Age of Extinction Transformers 4 USER REVIEW THREAD

[scatterax]

I don't have time for people with nothing but invective to contribute. User added to ignore list.

Honestly, you make up rules for what is and isn't acceptable and don't follow them. You have taken others dislike for a film as a personal attack against you and are acting but hurt for no good reason. You've not said one thing that makes this movie sound like its worth seeing. Instead, the only thing anyone can tell from your contradicting posts is that you're insecure for no good reason. You don't have time to debate only when you can't think of anything to say in the movies defense.

And Marvin, my room mate is friends with a guy who has worked lighting on a bay film. I've heard stories that describe him as being bossy but not having a real plan when it comes to shooting. He goes over budget for wasteful reasons. For instance he spent almost 2 million dollars building a huge blimp with a bunch of lights on it to light outdoor scenes, had the lighting guy sleep next to it in a tent for two weeks to guard it... And never used it. The guy is demanding on his crew, and is pretty much just making things up as he goes. I don't think their are as many stories as there are about the guy being terrible to work with because there is some big conspiracy where all the movie critics are trying to end his career. I think it's because there is at least some truth to it all.

 

[scatterax]

Edit

 

[Lord]

Frankly, Pepper's scenes never feel titilating, Extremis is like that, the bra's there because otherwise she would be with none, after the experiment she didn't realy have time to put on a shirt either, i frankly don't think the scene was gratuitous, unlike the one in Star Trek Into Darkness

 

[The Endless]

Pepper being in a bra is because she literally just got experimented on.

There literally is no comparison to the T&A shots in Bay's Transformers movies. It is literally insane to be comparing the two, or Whedon's Avengers, in this regard.

 

[dark_b]

i have a problem with this kind of posts. its obvious that they wanted her in a bra in the third act. and thats why the wrotte scenes around it so that she has only a bra on.

why is it so hard ot admit it?

 

[samsnee]

Geniuses in movies don't act like geniuses in real life? Now I've heard everything!

 

[The Endless]

i have a problem with this kind of posts. its obvious that they wanted her in a bra in the third act. and thats why the wrotte scenes around it so that she has only a bra on.

why is it so hard ot admit it?

They wrote that she was experimented on and fresh out of the lab. If she was fully clothed it wouldn't make sense to the story.

But let's just admit it for arguments sake.

Even then, it is simply not comparable to Megan Fox covered in sweat leaning over a car's engine pushing her ass out with the camera lingering on her boobs and belly. Or Megan Fox again covered in sweat, but this time also grease, leaning seductively over a motorbike. Or a slow motion, low angle shot of Rosie McPoutyface walking up the stairs in skimpy knickers with the camera blatantly focusing on her ass.

I mean, anyone who thinks anything in any of Marvels films comes close to being obviously titillating as those examples from Bay's films is literally insane.

 

[The Endless]

And the criticism of Stark being "too smart" is absurd. He's a superhero, his superpower is his intelligence and adaptability. His arc in IM3 is literally about him proving to himself that HE is Iron Man, with or without the armour. HE is the superhero, not the suit.

How is it unbelievable for him to make 52 suits in a year? He's already mastered the design of the suits and the arc reactor. He's basically now got a production line for them. All he has to do is change the details and the individual traits of each suit.

Complaining about Stark being too smart and not a realistic genius is like complaining about James Bond being too good a killer and not realistic. Or Sherlock Holmes is too good a detective and not realistic.

I mean... SERIOUSLY?

 

[scatterax]

He had 7 suits by avengers and was an mk42 a year later. So that's only 35 suits in a year. The first iron man showed him make 2 suits in the course of a week when he got back home. The plot point in IM3 is that he's obsessed with perfecting his suits now after avengers. He wanted to build an army in case of more Aliens. Given the armor timeline of the first movie, and if we assume his primary goals post IM1 to avengers were adventuring/re-shaping his business, then the amount of suits he can make when he switches that to his primary focus could actually be more than what we saw. Plus, it's kind of assumed he used cheaper materials to mass produce the suits when you compare how durable they are in 3 compared to every other movie. So there's that too.

 

[DA_Champion]

And the criticism of Stark being "too smart" is absurd. He's a superhero, his superpower is his intelligence and adaptability. His arc in IM3 is literally about him proving to himself that HE is Iron Man, with or without the armour. HE is the superhero, not the suit.

How is it unbelievable for him to make 52 suits in a year? He's already mastered the design of the suits and the arc reactor. He's basically now got a production line for them. All he has to do is change the details and the individual traits of each suit.

Complaining about Stark being too smart and not a realistic genius is like complaining about James Bond being too good a killer and not realistic. Or Sherlock Holmes is too good a detective and not realistic.

I mean... SERIOUSLY?

We're losing track of the original point.

First of all it doesn't matter that TS is supposedly smart. For the sake of argument, we can pretend that TS has an IQ of 250. The issue is that this wouldn't matter in terms of how he's presented, the movie gives a false impression of how intelligence works due to the laziness/incompetence of the writers of IM2+IM3. Even if he had an IQ of 250 (and he's not written that way), he would still need time and effort to figure things out. What's shown in the latter two movies buys into the largely American belief that everything is supposed to be easy if you're naturally talented. It's a false and socially corrosive fantasy -- in any human activity the most successful are not only talented, but extremely hard-working. It's comparably corrosive to what shows up in the TF movies, but fans don't complain.

I'm not complaining that TS is written as too smart, I'm complaining that he's not written that way. If he's really a genius, show it, by showing him struggling over concepts and designs and eventually getting past these struggles in certain cases. There's no actual process by which he gets to the right answer every time -- he just gets there like magic. It's like that last scene in IM3, he deals with Pepper's extremis, like it's applying a bandaid.

Which is too bad, because the writing in IM1 was so much better and had a much better social message. When he built the suit the first time it didn't come easy, and he didn't actually think of everything during that 1 week. He was putting the finishing touches on things he had already spent years thinking about it.

********

FYI: "All he has to do is change the details and the individual traits of each suit."

That's not how design works. Typically more specialised, more advanced models actually take comparable or greater amounts of time to conceive and implement.

 

[scatterax]

My point is, we've been suspending our disbelief from the get go with Tony's genius/ ability to make suits. Why stop now?

 

[Hunter Rider]

Simmer down in here guys.

 

[DA_Champion]

i have a problem with this kind of posts. its obvious that they wanted her in a bra in the third act. and thats why the wrotte scenes around it so that she has only a bra on.

why is it so hard ot admit it?

I think that's the crux. A lot of critics and viewers are only concerned with racism and misogyny in films that they don't like. Once they decide they don't like a movie they flatter themselves by saying it's because of racism, or whatever. If that were really the case they'd point out these problems even in films they do like.

The actual reason that people don't like Tf4:
1) The plot is bloated among other script problems;
2) A lot of people can't stand science fiction blockbusters in general;
3) They perceive it to be cool to dislike it, like it's a badge of geek honour and good taste;
4) Some people genuinely can't stand racism and misogyny in film, but you would see those people apply those same standards to other movies.

 

[Hunter Rider]

This argument is over, this is a review thread for TF4 not a vs IM3 thread.

 

[Marvin]

And Marvin, my room mate is friends with a guy who has worked lighting on a bay film. I've heard stories that describe him as being bossy but not having a real plan when it comes to shooting. He goes over budget for wasteful reasons. For instance he spent almost 2 million dollars building a huge blimp with a bunch of lights on it to light outdoor scenes, had the lighting guy sleep next to it in a tent for two weeks to guard it... And never used it. The guy is demanding on his crew, and is pretty much just making things up as he goes. I don't think their are as many stories as there are about the guy being terrible to work with because there is some big conspiracy where all the movie critics are trying to end his career. I think it's because there is at least some truth to it all.

Never said there wasn't any truth to him being very difficult to work with and an off the cuff sort of director. There are plenty of videos that even make fun of this idea(with bay in commentary). Again, I've seen the same said about a few other famous directors, they often do their own AD work. This was an issue about being particularly abusive to women on set vs equality. And how that kinda 'smoke' getting around on the internet is prone to be fueled by things other than facts. Like what people supposedly see in his films etc.

I'm not so sure he's as bad with budgets as one would imagine. All directors have their decisions that never come to fruition, I'm sure bay's had his fare share. But, and I'm sure they are easy to find but he's said to be great with budgets and has supposedly never coming in over. There are plenty of stories about how prepared he is and how prepared he as to to pull off films this practical as well as effects ridden...There are also stories about on set versatility however random. Lot's of stories about lots of things and depending on the mood of the reader, it's all or nothing.

 

[RaZaTrOn]

I left Transformers with too many questions. It was a complete mess. This film could have been amazing, the characters were great characters, the story had some great elements. The problems?

Michael Bay and Ehren Kruger.

Bay should never be allowed to direct again and Ehren should never be allowed to write again. What a piss poor attempt at what should have been a booster in this franchise to make the characters and story interesting again. What they managed to do was make every character a parody unto themselves.

This is by no means a dig at the characters or the actors, it is solely down to Bay and Kruger. It was full of crap that needed to be cut, I'm pretty sure that Age of Extinction has a double meaning, because it genuinely feels like an age when watching it and you feel extinct when you leave.

It should have been a two parter and ended with Optimus on the ship saying after they get the seed they have done with Earth, that felt like a natural ending and would've allowed them to flesh out the story and characters more.... but who cares about that when all that matteBOOOMBAMMAMMABMBABOOOM

F*****g explosions.

 

[Marvin]

I think that's the crux. A lot of critics and viewers are only concerned with racism and misogyny in films that they don't like. Once they decide they don't like a movie they flatter themselves by saying it's because of racism, or whatever. If that were really the case they'd point out these problems even in films they do like.

Things do get pretty self righteous in 'reviews'. One might think it adds credence but really it welcomes hypocrisy.

 

[blksuperman2]

Saw this film the other night and still don't know what my reaction is. Lol, It's on the scale of sheer awesomeness and utter awlfulness. If I can't gauge what I think I doubt anyone else can so I'll just list what I liked/dis-liked.

Excellent:

Visual F/X. Cinematically the film was impressive. Of course the robot porn was expected but there were scenes where you could feel the action. One in particular when they are being chased in China, the camera pans in/out of the car zooming through the streets while also showing the huge Robot battle in background.

Optimus Prime. If you didn't like him as a character and Leader the past 30yrs of existence this movie just might make you a believer.


Good: Mark Wahlberg is just a far more better and likeable guy than LeBeouf. It was kinda refreshing not seeing him and the mom and dad and whoever supermodel that we are forced to believe would be interested in him.

All the pretty cars were shot really well. There's a point that it felt more like Fast & Furious in a good way.

O.K./ Alright: Kelsey Grammar seemed like he was just in the wrong movie. He did well w/ what he was given but what was his motivation exactly? At least the CIA operative dude mourned the lost of his sister in the battle of Chicago. Grammar's character was just evil because the plot says so.

Michael Bay set up character development this go round and I actually felt bad when their friend was killed but I didn't feel the same way about Tessa or her boyfriend (I'll talk about them later).

Bad: Any transformer not named Optimus or Lockdown please stop talking. Even Goodman was irritating and I actually liked Hound in the beginning but the more he talked the worse it got. And seriously this is the 4th freaking movie, please give Bumblebee a voice!!

Horrible/Awful: Tessa, Tessa, Tessa and statutory boyfriend (but not in Texas). Neither one could act and every line was cringe worthy. The dialog in general was really epically bad. The most I laughed in the film was when they named the metal Transformium and the CIA agent telling Wahlberg that his face was his warrant.

All in all though this was a very very long, but entertaining summer blockbuster and I can't wait for a sequel. See, I told you my comments would make no sense.

 

[Katara Rises]

The most racist movie I've seen this summer is Days of Future Past, though nobody's talking about that because they liked the narrative.

Could you explain how Days of Future Past was in ANY way racist?

 

[scatterax]

Could you explain how Days of Future Past was in ANY way racist?

I think he's just trolling. It's best not to feed him.

 

[Marvin]

...to Megan Fox covered in sweat leaning over a car's engine pushing her ass out with the camera lingering on her boobs and belly.

This is very much the ball game when it comes why you simply won't or don't want to get it. And I don't mean you alone but the culture that has become blinded by righteous accusation and popular meme, that they seemingly miss the forest for the trees. The scene in question is serving a characterization point two multiple front. Sure she doesn't need to be dressed 'like an LA valley girl at a party date with her bf in the summer' to convey her know how, but when it comes to the purpose of the oogling camera and lingering shots, take a moment(maybe two) to think of the point of the scene as it pertains to the male protagonist(of the scene). Simply put: @0:16(linger butt shot?), @ 3:17
[YT]BH42aiqHZSg[/YT] is very much the same characterization/perspective/story telling tools as this:
[YT]f6L3Ef1JCC8[/YT] when it comes both to purpose as well as visual story telling. The only difference is on happens to be in a rated G movie. This is pretty much the issue however. The loss of all things objective analysis save for, well bay is doing that 'thing we all hate(sometimes)'.."misogyny and women's rights and all that good stuff."
lol reminds me of when Tucci was yelling to his crew "Math...Algorithms!"

Secondly, and the real juice of the scene being that boys(and others) often if not always fail to look past her veneer of 'being a hot girl' and don't or refuse to 'peg' her for what she really is. Like she said, her boyfriend simply doesn't like it. It's almost ironic if not entirely metta. Tragic really.

Watching that TF3 scene again, I think you might be using some of your hyperbole when it comes to how much things are focused on. The way you describe it, one would think it hit Tarantino levels of fetishism of camera. The sequence reads more like a tracking shot from behind on a women with no pants and a long shirt...and a bunny. But then again, we all have our levels of apology.

As for the bike scene, I'm not sure anyone see's that one shot as anything more than a titillation inducing character intro(in a movie, who knew). Again however, this is hardly the first or last time such a thing has been done(see most bond films for one). Some people seemingly hate that kinda stuff however.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I forgot to review this movie. Basically, it is more of the same. I found it about as good as 3 (2 is still by far the worst), but that isn't really praise for the movie. The 3rd one had some inventive action, but was far too long and had a lot of suck as well. This does, too. Some parts are cool. Others stupid.

Basically, another Michael Bay film.

 

[The Endless]

This is very much the ball game when it comes why you simply won't or don't want to get it. And I don't mean you alone but the culture that has become blinded by righteous accusation and popular meme, that they seemingly miss the forest for the trees. The scene in question is serving a characterization point two multiple front. Sure she doesn't need to be dressed 'like an LA valley girl at a party date with her bf in the summer' to convey her know how, but when it comes to the purpose of the oogling camera and lingering shots, take a moment(maybe two) to think of the point of the scene as it pertains to the male protagonist(of the scene). Simply put: @0:16(linger butt shot?), @ 3:17
[YT]BH42aiqHZSg[/YT] is very much the same characterization/perspective/story telling tools as this:
[YT]f6L3Ef1JCC8[/YT] when it comes both to purpose as well as visual story telling. The only difference is on happens to be in a rated G movie. This is pretty much the issue however. The loss of all things objective analysis save for, well bay is doing that 'thing we all hate(sometimes)'.."misogyny and women's rights and all that good stuff."
lol reminds me of when Tucci was yelling to his crew "Math...Algorithms!"

Secondly, and the real juice of the scene being that boys(and others) often if not always fail to look past her veneer of 'being a hot girl' and don't or refuse to 'peg' her for what she really is. Like she said, her boyfriend simply doesn't like it. It's almost ironic if not entirely metta. Tragic really.

Watching that TF3 scene again, I think you might be using some of your hyperbole when it comes to how much things are focused on. The way you describe it, one would think it hit Tarantino levels of fetishism of camera. The sequence reads more like a tracking shot from behind on a women with no pants and a long shirt...and a bunny. But then again, we all have our levels of apology.

As for the bike scene, I'm not sure anyone see's that one shot as anything more than a titillation inducing character intro(in a movie, who knew). Again however, this is hardly the first or last time such a thing has been done(see most bond films for one). Some people seemingly hate that kinda stuff however.

The point i was making is that there is nothing like those examples in the Marvel movies. There is no comparison.

I ain't gonna lie, I think Megan Fox is hot. But it's intentionally disingenuous to suggest the Iron Man movies of Whedon's Avengers sexualise and objectify women the way Bay does. It's an absurd notion that holds no weight.

And then you have people saying DoFP is racist. I mean, where does this **** come from?

It's rather telling that the people defending this movie and Bay's other TF movies are randomly bringing other films into the debate and trying to drag them down. And being genuinely disingenuous.

If you were so secure in your defense you wouldn't have to bring other films into it or actually create lies to back up your pov. If you like the film fine, knock yourself out. But don't make **** up and try to say it's a good film. There is nothing wrong with enjoying bad films. I love Harold and Kumar get the Munchies. I'd rather watch that than Citizen Kane. But will i try and say it's a better film than Citizen Kane? No... because i'm not a disingenuous contrarian.

 

[Flint Marko]

The point i was making is that there is nothing like those examples in the Marvel movies. There is no comparison.

I ain't gonna lie, I think Megan Fox is hot. But it's intentionally disingenuous to suggest the Iron Man movies of Whedon's Avengers sexualise and objectify women the way Bay does. It's an absurd notion that holds no weight.

And then you have people saying DoFP is racist. I mean, where does this **** come from?

It's rather telling that the people defending this movie and Bay's other TF movies are randomly bringing other films into the debate and trying to drag them down. And being genuinely disingenuous.

If you were so secure in your defense you wouldn't have to bring other films into it or actually create lies to back up your pov. If you like the film fine, knock yourself out. But don't make **** up and try to say it's a good film. There is nothing wrong with enjoying bad films. I love Harold and Kumar get the Munchies. I'd rather watch that than Citizen Kane. But will i try and say it's a better film than Citizen Kane? No... because i'm not a disingenuous contrarian.

Hunter Rider is right; I'd love to continue this discussion, because I'm glad I'm not the only one confused, but this is a transformers review thread. We have done a fantastic job of derailing this thread big time.

I think that's the crux. A lot of critics and viewers are only concerned with racism and misogyny in films that they don't like. Once they decide they don't like a movie they flatter themselves by saying it's because of racism, or whatever. If that were really the case they'd point out these problems even in films they do like.

The actual reason that people don't like Tf4:
1) The plot is bloated among other script problems;
2) A lot of people can't stand science fiction blockbusters in general;
3) They perceive it to be cool to dislike it, like it's a badge of geek honour and good taste;
4) Some people genuinely can't stand racism and misogyny in film, but you would see those people apply those same standards to other movies.

1) There are enormous problems with every facet of the script. The plot, the dialogue, the characterization, etc. Pick and choose any reason why some wouldn't like this film.
2) I doubt anyone who can't stand science fiction blockbusters would go see this movie. As a matter of fact, given the amount of science fiction blockbusters being made these days, it's clear that most people in the general audience love these things, so the audience you are describing is so small and doesn't really make an overall difference to the reception.
3) As Endless said, I think most people around here will gladly admit to liking movies that are terrible. I enjoyed the 98 Godzilla movie, the Watch with Ben Stiller, the Purge, etc. Multiple movies with a host of problems that weren't particular well crafted or anything, but I was still able to enjoy them. I can't speak for everyone here, but I dislike the Transformers films because I genuinely dislike them.
Also, given the amount of money these things are making, it seems us detractors are more or less in the minority. The GA eats these things up.
4) As we've said countless times (and I really don't think we should derail this thread any further, my point still stands), it is an incredibly difficult task to try and compare the way Bay does things in these films to anything present in most recent blockbusters. He takes things up to another level entirely.

 

[Marvin]

The point i was making is that there is nothing like those examples in the Marvel movies. There is no comparison.

I ain't gonna lie, I think Megan Fox is hot. But it's intentionally disingenuous to suggest the Iron Man movies of Whedon's Avengers sexualise and objectify women the way Bay does. It's an absurd notion that holds no weight.

And then you have people saying DoFP is racist. I mean, where does this **** come from?

It's rather telling that the people defending this movie and Bay's other TF movies are randomly bringing other films into the debate and trying to drag them down. And being genuinely disingenuous.

If you were so secure in your defense you wouldn't have to bring other films into it or actually create lies to back up your pov. If you like the film fine, knock yourself out. But don't make **** up and try to say it's a good film. There is nothing wrong with enjoying bad films. I love Harold and Kumar get the Munchies. I'd rather watch that than Citizen Kane. But will i try and say it's a better film than Citizen Kane? No... because i'm not a disingenuous contrarian.

The point I was making isn't about the marvel films. It's about story telling and hollywood. I used the sandlot this time but clearly it didn't stick. Nor will it ever. The reason why other films are being brought up is to point out hypocrisy plain and simple. It's not a matter of proving the white castle film is better than citizen kane(or even saying one likes one more than the other). It more like people pointing out something in one film, asserting that thing is a negative and then ignoring it in the and all other films. It's selective outrage and speaks to not being genuine about ones criticism. = Disingenuous.

That's why you keep seeing other films being brought up.

The point has been made several times without mentioning other films, several times has it been explained that this overreaction to a simple element or style of film making is opportunistic if not off base. Providing reference is what it's come to in order to wave the double standard flag as right as rain. Perhaps in your explanation and defense of these same or similar things in other films will be better understand the real issue. You make a huge deal out of something on principle in one film and then when it appears in another, nothing what so ever. That's pretty much it.
If Bay had a girl pull off an action scene in nothing but underwear what do you think would happen? 'Well she was just experimented on...etc' Right.
And please, Potts, isn't the only women in those marvel films but again, I'm not going into that.

As for Xmen being racist, that's not my thought but I've read the sentiment a few times. Namely the native american character and stereotypes. But I digress. The disingenuous assertion makes plenty sense but you got it backwards.