Age of Extinction Transformers 4 USER REVIEW THREAD

[Marvin]

Yes. And the apologists think something like this is ok to have in a summer blockbuster?

Why not exactly, is the 'summer blockbuster' by definition some sort of pbs childrens service announcement of the sesame street variety?

Next there will be mal contents decrying; a supporting character soldier for stepping on cock roach in summer block busters. Pregnant ones at that.
Films now have the burden of raising our kids(not parents) as well as engaging in legitimate art? Not sure they should even have violence and guns if you take it to it's logical conclusion, I mean for the kids that is.

Did hell boy really need to pop that fairies head like a top? Or should they have thought about the message it sent the helpless kids?
(double standard...)

 

[Marvin]

No one is saying that these things don't exist in any way shape or form in the IM/Marvel studios films.
What we are saying is that they are nowhere near as blatant or incessant as in the TF films. Surely you can understand where we are coming from. Truth be told I'm having a hard time thinking of any other recent film franchise that objectifies and plays up the female form as much as TF.

Again, surely you can understand the levels of hypocrisy present. I'm not saying they are the exact same, only that if you are soooooooooooo off put by the presence of one, surely some comment about the other...as yet I've heard none(ever) from the type of people so quick to harp on such things(around here).

There are films, like inception that fall into these traps as well tbh, the amount of TnA in these marvel films compared to that would be to someone: blatant and incessant. Drawing a line in the sand is just that, you're still in the sand.

The first time we see Pepper in Avengers she is helping Stark set up the arc reactor for Stark Tower. She's talking techno babble about the energy levels etc. She just so happens to be wearing hot pants. We don't have a slow-motion shot of her ass walking up stairs.

So she has to have her top buttoned down to her diaphragm and be wearing short shorts? Oh but she's talking techno babble so it's a non issue? So when Megan's character was shown to all her joe/jane fix it stuff, one can start defending her attire in a similar way?

This is my point about line in the sand hypocrisy. On principle. Now it's a matter of 'amount'. 8 shots vs 4, how low the camera is, if the frame is over cranked....something like that. It's a joke imo.

Did Potts really need to be in victoria secret attire and jumping around in slow motion at the end of IM3? I mean did she really have to? Cause I can already hear the arguments about why wouldn't have to if Bay directed the film.

Widow? Well i guess in her opening scene you are right. But it actually fits her character and actually works with her codename. She uses her sexuality and femininity to lure men into a trap. But still, no gratuitous shots of her cleavage or ass.

I can spend all day explaining why things fit and serve characterization to deaf ears(shia and rosie have sex in the morning, high school rebellion in the western world). We're clearly past that game it seems. It's only now for me to point out it's existence in other such films. And yes, there were shots of cleavage and butts and such.
This is seemingly another character that needs to have her top zipper caught at the diaphragm, why? Ask bay.

The way Joss Whedon treats females and the way Michael Bay treats females in his TF films bares no comparison. It's absurd to be even thinking about comparing the two things.

The way hollywood treats it women in these films is more or less consistent. The way Bay and Whedon(in particular) do is pretty comparable in that various examples tend to be independent and 'give them hell' in disposition(bad boys 1&2, Pearl Harbor, The island, Transformers 1-2,4).

That being said, the comparison wasn't that they do the exact same. It was that there can be a comparison made. Lest you haven't seen any cleavage in whedon stuff. There is always that slow motion shot of widow in front of the explosion in avengers. Good times, though maybe that was just the studio.

 

[The Endless]

Good god you are literally insane.

There is literally no comparison between the way Joss Whedon treats females in his movies and the way Bay treats women in his movies.

Bay's Transformers films are morally repugnant and it's troubling that some people don't take this criticisms seriously.

8 year olds will be watching this and cheering for the Autobots even though they are *******s who execute helpless enemies and execute vagina aliens simply because they are gross.

 

[Marvin]

Good god you are literally insane.

Ok.

There is literally no comparison between the way Joss Whedon treats females in his movies and the way Bay treats women in his movies.

So you are going to cover your eyes/ears and just say the same thing. Guess that's that.

8 year olds will be watching this and cheering for the Autobots even though they are *******s who execute helpless enemies and execute vagina aliens simply because they are gross.

8 year olds watch and cheer all sorts of things that do alot worse and by characters that are far more important to the story as well relateable. Hell, Simba eats bugs and finds them slimy yet satisfying when he really doesn't have to. Now I should find myself fear for the 8 year old that dwells on that whilst watching a bugs life...It is pretty interesting watching a new internet group thing buzz word take life though. Vagina aliens. Maybe it will catch on.

 

[Flint Marko]

In all seriousness Marvin if you still don't understand what we're talking about then there's no point, you're never going to get it.
There's no hypocrisy here. That's like looking at someone and saying "oh you felt there was to much action in transformers? Well marvel films and plenty of other pg13 blockbusters have a lot of action. Why draw a line in the sand? What's the difference?"
It's plain and simple to everyone what we are trying to say and why we feel the way we do. With all due respect, I really can't help but wonder if you're deliberately trying to play the contrarian or just don't want to see what we're trying to explain to you. I'm not saying that to be antagonistic in any regard as I think you're a level headed and respectful poster from what I have seen.

 

[Marvin]

In all seriousness Marvin if you still don't understand what we're talking about then there's no point, you're never going to get it.
There's no hypocrisy here. That's like looking at someone and saying "oh you felt there was to much action in transformers? Well marvel films and plenty of other pg13 blockbusters have a lot of action. Why draw a line in the sand? What's the difference?"
It's plain and simple to everyone what we are trying to say and why we feel the way we do. With all due respect, I really can't help but wonder if you're deliberately trying to play the contrarian or just don't want to see what we're trying to explain to you. I'm not saying that to be antagonistic in any regard as I think you're a level headed and respectful poster from what I have seen.

I've said it about 20 times now. If you think something doesn't work for you, then have at it(maybe even prepare for a discussion). It's when it starts to be about more than just 'for you' but rather the supposed greater truth of the situation that I find grounds for the retort. For example: "Sexual jokes and things like that don't belong in films like this!" Is what I'm reading. I step in to point out that it's not simply bay, it's in all sorts of things and in several instances. More to the point, that it itself isn't actually all that bad a thing(unless you have some axe grind then it's the mother of all problems). The issue isn't that people are saying there is too much action and then me saying well there is action here and there. I've seen action into itself defended easily and often. The issue would be like people saying action is bad. Plain and simple, the way they are saying sexual innuendo is bad, plain an simple! Surely you see the difference in relation to your own analogy about what's going on. And then me saying well such things are in the marvel movies. That's what's happening here Flint. All this talk of lingerie and cleavage and caked on make up and short shorts and butt shots....I've never seen such things defended the way Action can be, thus it's implied they are negative into themselves.
They are in all these films and if you actually have a massive problem with it and suggest that it's 'bad for a film' and not simply 'bad for you' then you are going to have to be a a tad more eloquent in stating the problem cause I will probably disagree. Again, when the statement about 'booger-eating humor was made' it wasn't followed by a quantity. It was that the films have it. Period and out right. I digress, there is a hypocrisy happening, this is an interesting essay(of sorts) on it:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/9491-Leave-Michael-Bay-Alone

For me it's never been about calling the macdonalds by anything other than what it is. Just one of many very enjoyable pleasurable indulgences and services provided to a society in exchange for commerce. When Bay makes maybe the biggest consumer burger joint in town and the masses flock, all of a sudden cheap unhealthy fast food, fries and grease and reheating(which is present in burger king and wendys) are the devil, and what's more, only present in bay's joint. Critics telling us we need to stop liking these kinds of burgers and fries and ask for something a little more gourmet cause it's better and we'll like it more. I say this in relation to how hollywood uses clevage and lack of logical story telling and effect driven plots and explosions vs Dallas Buyers Club.
There is a hypocrisy, not much more.

This more recent discussion of more tangible hypocrisy is a direct results of literal statements about how one group of films doesn't have such things. Sorry but the marvel films have plenty of their own, I'm not the one that said it's has as much or more. I did however say that if it's such a make or break deal to some of you then I would expect it to atleast register with any of these other films, but it doesn't, so how big a deal is it really?

That's what I think(if you really do care) and why I see no point in going on if you(rather) don't get it. In all seriousness that is.

 

[Flint Marko]

Basically the issue I have with these films, and I'll try to state this more clearly and eloquently as you have said, is that they offer incessant quantities of T&A, crude humor, and bland action in lieu of real characterization or interesting dialogue that actually fleshes out the characters because as they stand, the characters are all essentially cardboard cut outs.
I'm not saying innuendo itself s bad, or crude jokes are never funny. I'm saying when you take time away from the main plot to show someone shooting a giant vagina with teeth, or take the time to showcase a robot's giant metal balls, all for no reason whatsoever than cheap laughs, maybe it's ok for me to piss on your movie a little bit. Because those are things I see only appealing to 13 year old boys, as that is very so clearly his target demographic. Am I wrong?
Other movies have other redeeming qualities to save it from being on this level. These films have next to none, other than sheer spectacle. Is that a little clearer?
I've said about as much as I could say and I'm sure you could disagree with me all you want, but clearly I am not anything close to alone in thinking this way.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Good god you are literally insane.

There is literally no comparison between the way Joss Whedon treats females in his movies and the way Bay treats women in his movies.

Bay's Transformers films are morally repugnant and it's troubling that some people don't take this criticisms seriously.

8 year olds will be watching this and cheering for the Autobots even though they are *******s who execute helpless enemies and execute vagina aliens simply because they are gross.

I appreciate someone else trying to talk sense. But with these things Marvin never gives up. I'd just walk away man. Once he gets going there's no stopping him contrarianism.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Basically the issue I have with these films, and I'll try to state this more clearly and eloquently as you have said, is that they offer incessant quantities of T&A, crude humor, and bland action in lieu of real characterization or interesting dialogue that actually fleshes out the characters because as they stand, the characters are all essentially cardboard cut outs.
I'm not saying innuendo itself s bad, or crude jokes are never funny. I'm saying when you take time away from the main plot to show someone shooting a giant vagina with teeth, or take the time to showcase a robot's giant metal balls, all for no reason whatsoever than cheap laughs, maybe it's ok for me to piss on your movie a little bit. Because those are things I see only appealing to 13 year old boys, as that is very so clearly his target demographic. Am I wrong?
Other movies have other redeeming qualities to save it from being on this level. These films have next to none, other than sheer spectacle. Is that a little clearer?
I've said about as much as I could say and I'm sure you could disagree with me all you want, but clearly I am not anything close to alone in thinking this way.

Eloquently stated. Pity someone in here still won't get it.

 

[Marvin]

Eloquently stated. Pity someone in here still won't get it.

And they call(ed) me passive aggressive.
It's probably a bigger pity that I will get it, but simply won't agree. Who'd have thought such a thing possible.

I appreciate someone else trying to talk sense. But with these things Marvin never gives up. I'd just walk away man. Once he gets going there's no stopping him contrarianism.

You know I find myself just as frustrated with your gaggle of 'contrarianism' but in the other direction, only I don't fancy myself so bold as to call it that. I also don't think you are being obtuse or any number of other belittling things one can think of in this situation.
I mostly just appreciate other people doing what forums are here for, by himself has said the discussions raised in the reception are valuable. In case you don't see though my passive aggression, I could do without the ad hominem bs and mentions of my name or the epithets pertaining to the people that don't agree with you, in non relevant posts such as this above. It's pretty tiresome tbh. More to the point, I could easily feel the same way about why all you guys have decided to frequent this fan section only to post detraction after detraction after detraction but I don't. So do me the courtesy...or don't, I suppose all I can do is ask.

 

[samsnee]

You know what movie is the perfect summer blockbuster? Edge of Tomorrow. It was somewhat silly, and there were a few plot holes that you had to overlook. And yes there were a couple of sexual innuendos. But I felt like it treated the audience with respect. It didn't hit you over the head and treat you like you were some kid with ADD who couldn't be bothered to look up from texting unless there was a huge explosion on the screen.

There hasn't been a single Transformer movie that has respected my intelligence. Adolescent boys may be the main audience, but that doesn't mean you still shouldn't try to create something that will entertain other audiences as well.

 

[Marvin]

Basically the issue I have with these films, and I'll try to state this more clearly and eloquently as you have said, is that they offer incessant quantities of T&A, crude humor, and bland action in lieu of real characterization or interesting dialogue that actually fleshes out the characters because as they stand, the characters are all essentially cardboard cut outs.
I'm not saying innuendo itself s bad, or crude jokes are never funny. I'm saying when you take time away from the main plot to show someone shooting a giant vagina with teeth, or take the time to showcase a robot's giant metal balls, all for no reason whatsoever than cheap laughs, maybe it's ok for me to piss on your movie a little bit. Because those are things I see only appealing to 13 year old boys, as that is very so clearly his target demographic. Am I wrong?
Other movies have other redeeming qualities to save it from being on this level. These films have next to none, other than sheer spectacle. Is that a little clearer?
I've said about as much as I could say and I'm sure you could disagree with me all you want, but clearly I am not anything close to alone in thinking this way.

First off, whatever issues you have with the film as it pertains to your experience in this capacity, I can't possibly disagree. If I did I'd probably be no better than these critics that think they can speak for what it is that defines my personal enjoyment. If you don't find something funny I can't then tell you that it is..etc. Great. If we are talking the grander conversation about just what these films have and don't have to offer the general experience:

An interesting question,
If we are talking the raw pay $14 and sit in a movie(knowing what it's about). These very things you are listing don't consistently ruin the experience of watching a 2 hours film for a quantifiable amount of the audience. I know cause I've seen it time and again. You say things like crude humor and 'bland action' and all in liu of real character and development and such...these kinds of jokes ONLY appealing to 13 year olds.. silly gags, T&A, throw away scenes...
I've seen these very things(all of them) in several well reviewed comedies. Now before we might get into that whole thing(this isn't comedy). I'm talking about perspective. You pay $14 and sit in a 2 hour movie. You encounter all these very things, most of which at the loss of precious character dev and study. Crude humor..etc. Why is it in this situation it's tolerable, often bloody enjoyable, yet in the pretense of the other film it's not, it's actually all of it now turned against the experience, all a sin. Bearing in mind you know what you are walking into. That's why I say, these things that ruin it for you, surely speak to your personal experience and not that of the 'truth' if you will. Adults can pay $14 and not get cap2 like plot development, then can sit there and be bombarded with less then human characters and gags that involve animals being assaulted. They just for some reason can't do it here. Which perhaps speaks to the effective of said stuff here, but looking at it generally, it doesn't actually speak to the direction itself. Of course this only pertains to the detractors, see cinema score and consistent mass success and what not. The idea that a single individual walks into these movies with different tastes, tolerances and appreciations, different thresholds of humor and definitions for 'for 13year old', in the span of two movies. Can you explain this without what I consider a cop out(but it's not a comedy) for it seems pretty fickle imo. Why is it you and your lady friend can settle for lack of 'quality' film making in one pretense but not in another(film)?

I mean now I'm reading about 'respecting of intelligence' as if it's some sort of prerequisite for a $14 experience to be acceptable and it's like; Did Neighbors show this same respect? How important is it really, what's important/essential? Again, 14$ film experience.

 

[dark_b]

And remembered he had a jetpack at the end too!

the worst part is that i know how they wrotte it

Bay : at the end i would like Prime to fly in space to find his creators
writter : how will he fly?
Bay :give him his flying boots
writter : when does he get the ability to fly?
Bay :when he updates his truck mode
writter : why doesnt he fly durring the Galvatron fight? or the final Lockdown fight? why doesnt he fly down from the ship?
Bay : when he touches the sword inside the ship his body updates with armor,shield and flying.
writter : why the ef is he riding a trex when he could fly to the battle?

why Bay ? why???????????????????????????

 

[DA_Champion]

You really think the gratuitous T&A in both movies are comparable?
Wow. I don't think we watched the same movies then.
Nearly every time the main female character is on screen in transformers, it makes an effort to show her body and how sexy she is. The IM films almost never do that, save for maybe a handful of instances. You really are stretching to find a complaint here.

No, as I said I think you are stretching to find a complaint. They're nowhere near as bad as you say. Try and think of anything in IM3 near as blatant as TF4 or other transformers films. Give me specific, multiple examples. You can't. At all.
In every shot in T4, Nicola whats her face was caked in make up and wearing something skimpy and revealing. Several shots hung on her butt. Slow motion, low angle shots of women walking up stairs.
Nothing like that ever happened to Maya, or Pepper, or anyone for that matter in IM3.
I'm not saying they don't exist in the IM films - what I am saying is that they are not even remotely comparable to these movies and it is ridiculous to try and pretend otherwise.

What gratuitous t&a shots in the IM movies? The only one i can think of is in IM2 when Widow gets into the boxing ring and we see her cleavage.

We don't have slow-motion low angle shots of women walking up stairs in the Iron Man films or hand job innuendo's about 17 year olds or sweaty skimpily dressed females leaning over car engines...

I'm not sure if you guys are serious. Let's talk about T&A plus characterisation.

IM2 is well-documented as crass, I won't bother going over it.

For IM3, the movie starts with a shot of Rebecca Hall in red lingerie and ends with a shot of Gwyneth Paltrow in a black sports bra. The treatment of Rebecca Hall was quite bad -- she had the potential to be an interesting character -- but ultimately she was motivated entirely by Stark's rejection of her, that was what drove her life. Later on she is killed off unceremoniously when she is no longer needed by the narrative. As for Paltrow, that shot was obviously gratuitous and well-documented and acknowledged as such by various commentators.

Note that the movie also reduces Rebecca Hall to being a ditz. She spends decades developing the Extremis formula. Later on in the movie, in the epilogue, Tony Stark "deals with" Pepper Potts' extremes without breaking a sweat -- because he the man is much smarter than she is.

There's no denying this -- if A dedicates 15 years of your life to developing something, and then B comes in and acquire a superior mastery of that subject with great ease in a few days or less, then B is (vastly) smarter than A, and A is probably quite dumb.

Transformers are alien bio-mechanical beings... not just robots.

I'm not sure if that's your actual defense. There's no way that Tony could have built 52 distinct suits with ease in a single year or indeed a single lifetime by himself. T4 at least has the greater sophistication of acknowledging that this requires a complex system of social organisation -- a large corporation with ties to the government and backed by big money.

And Tony Stark is obviously smarter than any human in the Transformers universe.

Which is part of what makes him a socially corrosive power fantasy, he gives a false idealisation of what genius is. I know some geniuses, they're nothing like Tony Stark.

Not to long ago DA champion posted in the IM3 section out of nowhere claiming that since no one had posted in 6 days that movie must not have made an impact on people, since no one was discussing it.
I think it's clear he has a chip on his shoulder for whatever reason. Best we just move on before we get off topic, I don't want to derail the conversation any further.
Here's a question for the people who know a lot about Transformers: is Cade Yeager a character from any Transformers cartoon, comic, or anything? Is the exclusion of Sam Witwicky a big deal to anyone, was he a beloved character by any means?

My arguments against IM3 are similar to your arguments against T4. You perceive T4 to be a socially corrosive film, and so you discuss its issues. It's the same with me and IM2+IM3. I recognise their social corrosiveness, and it repels me.

 

[DA_Champion]

the worst part is that i know how they wrotte it

Bay : at the end i would like Prime to fly in space to find his creators
writter : how will he fly?
Bay :give him his flying boots
writter : when does he get the ability to fly?
Bay :when he updates his truck mode
writter : why doesnt he fly durring the Galvatron fight? or the final Lockdown fight? why doesnt he fly down from the ship?
Bay : when he touches the sword inside the ship his body updates with armor,shield and flying.
writter : why the ef is he riding a trex when he could fly to the battle?

why Bay ? why???????????????????????????

Yeah, the way Prime cured himself felt like a letdown. It would have been cool to see Prime struggle with being damaged the whole movie.

 

[The Endless]

Rebecca Hall's character wasn't motivated by Stark's rejection. She was motivated by the opportunity to save people with her Extremis formula. She was misguided into thinking Killian would help her, but he obviously wanted Extremis perfected for more nefarious means.

I don't see how Stark is socially corrosive. The guy may be an unrealistic ideal of a genius. He may be a bit of a *****e bag. But he has a clear moral center. He is ultimately altruistic and willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good. He spits in the face of Neo-Con political ideals and the military industrial complex if he feels they are not doing things that are for the good of the people.

Bay's "heroes" in the Transformer films are anti-heroes at best. His Optimus Prime is less heroic than Ed Harris' General from The Rock. I mean this is the guy who executes helpless, already defeated enemies who are literally begging for their lives. He's the guy who grants fellow Transformers freedom... with the disclaimer that they follow him and do what he says. In his climatic bad ass super heroic fight scenes he shouts "give me your face!" to his enemies.

And all this with the pretense that he is this bad ass hero who we should all be rooting for.

 

[DA_Champion]

There are films, like inception that fall into these traps as well tbh, the amount of TnA in these marvel films compared to that would be to someone: blatant and incessant. Drawing a line in the sand is just that, you're still in the sand.
So she has to have her top buttoned down to her diaphragm and be wearing short shorts? Oh but she's talking techno babble so it's a non issue? So when Megan's character was shown to all her joe/jane fix it stuff, one can start defending her attire in a similar way?

When did Inception have a TnA shot? It's been a while since I watched Inception.

Did Potts really need to be in victoria secret attire and jumping around in slow motion at the end of IM3? I mean did she really have to?

Nope.

 

[DA_Champion]

I'll just note that there is a storytelling purpose to Nicole Peltz' short shorts in Transformers 4. She is wearing sexy clothes because her father's attempts to control her life are failing. He wants her to be an isolated virgin, but she wants to be a sexually liberated being, and she succeeds in doing because she has the agency and means to do so, because she chooses to look sexy. This relates to her having a cool boyfriend later on. It ties into a larger theme that her father's attempts to micromanage everything cannot succeed.

I went to school with religious girls whose parents wanted them to be non-sexual. When that worked, the girls didn't wear short shorts. They wore long skirts that covered their shoes, and long sleeves over loose shirts that didn't indicate if they had tight stomachs or large breasts.

A lot of us (particularly men) look down on fashion, but the fact of the matter is that what a person wears does reveal a lot of who they are. It's a serious issue in the real world and in developing fictional characters.

 

[DA_Champion]

I don't see how Stark is socially corrosive. The guy may be an unrealistic ideal of a genius. He may be a bit of a *****e bag.

??????????

He spits in the face of Neo-Con political ideals and the military industrial complex if he feels they are not doing things that are for the good of the people.

Which is problematic in how it is portrayed. In the first movie, Stark abandons weapons development to build clean energy instead. It's a false fantasy and as such corrosive, because it comes for free and without genuine consequence or sacrifice, it sets up a false fantasy, the predominantly American liberal fantasy that the world's problems could be fixed with very little effort if we just made a few different choices, when in fact changing course would require great sacrifice.

1) If a real company like Stark Industries just stopped making weapons, the government would likely come in and claim the material, so there's zero normative value to that plot development.
2) Stark stopped making weapons because he could now focus on cheap, unlimited energy. There's no actual sacrifice involved, Santa Claus gave him a golden goose so he discarded some problematic gold bars. That's hardly a prescriptive formula for weapons contractors.

In the real world, if we wait for miracles to make sacrifices, we'll never make sacrifices.

As a contrast, I find the bomb that Wayne built in between TDK and TDKR to be vastly more interesting. Notice the similarities: Stark is suffering from PTSD, Wayne is suffering from depression. Both men are intelligent and rich. Stark builds 52 suits in a year and they work immediately and save the day. Wayne tries to build a bomb, fails, and this has consequences.

The latter is actually a more robust and honest look at technological development. It takes time, effort, and sacrifice, and failure always precedes success.

3) Everything is easy for Stark in IM2 and IM3 (less so in the better-written IM1). In IM2, his father gives him the formula for a new element so he chills out and synthesises it in less than an hour. In IM3, he builds 52 suits within a year, a new and updated artificial intelligence system, he cures the extremin in Pepper with little effort. It all comes easy, we do not see him struggle at all. Kids are going to watch this gross **** and internalise that invention and discovery is supposed to be trivial if you have "natural intelligence".

I have worked in education. I have TAed classes, dealt with thousands of undergrads, personally tutored dozens, I've learned things that when I knew them I was the only person alive to know about them, and let me tell you: real learning and invention is hard. I got so tired, over the years, of kids I was tutoring tell me that they were bad in math, and then often within a couple hours of efforts they know the material just fine. They somehow didn't understand that it was supposed to take work, in part because they had grown up watching Hollywood which teaches us that nothing is supposed to be hard if you're awesome.

Note that it doesn't need to be this bad: the first Iron Man was better. When he builds the suit in the cave, first of all it takes him a week and not an hour, and we see him building. Second, the suit doesn't work great the first time. Third, he's not actually building the suit from scratch. I found that the movie communicated that he was actually putting together knowledge that he had spend the previous several years putting together, that his prior struggles were paying off.

 

[Orba]

the worst part is that i know how they wrotte it

Bay : at the end i would like Prime to fly in space to find his creators
writter : how will he fly?
Bay :give him his flying boots
writter : when does he get the ability to fly?
Bay :when he updates his truck mode
writter : why doesnt he fly durring the Galvatron fight? or the final Lockdown fight? why doesnt he fly down from the ship?
Bay : when he touches the sword inside the ship his body updates with armor,shield and flying.
writter : why the ef is he riding a trex when he could fly to the battle?

why Bay ? why???????????????????????????

I think that is giving far too much credit to the writer, a guy who in a recent interview said “When you’re talking about aliens, robotic machines which disguise themselves as vehicles and animals, you start to make your peace with the idea that logical sense doesn’t have to be the be-all, end-all.”

 

[Marvin]

the worst part is that i know how they wrotte it

Bay : at the end i would like Prime to fly in space to find his creators
writter : how will he fly?
Bay :give him his flying boots
writter : when does he get the ability to fly?
Bay :when he updates his truck mode
writter : why doesnt he fly durring the Galvatron fight? or the final Lockdown fight? why doesnt he fly down from the ship?
Bay : when he touches the sword inside the ship his body updates with armor,shield and flying.
writter : why the ef is he riding a trex when he could fly to the battle?

why Bay ? why???????????????????????????

This DarkB is exactly what is meant by double standards. You can do with this a great deal of plots but it's a huge 'why bay' talking point in this moment.

I mean any reason why Gypsy didn't pull out the sword earlier?I'll stop there on that film cause the list get's long and admittedly petty. As for why someone that can fly under their own power doesn't. Outside of the plot contrivance of a cool fight scene. Sometimes people that can fly like to ride invisible jets for instance. And the list goes on and on.
Bay didn't invent this, he seemingly just get's to bare the brunt.

 

[Marvin]

When did Inception have a TnA shot? It's been a while since I watched Inception.

Mal's attire in most of her scenes didn't actually need to be as such. There are several styles of dress that aren't lace and low cut the costume dept could have chosen from and told the same exact story. Again, hardly an issue or talking point other than to point out that there are various levels present in most hollywood cinema and it's only really a matter of how far one chooses to go along with it before drawing their line in the sand. Unless of course, it's really no that big a deal.

And yes, the attire in TF very much serves the characterization and story. But the films are accused of being so bloody surface deep that it echoes in the criticisms themselves.

 

[DA_Champion]

This DarkB is exactly what is meant but double standards. You can do with this a great deal of plots but it's a huge 'why bay' talking point in this moment.

I mean any reason why Gypsy didn't pull out the sword earlier?I'll stop there on that film cause the list get's long and admittedly petty. As for why someone that can fly under their own power doesn't. Outside of the plot contrivance of a cool fight scene. Sometimes people that can fly like to ride invisible jets for instance. And the list goes on and on.
Bay didn't invent this, he seemingly just get's to bare the brunt.

Dark B has uniformly rigorous and high standards for most movies

 

[Marvin]

Dark B has uniformly rigorous and high standards for most movies

as do critics I imagine.

 

[Flint Marko]

I'm not sure if you guys are serious. Let's talk about T&A plus characterisation.

IM2 is well-documented as crass, I won't bother going over it.

For IM3, the movie starts with a shot of Rebecca Hall in red lingerie and ends with a shot of Gwyneth Paltrow in a black sports bra. The treatment of Rebecca Hall was quite bad -- she had the potential to be an interesting character -- but ultimately she was motivated entirely by Stark's rejection of her, that was what drove her life. Later on she is killed off unceremoniously when she is no longer needed by the narrative. As for Paltrow, that shot was obviously gratuitous and well-documented and acknowledged as such by various commentators.

Note that the movie also reduces Rebecca Hall to being a ditz. She spends decades developing the Extremis formula. Later on in the movie, in the epilogue, Tony Stark "deals with" Pepper Potts' extremes without breaking a sweat -- because he the man is much smarter than she is.

There's no denying this -- if A dedicates 15 years of your life to developing something, and then B comes in and acquire a superior mastery of that subject with great ease in a few days or less, then B is (vastly) smarter than A, and A is probably quite dumb.


I'm not sure if that's your actual defense. There's no way that Tony could have built 52 distinct suits with ease in a single year or indeed a single lifetime by himself. T4 at least has the greater sophistication of acknowledging that this requires a complex system of social organisation -- a large corporation with ties to the government and backed by big money.


Which is part of what makes him a socially corrosive power fantasy, he gives a false idealisation of what genius is. I know some geniuses, they're nothing like Tony Stark.


My arguments against IM3 are similar to your arguments against T4. You perceive T4 to be a socially corrosive film, and so you discuss its issues. It's the same with me and IM2+IM3. I recognise their social corrosiveness, and it repels me.

??????????


Which is problematic in how it is portrayed. In the first movie, Stark abandons weapons development to build clean energy instead. It's a false fantasy and as such corrosive, because it comes for free and without genuine consequence or sacrifice, it sets up a false fantasy, the predominantly American liberal fantasy that the world's problems could be fixed with very little effort if we just made a few different choices, when in fact changing course would require great sacrifice.

1) If a real company like Stark Industries just stopped making weapons, the government would likely come in and claim the material, so there's zero normative value to that plot development.
2) Stark stopped making weapons because he could now focus on cheap, unlimited energy. There's no actual sacrifice involved, Santa Claus gave him a golden goose so he discarded some problematic gold bars. That's hardly a prescriptive formula for weapons contractors.

In the real world, if we wait for miracles to make sacrifices, we'll never make sacrifices.

As a contrast, I find the bomb that Wayne built in between TDK and TDKR to be vastly more interesting. Notice the similarities: Stark is suffering from PTSD, Wayne is suffering from depression. Both men are intelligent and rich. Stark builds 52 suits in a year and they work immediately and save the day. Wayne tries to build a bomb, fails, and this has consequences.

The latter is actually a more robust and honest look at technological development. It takes time, effort, and sacrifice, and failure always precedes success.

3) Everything is easy for Stark in IM2 and IM3 (less so in the better-written IM1). In IM2, his father gives him the formula for a new element so he chills out and synthesises it in less than an hour. In IM3, he builds 52 suits within a year, a new and updated artificial intelligence system, he cures the extremin in Pepper with little effort. It all comes easy, we do not see him struggle at all. Kids are going to watch this gross **** and internalise that invention and discovery is supposed to be trivial if you have "natural intelligence".

I have worked in education. I have TAed classes, dealt with thousands of undergrads, personally tutored dozens, I've learned things that when I knew them I was the only person alive to know about them, and let me tell you: real learning and invention is hard. I got so tired, over the years, of kids I was tutoring tell me that they were bad in math, and then often within a couple hours of efforts they know the material just fine. They somehow didn't understand that it was supposed to take work, in part because they had grown up watching Hollywood which teaches us that nothing is supposed to be hard if you're awesome.

Note that it doesn't need to be this bad: the first Iron Man was better. When he builds the suit in the cave, first of all it takes him a week and not an hour, and we see him building. Second, the suit doesn't work great the first time. Third, he's not actually building the suit from scratch. I found that the movie communicated that he was actually putting together knowledge that he had spend the previous several years putting together, that his prior struggles were paying off.

Everything you've written here amounts to probably the mos ridiculous far fetched argument I've ever read on this website in my 8 years of being here.
For the argument that these movies supposedly contain enormous amounts of T&A, you have listed two examples. TWO. And in both of these examples, it was never emphasized or out of place unlike nearly every time a female is on screen in the transformers film. As we have been saying, the two films are not even remotely comparable. Nice try though.
Also your feigned attempt at being offended by how easily stark figures on things is so strange. It's a freaking comic book movie; no child is going to leave the theatre and be damaged or negatively affected by that.
I could go into this point by point with you but I don't have the time, and as i have already said you clearly have a chip on your shoulder for whatever reason. Until you come up with an actual compelling, sensible argument then maybe we can have a discussion on this.