Age of Extinction Transformers 4 is going to be TERRIBLE!

[Lord]

When Wolverine does something violent, we're shown he is violent, look at Bobby's reaction in X-2 for example, now with Optimus Prime, he's always treated as a hero, and considered the nicest guy and leader of them all, while all he does is talk, while his actions do nothing. There's a vast difference between a hero who's known for being an all-amazing guy, doing this kind of stuff, from another that has had to make difficult decisions before, it's like when people compare Superman and Captain America, one is an all powerful being who needs to be careful with his actions and has always valued life, from Captain America, a guy who had to fight in a World War and has even admited that they sometimes had to do stuff that didn't let him sleep so well. Luke Skywalker is not Han Solo, there are no double-standards, some heroes are realy not comparable.

If a film like The Room is badly structured, badly acted and with badly written dialogue shouldn't i say it's badly executed, it's not just my opinion, it's that what the writers and Directors aimed for failed, and Transformers isn't even aiming that high.

 

[Marvin]

When Wolverine does something violent, we're shown he is violent, look at Bobby's reaction in X-2 for example, now with Optimus Prime, he's always treated as a hero, and considered the nicest guy and leader of them all, while all he does is talk, while his actions do nothing. There's a vast difference between a hero who's known for being an all-amazing guy, doing this kind of stuff, from another that has had to make difficult decisions before, it's like when people compare Superman and Captain America, one is an all powerful being who needs to be careful with his actions and has always valued life, from Captain America, a guy who had to fight in a World War and has even admited that they sometimes had to do stuff that didn't let him sleep so well. Luke Skywalker is not Han Solo, there are no double-standards, some heroes are realy not comparable.

If a film like The Room is badly structured, badly acted and with badly written dialogue shouldn't i say it's badly executed, it's not just my opinion, it's that what the writers and Directors aimed for failed, and Transformers isn't even aiming that high.

Seems more like a clear double standard. And not one that is shared by the vast majority of people with no connection to the conditioning of source material. As for Logan being shown that he's violent, that doesn't happen everytime, he's just as often being shown to be the gentle bear type even after clearing a room. That being said, the issue was that of 'being able to sympathize' was it not? If people can find it in their hearts to due it for a ruthless animal like Logan...etc.

Again I don't see why people seek to strawman what prime is only to then assert that he falls short of that. For example if one were to compare him to common portrayals of Aurthurian leaders(such as Clive Owen), and suggest that is not only what he's always been but what he's supposed to be, the the films probably fall in line with the paradigm for that Arthur and his noble knights weren't above ending evil in such a way.

As for Superman/Cap. Don't get me started.

As for the rule and these rules. For me it comes down to the same rules that dictated Jackson Pollacks artwork to be ****. The audience an artist finds validate his work and vision. Over the years the audience the TF films have built(in spite of being told they didn't exist) speak volumes as to the effectiveness of the work. I'd say the same about cult film audiences only this clearly is mainstream. And unlike the Starwars prequels or some shared cinematic universe, this franchise of 4 films did so from a very grounded starting point. Films like GI joe have tried similar and fallen short.
Saying someone's pie recipe is 'objectively bad' only to see it be a mega smash with customers worldwide is...short sighted in the appreciation of what Art actually is imo.

 

[Lord]

Things like the Airport film series were also very popular, a lot of films that are now considered trash from the past were major successes, hell, many films were forgotten simply because they weren't good enough to be anything more than box office successes.

And about Wolverine, yeah, he's soft at times, that's always been part of the character, he's this mean badass who doesn't accept no for an answer and may get violent at times with his enemies, as he has a violent past and got experimented with, but deep down he's a softie. It's a completely different type of character, you need to start differentiating Rocky from Rambo, what one does may not work for what the other character does.

[YT]tE3uMlC-tME[/YT]

The problem with Optimus is that he contradict his words with his actions, and overall acts vilainous sometimes, i blame the writer for that, talking about freedom but holding other bots stuck to his will, even after Sentinel Prime has betrayed him, he begs for mercy multiple times, then when the oposite happens he's not as mercyful, and etc.

 

[Marvin]

Airport with Burt Lancaster? Not sure what level of success you are referring but I'm talking about mega success and a consistently increasing one at that, by alot of measures. I'm not talking about 1990's ninja turtles/Batman success(and all that was involved with that). Moreover, popular isn't what I was referring to, popularity is something very different in this current world. I'm talking about stacking up the film 'series' that(can) rival this on in success and then determining what actually caused that success. In this case the stats present a telling story.

If the issue is that Rocky shouldn't pick up a gun and defend his family/country in violent ways then sure that might not work as it pertains to certain audiences that expect certain things from rocky and his movies("That isn't rocky" they would say). If the issue is that Rocky is then unsympathetic for doing those same things Rambo/Cap does in a given circumstance then no. That's a double standard you are simply holding one character to. If rocky starts pulling an Ivan Drago complete with post fight speech that's something. Killing people and smoking cigars whilst cracking wise is what I would describe as 'alot', vanquishing a dangerous and guilty enemy is not(Not for someone noble and loved like Ned Stark even). I akin it to Aragon and the rest of them doing 'cool' and gruesome kills to orcs, minus the celebrated kill counts and mocking of twitching bodies. As for the image of head removal, these are robots, I'd imagine it's similar to killing toys and an unconventional aesthetic has it's purposes, like when terminators fight each other(on tv), the kills often come by way of head removal or something violent and unconventional: See bee vs Soundwave in relation to Sam vs McDreamy. But that's me.

As for he contradicting his words.
Where does Optimus' infilm mantra dictate mercy for the egregiously guilty? I'd imagine he's also believes in justice(as a mantra). Is there a detailed list of just what it is Sentinel with all his begging is guilty off(lives and circumstance)? I recall Optimus begging a few times of his own... Just what exactly were you thinking Sentinel should have been afforded; something less violent than Osama I'd imagine, even though the crime is that of many and celestial magnitudes greater. That being said I personally appreciate what the act said about the humanity of the character(preconceptions aside). It was a very very personal betrayal Optimus suffered, right down to Ironhide, if wolverine can toss that helpless old man off the cliff side and it be 'relatable'/heroic/non villainous, preconceptions won't stop me from doing the same here(but that's me).
As for the Dinobots, it could have been a great deal clearer, but I recall them attacking him and his mandate to be either join with him or fight him and die. They didn't discuss the third option till the imminent threat(to all of them mind you) was gone. It would be no different had he found a group of hostile decepticons that attacked imo. I'd have to see it again.

 

[Lord]

But the thing is that the modern market is completely different, you can't realy compare, back then the norm was that a sequel consecutively brings less money, aside from James Bond, which was an anomaly and very episodic, letting it be as successful as it was, it was pretty much a larger version of what the Tarzan films before were doing, running for as long as they could and maintaining their grosses, 007 did that on a larger scale.

If back in the 80s the market was like this, i'm pretty sure films Rambo would have gone past III, instead of getting decades of hiatus. Long story short, the market is very different now, people want to see their heroes and stories continue, something that has drastically increased throughout the 2000s, so it's obvious that you don't have much to compare. Spider-Man shot itself in the foot once it was rebooted, dropping the things the audience loved (Director, the running story, actors, etc), the Marvel films are a different beast, the best comparison are probably Harry Potter and Pirates of the Caribbean, and Pirates is barely milking the brand power it currently has, unlike Transformers, which is smart enough to keep going in full swing, i actualy applaud them for that.

No, the thing is that Rocky is a different character in a different situation, unlike Rambo, he isn't used to killing people, and the people around him would react in a different way. I'm not sure that if the Autobots were in a life or death situation in the middle of the war, them counting how many decepticon they kill would be that bad, it's not as if they were taking pleasure in ripping faces off, though yeah, LotR does take war and death for laughs sometimes.

Either way, with Bay it's all about context too, i think the way he does what he does with Autobots like Optimus Prime, where everyone talks as if he was this holy leader, then when his comrades are fighting he doesn't even try to stop it, doesn't quite work, however, in something like The Rock it does due to the position the characters are in or are pushed into.

Even in war, there are some things you can't do, Optimus kills various oponents he could have instead taken for interrogation, Sentinel's plan had been ended, the guys was on his knees and had no reason to fight any longer. To be honest, the story in TF3 between Optimus and Sentinel had potential, but once again i feel like it was completely wasted in its execution, that moment could have had more weight and we may not have been discussing it here if that were the case.

As i said with Wolverine, it's a different type of hero, he's an anti-hero, we know not everything he does is completely correct, but we cheer for him because we know his history well, just like with a guy such as Harry Calaham, James Bond or the Man with no name, these are no goodie-goodies, they have sins and they know so.

I don't think the bots have been properly used since the first film, there you had the excuse that they needed to be introduced through a kid's eyes, and for now were a bit interchangeable, you also had one Autobot that was completely wasted (was it Jazz?), but on the whole it was acceptable for the first film, even Starscream showed himself to be a badass, giving two autobots a run for their money, then in the sequels they have barely been developed, with Megatron getting ever less threatening.

 

[Marvin]

It wasn't a question of how many films made it past three. It was how many films even by measure of a trilogy have performed in such a way or greater than the TF trilogy and what where their circumstances and how were those films received. Remove this more than than 3 installments from your mind.
If you need to just focus on the three(though 4 would be even harder imo), then look at films as they perform in 'todays' landscape, how many have done in a trilogy what TF has in terms of performance.

It's an interesting sentiment you bring out however about the audience wanted sequels in this day and age. However I'm not so sure they weren't hungry for sequels back in the day. I saw many a 'part 2' met with enthusiasm when I was growing up. The thing is, it's hard to get to part 4(three even) if you lose your audience. As it's always been. Thus the advent of early reboots(Batman being a prime example). I find myself wondering if IM4 would have happened had IM3 simply followed IM2 without the shake up. I'm certain Xmen would have landed plainly in reboot territory given what Ratner left them with, they actually did go there with First Class, I digress.

"Everyone talks like he's this 'holy leader' ". This is my point specifically. Where in the film does this happen consistently if at all? I mean I assume you have seen this some other place(though that's another interesting discussion), but in these films and not your 'preconceptions' that no doubt derive from other media/material. The baggage and ideas you bring in with you rather. Kinda like people that felt superman killing to save the world was 'wrong' though the film itself never actually presented such contradiction.

This 'Sentinel's plans are over and he on his knees' thing again is the issue. All of a sudden the act falls into: "there are some things you can't do" and the interrogation option is the obvious direction. Where is this same rhetoric at the end of the Wolverine or LOTR movies? I mean if it's so obvious and all. I'll answer and suggest it's only 'obvious' here because you deem it so. The truth of the matter is up for debate. What kinda world has been presented here and where do they contradict it...
If the army see's a decepticon they kill it no? Same as Orcs in Lotr or aliens in ID4.
For example, when Batman, as he's presented, decides to stop saving villains in his movie then we'll have something that inconsistent within that presented universe(yes I'm pointing to a flaw in all his films) but here, not so much. Just as it isn't in the Aragon movies. That is, until someone comes around and suggests everyone has been talking about how holy he is. That's my point, he's not called Ghandi, but he's is referred to as the one true noble righteous king. You are just taking that latter description and asserting he can't behead some evil creature when really...he's not Ghandi and his purity lies in other things.

All those people you listed, such as Dirty Harry... My point is that it's the act itself that defines if something is villainous(as you assert), not who is doing it. The act. To suggest otherwise is to assert a double standard imo.

Not sure what you mean to respond to with the last part. The bots were more developed in the first but less so in down the road(even with all this new characterization I'm hearing about coming out of this last film). Sure I guess but my point was that robots can suffer through extreme kills, that's nothing new and almost an aesthetic standard.

 

[Radu Molasar]

One of the worst films I've ever seen. Though the bounty hunter robot was neat.

 

[Slushy]

The movie sucked, BUT finally getting The Dinobots was totally worth it for me. t:

Yeah, in DOTM he:

-Let's Chicago be destroyed and everyone in it killed just to prove a point to the human governments (that the Autobots were needed).
-Does his best Punisher impression with lines like "we will kill them all."
-Rips Megatron's head off mere moments after Megatron saved his life and was offering him a truce.
-Cold-bloodedly executed Sentinel, his old friend and mentor, when he was defenseless and begging for mercy.

That's one of the big complaints that people have about the last two movies, Optimus's characterization.

He also killed that defenseless Decepticon in cold oil in the opening sequence of Fallen.

 

[spund]

I just saw Age of Extinction. Yup, it was terrible. The humor wasn't AS stupid as the others, but it was still pretty stupid.

They should save money and not even bother with a script for the next one. Just string together a bunch of random fighting scenes since that's the only thing worth watching in these movies.

At least we got dinobots and a G1-ish Optimus Prime for a bit. I'd like to see the aerialbots form Superion in the next one.

 

[The Overlord]

I thought this was amusing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz5vEfa7UvI

 

[JasonB]

I watched the movie like a month ago. The movie sucks big time. The worst transformers part hands down, and in general, as an action movie is very boring. On scale from 0 to 10 I would give it 2, maybe 3. I struggled to watch it until the end.
Generally, a year of 2014 is bad for hollywood movies. 2013 was much better.

 

[TheVileOne]

I thought this was amusing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz5vEfa7UvI

Definitely one of the better Honest Trailers.

 

[def28]

I watched the movie like a month ago. The movie sucks big time. The worst transformers part hands down, and in general, as an action movie is very boring. On scale from 0 to 10 I would give it 2, maybe 3. I struggled to watch it until the end.
Generally, a year of 2014 is bad for hollywood movies. 2013 was much better.

We had some pretty amazing blockbusters and indies this year. Lego Movie, GOTG, Winter Soldier, DOFP, 22 Jump Street, Her, Grand Budapest, Jodorwoskys Dune, The Raid 2, Chef, Under The Skin, Only Lovers Left, Snowpiercer, Edge Of Tomorrow, HTTYD 2, Dawn Of The Apes, Gone Girl etc.

I really don't see how Jan-Oct 2013 was any better. But to each their own I guess.

 

[The Overlord]

This youtube channel is always good for a long, drawn out, somewhat pedantic look at a movie's various flaws, including Age of Extinction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c97NAlvu3n0

 

[michael1975]

I can't decided whether I like the movie or not. Mark was awesome in it but it still felt empty with out Shia in it. The movie was also massively long. So I am on the fence on this one.

Every one does know Michael Bay won't be directing Transformers 4 nor will Mark Wahlberg be back for Transformers 4 either. So who knows how good the next one will be.

My view on Transformers movie is this. They are great action pack movie with interesting characters. The story lines might have issues here and there but its not so bad that you can't watch it. I like them for what they are a fun action driven movie with big giant robots hell bent on killing each other while humans get caught in the middle.

 

[Batsfan1]

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.

That's a film where spock goes to hunt someone down and murder them for revenge and would have even when he was defenseless and only didn't because he could save kirk's life.

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?

How does him not saying he loves her go against "no sacrifice no victory"? How does him being angry that he doesn't have a job go against that?

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.

Tony is back to that at the end of the first film. That's why he blows his secret. In Avengers he was back to that.

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.

Who he dates isn't a part of the character arc. Mikeala is very much a character. She has at least as much characterization as Gwen in tasm films.

Him being entitled in that movie is the point of his character arc. He had a chip on his shoulder. The arc he had was about humility. That's shown in his line where he says that he's not a hero, just messenger.

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?

I'm not gonna defend the characters because I think they aren't good, but ironhide was aggressive, a little trigger happy and a little showoffy. ratchet was logical, direct and tactless. They had personalities.

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?

I don't think Michael Bay wrote the film. sentinel wasn't begging for his life. He was begging to be understood. optimus didn't care. How does that make optimus anymore unsympathetic than when wolverine grabbed a bad guy who was defenseless at the time and threw him off a cliff with a quip? How does it make him anymore unsympathetic than iron man, who created a robot that tried to destroy the world, killed people, shows no remorse for it, then tries to recreate because he thinks now he can make it work in aou, that murdered someone and smiled with a wave and while someone was lying defenseless in a fountain, threw a grenade in there and blew his head up as he smiled in iron man 3? How does that make him anymore unsympathetic than Bruce in batman returns when he put a bomb on a guy and smiled just before it blew him up?

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.

They're not correct. He's not villainous anymore than wolverine is a villain.

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.

wolverine is a hero and he does the same thing that prime has done.

He isn't unsympathetic. I sympathize with him very much in aoe.