism then their contemporaries. No I’m not going to fall into the trap of just saying plenty of critics have a chip on their shoulder(though that much does seem like an interesting talking point). I’ve stated a few times that the films simply aren’t judged for what they are trying to be or are but rather they are being judged by some other standard. It would be like judging 22 jumpstreet as a crime drama and asking what questions itself asks about the police dept in the vain of police drama. I mean Sperico is proof you can do it just fine. Or a men in black being seen as some failed commentary drama about the rigors of being numbered gov’t men. The situation is more clear in those comparisons but shades of it are happening here. It’s simply trying to be it’s own type of action comedy fantasy blend(a pretty unique one at that) and this grouping of critics(not all) either don’t get that, think it’s failing at even that, or simply don’t like that(vs playing it straight like Godzilla). That’s what I think about critics.
All music falls short of Mozzart depending on what rules the critic decides is important, but that doesn’t mean the Beetles, a ‘lower form’ of produced music if you will, can’t be judged as successful at what it aims to be. That’s how art should work. It’s not science. The next artists produces some techno house thing that falls even lower that the Beetles with their real instruments and messages and bridges and get's automatic F. When really daft punk could just be judged as 'quality techno'. Then rise and repeat for the next artist with a unique statement and piece of art style that is mis categorized in face of the current establishment. The story of modern visual art is littered with this very thing.


About character arcs,
Ignoring that they technically aren’t actually needed imo. The greater point is that there is no precedent on just how many have to happen in a film. It can be just the protagonist or he and his antag, or a few supporting characters. It can be anything(again about the art rules). Now taking into consideration that these films are ensembles things, just how many overall characters need to arc? EVERY SINGLE AUTOBOT? No. I’d say these films would technically be fine if only 2 characters did, that is 2 out of the entire picture man/machine. And they do. Before I get into that, I would point you to Xmen. Did every character in any of those films arc? Where there not a bunch of xmen especially in this recent one that did no such thing(or even less(some even present just to die in the future))? The answer is yes.
Now bringing it back to TF(1), Who is Sam at the very start of the film? Is he not selfish and obscenely so(hawking family stuff in the middle of a presentation no less)? In his introduction no less... What are his goals and motivations in that portion of the story. Now look at who he is at the end, his motivations, goals and even actions. That whole no sacrifice bit doesn’t seem like the mentality of a selfish adolescent. Not to me anyways. That’s one character. I’d go on with another but this is already getting long.
(Xavier has what I’d call the basic autobot arc in Xmen one, arc that is).
I hope that addresses your deflection inquiry.

As for Prime. He seemingly has gone through a change over the course of this entire thing(not yet finished mind you). Calling it ‘into a thug’ is one way of belittling it I suppose. Sometimes people go into war the optimistic idealists and by the time it’s over they have seen the error of their ways or are at least tired/weary and telling a story about character. Again I suppose you can call it a thug or whatever you please. As for what bay’s intents are, I’m not so keen as to assume. I do know he doesn’t sit at home with his quill and write these things alone. There is a writer(who might have an idea), along with a small bus full of seasoned producers.

Well then here is a thought, don't put Prime in situations where he can kill enemies when they are helpless on the ground, only have him kill in self defense during battle....
So you agree about the fallen. I don't remember given my thoughts on sentinel. As for not putting Optimus in the situations in the first place, that would of course mean you were right and the film needs to takes steps to catering to your version of prime and such. Gave my thoughts on that too, not sure what else to say.

As for Sentinel Prime(this being at the end of the trilogy so I assume it would be the start of your contempt). I think it serves the arc of Optimus. Bay didn't have prime like that in the first film. The end of the chapter sees prime Arc'd. Would it make more sense to you if it went the other way? Cause either way it's an arc. As for how in character it was, means little to me. Prime isn't superman nor is he ghandi or jesus, he's a soldier. As is the constant reminder when comparisons between cap and superman killing are made. Sentinel aimed to kill every man woman and child on this planet(as well as some other things), when it comes to war crime & punishment, it's not a matter of presenting some giant threat in the future, but rather being tried for what it is you have done and were stopped from doing...every man woman and child. Not to mention the MoS like death already caused.
What's more, as far as Optimus sees things, he was the 'best of us(unlike mags) and thus, had fallen the most'. It was a pretty just kill imo. But that's me.

"One must stand, one must fall..." and all that good stuff.
-Optimus
 
I’ll try and address all your points as in brief.

About criticism
Why do these films come under so much more criticism then their contemporaries. No I’m not going to fall into the trap of just saying plenty of critics have a chip on their shoulder(though that much does seem like an interesting talking point). I’ve stated a few times that the films simply aren’t judged for what they are trying to be or are but rather they are being judged by some other standard. It would be like judging 22 jumpstreet as a crime drama and asking what questions itself asks about the police dept in the vain of police drama. I mean Sperico is proof you can do it just fine. Or a men in black being seen as some failed commentary drama about the rigors of being numbered gov’t men. The situation is more clear in those comparisons but shades of it are happening here. It’s simply trying to be it’s own type of action comedy fantasy blend(a pretty unique one at that) and this grouping of critics(not all) either don’t get that, think it’s failing at even that, or simply don’t like that(vs playing it straight like Godzilla). That’s what I think about critics.
All music falls short of Mozzart depending on what rules the critic decides is important, but that doesn’t mean the Beetles, a ‘lower form’ of produced music if you will, can’t be judged as successful at what it aims to be. That’s how art should work. It’s not science. The next artists produces some techno house thing that falls even lower that the Beetles with their real instruments and messages and bridges and get's automatic F. When really daft punk could just be judged as 'quality techno'. Then rise and repeat for the next artist with a unique statement and piece of art style that is mis categorized in face of the current establishment. The story of modern visual art is littered with this very thing.

Not all music needs to be Mozart, but doesn't mean there are not some truly awful songs out there that deserves some ridicule.

Also critics have liked some films that have a good balance of action and comedy, like the Iron Man films or the first Men in Black movie. Did critics hate the second Men in Black Movie because they were haters or because Men in Black was an inferior film compared to the first one? Not to mention a lot of people on this very board dislike Bay's sense of humor, so a lot of people think Bay's films fail as a comedy as well as an action film. Transformers is not a straight up comedy, so it shouldn't be compared to say the Hangover and its not like people compare it to the Hangover.

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.

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.

About character arcs,
Ignoring that they technically aren’t actually needed imo. The greater point is that there is no precedent on just how many have to happen in a film. It can be just the protagonist or he and his antag, or a few supporting characters. It can be anything(again about the art rules). Now taking into consideration that these films are ensembles things, just how many overall characters need to arc? EVERY SINGLE AUTOBOT? No. I’d say these films would technically be fine if only 2 characters did, that is 2 out of the entire picture man/machine. And they do. Before I get into that, I would point you to Xmen. Did every character in any of those films arc? Where there not a bunch of xmen especially in this recent one that did no such thing(or even less(some even present just to die in the future))? The answer is yes.
Now bringing it back to TF(1), Who is Sam at the very start of the film? Is he not selfish and obscenely so(hawking family stuff in the middle of a presentation no less)? In his introduction no less... What are his goals and motivations in that portion of the story. Now look at who he is at the end, his motivations, goals and even actions. That whole no sacrifice bit doesn’t seem like the mentality of a selfish adolescent. Not to me anyways. That’s one character. I’d go on with another but this is already getting long.
(Xavier has what I’d call the basic autobot arc in Xmen one, arc that is).
I hope that addresses your deflection inquiry.

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 film series. How has his "no sacrifice no victory" lesson come into play when in the third movie he is whining about not having a job, while dating a ridiculously hot woman who lets him live in her luxury apartment for free? So this is a character arc that lasted what, for the last ten minutes of the first movie? Because in the second the movie, Sam can't seem to even say he loves Mikaela, how much is this character really progressing?

In Iron Man 1, Tony Stark starts out as a selfish A-hole, but he goes through an arc and becomes a hero at the end. In the second movie, he does some back sliding and becomes irresponsible again, though not as much as before, but he has an excuse, he was dying, being near death can drive people to do crazy things. By the third movie he seems far more responsible, he seems drink less, if at all and he has settled down Pepper. Sure Tony had PTSD issues, but was because of what happened in the Avengers, he was not back sliding into his pre Iron Man 1 self.

Did Sam settle down Mikaela by the third film? Of course not, because Mikaela is just eye candy, not a character, you can replace her with underwear model and it doesn't matter. Sam seems to have regressed to a teenager by the third film, being completely entitled and the fact that Mikaela is barely acknowledged in the third film makes Sam seem really shallow, that the build up of their relationship in the first two films was pointless. There is no real arc for Sam.

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. These films are almost 3 hours long, why can't some the padding or comic relief be cut out to give some of the robots some more personality? Why don't we learn more about Ratchet or Ironhide, instead of spending time on the sexual harassment professor in the second film, Leo Spitz or "Deep Wang" from the third film or Simmons in all the first 3 films?


As for Prime. He seemingly has gone through a change over the course of this entire thing(not yet finished mind you). Calling it ‘into a thug’ is one way of belittling it I suppose. Sometimes people go into war the optimistic idealists and by the time it’s over they have seen the error of their ways or are at least tired/weary and telling a story about character. Again I suppose you can call it a thug or whatever you please. As for what bay’s intents are, I’m not so keen as to assume. I do know he doesn’t sit at home with his quill and write these things alone. There is a writer(who might have an idea), along with a small bus full of seasoned producers.

So you agree about the fallen. I don't remember given my thoughts on sentinel. As for not putting Optimus in the situations in the first place, that would of course mean you were right and the film needs to takes steps to catering to your version of prime and such. Gave my thoughts on that too, not sure what else to say.

So I can't question a director's logic or choices, just because he is the director and I am not. Should I give up all my critical thinking skills and start clapping like a seal every time Bay makes something explode on screen?

I think I have a right to question a director's decisions, even it is not my vision, especially if I think their vision flawed and I think they are making decisions that are ill advised or just don't make sense. So yeah I'm offering alternative ways for the narrative to play out, if I think Bay's vision is flawed, then I am within my rights to do so. Why did Prime have to kill Sentinel while he was on the ground begging for his life, instead of in combat? How does that make the story better rather then make Prime seem totally unsympathetic?

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?

As for Sentinel Prime(this being at the end of the trilogy so I assume it would be the start of your contempt). I think it serves the arc of Optimus. Bay didn't have prime like that in the first film. The end of the chapter sees prime Arc'd. Would it make more sense to you if it went the other way? Cause either way it's an arc. As for how in character it was, means little to me. Prime isn't superman nor is he ghandi or jesus, he's a soldier. As is the constant reminder when comparisons between cap and superman killing are made. Sentinel aimed to kill every man woman and child on this planet(as well as some other things), when it comes to war crime & punishment, it's not a matter of presenting some giant threat in the future, but rather being tried for what it is you have done and were stopped from doing...every man woman and child. Not to mention the MoS like death already caused.
What's more, as far as Optimus sees things, he was the 'best of us(unlike mags) and thus, had fallen the most'. It was a pretty just kill imo. But that's me.

"One must stand, one must fall..." and all that good stuff.
-Optimus

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.

Bay wants Prime to be the hero in these films, but seems like he doesn't understand how someone who is supposed to be heroic. There is a huge middle ground between perfect hero and unsympathetic A-hole and Prime is not in that middle ground, he is just an unsympathetic A-hole.

So yeah I guess Prime did get an arc, it just totally contradicts his role as a hero, that Bay wants to tell us Prime is a hero, rather then showing him as a heroic character.
 
Last edited:
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 :)
 
You know Marvin, I would quote but I think the wall of text it would create would be uninteresting to most here and likely wouldn't get past the word count, so let me just hit the highlights:


1. I'm not sure you understand the nature of criticism, its critics jobs to offer their opinions and offer constructive criticism to show where the mistakes were made and what could the director. What you are promoting is focus group thinking, that unless I speaking for some mass marketed homogenized focus group "objective cohesiveness opinion" then I am not offering valid criticism. I disagree. I have no desire to promote focus group thinking, that something cannot be properly criticized, that instead of using my critical thinking skills to criticize this film, without taking into account a mass audience's tastes into account, is absurd.

I'm not asking you to do such thing, why is the onus me to do so? I don't think focus group logic creates the best art, never have, never will. To say that I can't engage in art and offer constructive criticism, because I don't have some focus behind me, is ridiculous, that is art should be consumed, by the individual, who uses his or her own critical thinking to see the benefits and flaws of the work. Yes Transformers isn't supposed to be Citizen Kane, but telling me couldn't have been better or I don't have the basis to criticize Bay because I am not trying to reach a mass conciseness statement by polling almost everyone on the planet, is just a non starter with me, I am going to reject it completely.


2. Sam doesn't have any reason to be entitled, Tony Stark built the Iron Man armor with his own ingenuity, Sam is just someone who stumbles across plot devices here and there, he found the Autobot Matrix of Leadership by figuring out a riddle that makes no sense (the riddle assumes Sumerians settled in certain part of ancient Egypt, which they didn't, so Sam shouldn't have been able to figure it and should not have been to found the Matrix).
Sam has earned none of his entitled attitude and I do not feel sorry for him by the third film, where he feels sorry for himself while living in a luxury apartment with an underwear model. So he is no longer coward, big deal, he is still a bad character.

3. Transformers are sentient, dinosaurs are not, there is no reason for any real lack of characterization for Ironhide and Ratchet, especially when someone like the avengers showed us you can characterized more then one or two characters. Heck how much characterization does Bumblebee have, he doesn't even talk. X-Men have left some characters behind in the mix, but they are way better at characterization then the Transformers movies, where Prime's descent into madness is the only character arc for any of the robots and the others you will be luckily if they get a smattering of characterization.

4. I think you are mistaken if you think many people will not think Prime executing beings begging for their lives is very unsympathetic. Again I don't see why they had to make Prime an unrepentant A-Hole. If this was a completely new character who acted like this, I bet very few people would like this character. Preconceptions keep the character a float, rather hurt him, without the name recognition, I'm not sure how many people would like this neo con fantasy character.
 
Last edited:
Some of these posts remind me of Transformers - overly long and yet not of any real substance.
 
Okay, maybe I got too self indulgent with my last post. Sorry folks, didn't to bore everyone with too much text just to argue with another poster.
1. Who's arguing.
2. I wasn't under the impression you were doing this to entertain anyone. No one has a gun to these folks heads...
Some of these posts remind me of Transformers - overly long and yet not of any real substance.
Like much of the critics, it appears you might not even be paying attention to what is being said(and not just by me). But it's worth it for the clever write up.
 
@The Overlord, on just your 3 points.

1. "...that is art should be consumed, by the individual, who uses his or her own critical thinking to see the benefits and flaws of the work".
As insightful as this is(and it is), what good is your opinion on 'improvement' if it does the very opposite of what I'm looking for in the art I'm consuming. I mean thanks for sharing your opinion but this is very different from correcting/improving my long division. You are explicitly telling me how the film could be better for YOU. That has nothing to do with me for it's an individual experience fully influenced by one's own life experience and with art. Rinse and repeat that several million. It's all for yourself. I never said one can't criticize a film nor can they not offer up ways for it to be improved. I said at the end of the day all of that amounts to nothing more than a personal improvement. Even moreso if you don't properly take into account both intents of the artist as well as who the audience is and what they are seeking. Yes, anything and everything can be improved, but improved to what and according to whom? That doesn't speak to the greater truth of the situation, thus I personally don't subscribe to the voices of 400 or so individuals. Never have.
My mom's pasta was the greatest ever, she put a lot of salt in it but my bother and I both loved it more than anything else. What good is chef Gorden Ramsey doing by 'improving' her 'flawed' meal according to his personal tastes and popular convention, and then publishing it to RT. She made it for us in mind displaying mastery of appeasing her audience, and any 'improvement' would have in fact been a step backwards when it comes to the intended audience.
Clearly we will disagree on this.

2. You might be confusing what is meant by the cause of entitlement in this circumstance. Sam feels entitled because he explicitly saved the galaxy on more than one occasion. He doesn't need to be the smartest or invent the telephone/suit of armor for this feeling to happen. The conflict resolution in the first film is very much all him and you are now talking about, he didn't figure out some riddle or something so he didn't earn it enough....Everyone on the street he walks by everyday owes him more than their lives and what does he have to show for it? Most still treat him like nothing or less....this is a pretty basic correlation if you ask me. Not sure why it matters if you feel sorry for him or not, that's great that he's become a live in with his hot gf, but that doesn't change his motivations for feeling under appreciated as described above. He just wants an important job and to contribute to society(he's not asking to be treated like a emperor), even when given the easy life, he seeks real contribution and recognition, not just sex and back rubs. This is you having a very different reading of the film then I and no doubt several other people, which brings me back to the point of just whom it is your critical improvements actually improve the film for. You're not right, I may not be right, yet one of us get's to published to RT and affect how a film will be seen and if it will be seen for all time? It's mess.

4."If this was a completely new character who acted like this, I bet very few people would like this character." A wonderful assertion however this is why I pointed you in the direction of Wolverine, a character known to do this sort of thing rather readily, yet earning of sympathy from audiences all over. Your premise that an unknown character would also be hated, falls short until you can explain that; why it somehow excludes, rather still works out for Wolverine).
Secondly, preconceptions contaminate. I have a young cousin that wants nothing to do with superman after seeing the prior superman movies(she thinks he's boring and unrelateable, among other things), her negative preconceptions have already influenced her reading of what's going to be put in front of her(she wants to hate it), if anything it's stopping her from consuming(hasn't seen it yet). Another example is what happens when producers are beholden to something riddled with (subjectively)negative preconceptions. What if a character is painfully 'unsympathetic' in the source material but they need to make a film about him hoping it's will make The Overlord and his ilk happy? Well now they have to make some decisions about whether to follow their well known preconceptions or fall victim to the self important whims of this group and their leanings on sympathetic heroes. In conclusion, how's about we just consume and analyze what's in front of us on it's own merrits and into self. If I didn't know batman was supposed to be super smart, I probably would have enjoyed TDK even more than I did, so I don't try and let that particular preconception taint either my experience nor my analysis.
More on this issue of the sympathetic hero.
-Has there been any thought put to the idea that what is sympathetic so one individual is very much the opposite to another individual? Depending on the many people that may have found themselves in similar circumstances, such a thing as losing faith and taking a life, may in fact lead to a more relatable/understandable experience for that person whilst they watch the film. How many people in the world and watching this film fall into this category? Sorry but the critic has decided for you that it's unsympathetic so there.
-Then we have the even greater question of if a sympathetic hero is actually better than an unsympathetic one. I mean who decided? Is there some empirical measure of this somewhere of the human response to viewing this being all that much better?
Two things that are worth debating the discussion of 'improvement' and 'critical analysis' but they never will, it's all decided in some individuals mind after no such deliberation but rather gut and personal reaction. Decided then published on RT for the world to process as a film with poor grading. And in truth, here is where your words ring true, a critic isn't indicative of some focus group, nor are they supposed to be. They speak to their own opinion and experience, which would be all well and good if only that was the end of it. Instead however, they are presented as something more than that, their consensus speaks to some truth about a film's quality as an experience or achievement as it relates to the public they serve, their scores influence the masses to give a piece of art a chance. It's a conundrum cause they understand that art if for the individual experience yet here their are shoving theirs down the world's throat only for people of forums like this to reference them asking 'well then why is it the critics said...'

The whole thing is self importance to on end. A small group of some kinda consensus deciding what represents quality in the most subjective realm there is. Have no fear though, in a few years it will change again as it always has and always will and then there will be a new batch of rules and conventions.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,481
Messages
21,737,391
Members
45,566
Latest member
Cap2024
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"