• Rings of Power

    Fantasy TV is now The Lord of the Rings!

  • We're moving

    Heroes are moving to the Movies sections!

Age of Extinction Transformers 4 USER REVIEW THREAD

Not a hardcore bay hater but this film is so forgettable and that bothers me. It could have and should have been so much more.


I literally have no urge to watch this movie ever again.
 
Saw this today and it surprised me by how much I enjoyed it. I suspect a lot of the negativity comes from the strong anti-Bay sentiment a lot of people have. It seems people don't judge his films on their own merits. This had a lot of good in it worth mentioning but reviewers chose to not mention.

The strong anti-Bay sentiment is born from most of his films being terrible though. I'd say it's more likely that all the positivity toward the film comes from expectations being embarrassingly low (It wasn't as repulsive as ROTF!) or the individuals desire to overlook any and all flaws because 'hey, I saw Transformers on the big screen, so, I got what I paid for' or similar attitudes.
 
It blows my mind to see people here writing up essays in their posts attempting to defend Michael Bay like he's just another Hollywood film maker.
His name is synonymous with excessiveness in both action and T&A. It's undeniable.
You know what else is common knowledge? That people on the internet and fanboys in general love to hate all things bay, often times incessantly. Internet hate is synonymous with Bay and so forth… Blows my mind that anyone even entertains these people with discussion rather than just labeling them and blowing them off.

Sometimes it’s not about what's popular and 'synonymous'. Group think and complacency is hardly productive when it comes to getting to the truth of the matter. There is a list of artists/directors who had their stuff fall victim to such trappings only for the truth to later come out in the greater discussion. It doesn’t happen often but every now and then, not everyone agrees with the popular thought, let alone speaks their mind. Lastly, it's about side stepping the preconception and actually analyzing what's on screen in relation to what's on another screen as well as the separate and seemingly different reactions they've yielded, if everyone calls teen pop music bad and juvenile that doesn’t make it not worth discussing, no matter how hard it blows you mind. Asking people to actually defend their accusations and not just blend in with the popular shouting. Striving to criticize something for what it is, vs simply pushing some fickle progressive cause. Calling Django Racist vs actually criticizing the film itself. I mean who would defend a racist film after all. I mean just look at one of these posts, why are these robots designed with stuff they don't technically need? So when the character infusing character design in the Disney/Dreamworks/TRANFORMERS stuff isn't questioned.....but hey, popular thinking says Bay's designs are nonsensical so that's that. Whilst I sit here and ask the same question, where was this same questioning when the robots had this, that and the next thing(useless faces) in these other films exactly. Pouches….

It’s precisely because the filmmaker is synonymous with these things that the burden is even greater on the detractors to validate their criticism for if not they are easily accused of falling victim to the group/popular think.
 
Man, some people just love to hear themselves talk ...... gas bagging at every opportunity.
 
^I can't actually hear any of this. But thanks all the same. Decided to take a break from these parts, only to return to find a good amount of posts, many of which referencing me of all people. Thought it only considerate to offer some sort of acknowledgement as to their efforts.
You don't want a response don't post...
If you are taking the time to read all this, thanks I guess, if you're not, then what's it matter to you? Perhaps(and I assume) if my arguments were going the other way?

Yes, that's exactly what it was. Wolf of Wall Street works because a. it was a true story and that stuff actually happened, and b. at no point was it glamorized. It was abundantly clear that Belfort and his posse were disgusting, immoral, misogynistic, degenerate criminals who used and abused people, including women. If people found any of that "glamorous," then that's a problem with THEM and THEIR perspective, not the film. I certainly didn't find it glamorous, Belfort was a drug-addicted, wife-beating a-hole criminal, nothing more and nothing less. As for Bay, he objectives women purely for it's own sake. He cannot do a truly interesting or multi-dimensional female character. They're all just eye-candy to him.

Belfort and the rest of the male leads were as you say, were shown to be losers and disgusting. Not so different as the same circumstances that were presented in Pain & Gain, yet that didn't stop the same old bay criticisms from befalling the film. Even to the extent that one such pundit(Also works as a mod on the Hype) commented on what he supposes would have happened if the latter film had the director of the former film on it. Safe to say, he used the term American Classic. He’s probably not talking about double standards and group hate and such..that’s just a myth. Secondly, I never said the males of that film were ever shown to be glamorized. I said the prizes they pursued were; the houses were shown to be glamorous and glamorized, the women...Margot Robbie for example. Things the male and male gaze seek and lavish over. That's great that leo was painted the looser and got his come-uppins but her character was shot and held a specific way, even played the hero(ine), a good contrast to this very thing would be to look at the way Belfort's original wife was shot and held. When the story point is to validate the attention a character get’s often times directors play this up by way of visual story telling. Hot girls are hot in a hot way and the in film male attraction is grounded, same works the other way around.
Speaking of which, as for it being based on a true story, that isn't some blanket that than disqualifies analysis of the flim making. A person can shoot such a film with 'the leering evil depraved low angle slow motion oily' eye of michael bay or they could shoot the same film with a far more 'classy' matter of fact eye. Do you need **** every 20mins or the record for curse words on film to tell this same story or it is a choice susceptible to it's own analysis. There was someone here talking about Megan Fox supposedly not being comfortable with some of the shots she was asked to do in her two TF films(I assume this includes TF1 ((somehow)), and that being used to prove that such things are 'bad' and 'not good for women in hollywood' and 'sexism on a film set' and 'why she left' and 'because that's in fact supposedly why she left that validates the argument that it's sexist and because of all of that; it validates the hate...Well in this other film there is a women having crack snorted from ass all on camera and she seems to be enjoying herself. How does this woman feel about the treatment of women I wonder, how would megan fox feel about being asked to do that? Did it need to happen and does it have to be shot that way for the story to work? Ergo, why the cover of 'based on a true story' can only be used to hide a double standard of outrage so far when it comes to film making choices, especially when other films with that same cover don't(p&g). If it's in you to be disgusted by one such occurrence than consistency will only prove your point all the further rather than work against you. Being based on a true story doesn't change that people's ability to be consistent with what affects them. I don’t care what the film is based on. For example, I’m not a fan of rape on camera. It happening in a TF film or some true story leo movie is all the same, either don’t actually film it or just find some other way around it. But that’s me being consistent in how I feel about on film rape and my outrage.

As for your last part. You don't actually know what bay thinks of his women or women in general, any such assertion will be falling into a particular hole of short sightedness. Next we will surmise what Hitchock thinks of women and for who's own sake he does it for. Moreover, you say "he cannot do a truly interesting...", but he has...oh that's right, your subjective opinion. I read that part wrong. On the matter of opinion, in my opinion he has done interesting characters; for what someone finds interesting isn't the same as what another person finds interesting(I really dug BadBoys 1 in this regard and it was s buddy cop romp). All that being said, he's had plenty of women that fall into the criteria, but I suppose it's a matter of opinion now isn't it. It's also a matter of one's ability to read a film; For example, there seems to be people on this very page that measure these sort of things by how important a character is to a story...
 
Last edited:
I know you can't. Hence these everlasting novels you keep writing in support of your own brilliance.
The 'novels' actually work to support my own argument. Not so much my brilliance but I suppose we all see what we want to see, rather assert intent at our own discretion. That might explain why people are seeing all sorts of things in these films.

Not sure about you or everyone else, but I don't speak this stuff into some audio recording device, just saying. I also don't 'love to hear myself talk', I hate the sound of my voice actually. I do like to try and present my thoughts fully though, especially in retort. I'd have to ask would: "This movie sucks, this movie is sexist" or "No this movie is awesome, this movie isn't sexist" be more concise and to your approval around these parts? Cause I tend to stray away from that kinda thing. Just a thought Rock, but if you see a 'novel' you don't want to sludge through, you probably don't have to, not unless it says your name at the top.
 
The strong anti-Bay sentiment is born from most of his films being terrible though. I'd say it's more likely that all the positivity toward the film comes from expectations being embarrassingly low (It wasn't as repulsive as ROTF!) or the individuals desire to overlook any and all flaws because 'hey, I saw Transformers on the big screen, so, I got what I paid for' or similar attitudes.
You mean the fact she had a drag racing boyfriend allowed them to survive one of the action scenes? Other than that, the only role her character has is to be captured, allowing an excuse for her to overhear some information and help pull a sword out of Prime (which I guess he couldn't do himself?). To an extent, I suppose you're right in the sense that being given a perfunctory action beat or two is the only thing that really makes any character 'important' in this film. The rub is still that when you couple the general emptiness of the character with Bay's fetishistic filming you're going to run up against complaints of eye candy. Rightly so, I feel.
Getting what one pays for stems from respecting what it is that is intended. This sentiment is far more understood when people walk out of hit comedy films and some clown asks why there wasn't more character study and the goes on to explain why 'good films have character study and substance'. That's great and all but that's not actually what all 'good times' that people love are actually required to have. It works on different levels but that's actually where the 'what you paid for/expect' line of thinking is born.

As for all of someone's films being 'terrible' (to some yet at the same time enjoyed by the masses), none of that should interfere with one's ability to assess a film for it's own merits.
I suppose people do need to figure out how to discern the difference between analyzing a film for it's 'quality' and analyzing a film for it's 'effectiveness and enjoyability' for I'm not certain all artists see the two as one in the same. How could they given the audience reception time an again. I do find it odd how often people underplay just how much ROTF was enjoyed, regardless of what the numbers and followups suggest. It's just some common understanding that everyone found it horrible and repulsive and now those very same people(cause it was all of them) that hated it are pleased that this wasn't as bad. I personally think this may speak for some group of people but there is no doubt another(and another) group that simply finds it's positives in some consistent appreciation for the entertainment value present in the films. My aunt actually loves all these movies, she thinks they are a good time, always saddens me when some pundit tries to then clumsily explain as to why....Reminds me of when my teacher asked the young kids how they could possibly enjoy spending their summer fun in the theme parks when they could be traveling abroad and having a 'better good time'. Only to then imply some level of sophistication burden on said kids. That's the thing about entertainment and 'good times' that makes all this so silly to me. The inclusion of self important opinion. I happen to think most people agree, otherwise these two recent apes film would do and even be placed higher on peoples 'favorite' movie lists. 'Sadly' it's not simply about quality but rather how a film speaks to someone and the level of enjoyment it gives them. Once that basic principle is understood, all this becomes so much more simple to figure out imo.

As to this issue of character importance. Firstly, I’m not so sure the boyfriend was a drag racer, but on that, how many boyfriends have saved their girlfriends by way of their racing skills in the likes of these other car films? Seems like an odd distinction to base some accusation on imo. Replace ‘drag racing’ with jet/star fighting in that same sentence and see where that gets us(nowhere specific). Anyways, her actual significance far outweighed some bed side bond girl in the opening act of a film or some bikini laden beach girl that rides a horse into a scene to give the lead some folded message. Her importance actually lies in the fact that she is the full on motivator as to why the father does what he does. Not only from choosing to save her, yes as negative as people proclaim the damsel trope is when it applies to women(not men), it serves this point in that it elevates her beyond 'eye candy' like the mother and child in Apocalypto. She’s actually the reason as to why he works so hard to succeed and is who he is. There is the element of how hard the father works not only for her approval but to get her into college but her own efforts to that end, to the greater admission that she is in fact the matriarch of the house hold, to the scene where she herself chooses if the mission is to progress into china.. and lastly, her contribution to the 2nd/3rd act conflict resolution(I see now that contributing to action is also being spun into a neo criticism however), to the fact that she has a mind of her own and a sense of self fully conveyed on screen often times at odds with all the males presented(I'd list a hand full more things but supporting my argument with more evidence makes this posts long and seemingly takes away from said argument somehow). All of this contributing to the idea that she is more than simply ‘eye candy’ and nothing more. She wasn't given as much depth or as much to do as the lead but that has more to do with being a type of supporting character(see list of films in which supporting characters fall into this). To this end I disagree with the entire premise your post is built upon; If your brief analysis is what is leading to you dismiss her character, perhaps you need to revisit the film, it goes beyond 2 action beats and needing to be saved as you explained, she contributes a great deal more, more than say Widow in IM2 for (controversial)example, or the hot daughter from Taken or some Statham movie. If we take a moment to actually look at what’s in the film rather than the popular and ‘synonymous’ disregards we might get to the truth. Not all films are in their design are Saving Mr. Banks. There are different types. The stuff described here as it pertains to the majority of the TF series females seemingly falls into that of the Star Trek films female supporting, fast furious..etc. Yet it’s only here that it is deconstructed as is the trend. What’s fine and overlooked in those paradigms is seemingly a magnus talking point now.

Lastly:
Because Optimus couldn't pull out the sword himself? This is where I feel that people may have some sort of chip on their shoulder about this entire thing. How much more story telling did bay need to employ to validate this simple plot point. The sword was stuck, in the character and he wasn't in the position given the leverage and angle to pull it out without the help of say...a tow truck(they are kinda designed to pull things). It's basic cause and effect stuff there and would be even more evident if it were humans, yet still...it’s intent is undermined? It's like asking why didn't Stark just close the portal when it opened, he's pretty smart after all. Because he couldn't! “It’s like they were looking for something for her to do…” Another thing I suppose to chalk up to bays “fetishistic” filming, no doubt.
 
I was pleasantly surprised by this. I'm a lifelong TF fan, but post-DOTM, I was starting to get tired of Bay's take on the franchise. While liking the first three despite their various flaws, I was hoping for a complete reboot.

But AOE was a huge improvment for me. The Autobots got some decent characterization, Lockdown and even Attinger were decent villains, less military involvment, better human characters, and little-to-no bad humor.

If Bay can keep it up and not succumb to his dumber propensities, then TF5 may turn out to be pretty decent. They have a currently good set-up for it with Galvatron on the loose and whatever is going on with the creators. Which will undoubtedly turn out to the Quintessons.
 
That video you posted is exactly how Michael bay shoots his women. (And not at all how women are portrayed in marvel films) I can admit that in that video women are treated as sexual objects. You seem to realize this too. But how do you not realize this is a level beyond the average summer film? Maybe not wolf of wall street level, A&T, but still a level beyond the common pg13 action flick. Even James Bond is trying to downplay sexuality of the franchise in its recent releases. Why? Because of public outcry. People have been whining about how women are portrayed in those films since they started. Bay isn't singled out here at all. You just have selective hearing, it seems. You could make a montage like this for bay films, but try for other series, like batman, planet of the apes, the hobbit, and star wars. All action blockbusters in the vein of the transformers series. You can't, because it's not there. Star track 2 had that ONE scene, and it was gratuitous enough that people complained. However it's quantity was limited to one, where as bay has a trademark style for filming women sexually. That's the difference.

Fast and furious is the only action franchise I'm aware of that doesn't get vocal flack from its fan base for the way women or shown. The difference being that that franchise started from scratch with a sexual undertone. Transformers had over 20 years of a fan base inherited FROM TOYS AND KIDS SHOWS. Do you see why, considering it's following, it's less appropriate to have this much sexuality infused in the way women are shown?

I actually can't "admit" that women are treated as anything in that video, it’s actually pretty much common place in our media(comicbooks/music/tv), more importantly, I’ve seen men and women carried about as such all over the place, If I were to actually have some major problem with this(sexualization if you will) then I would no doubt raise it at every turn for I actually try to be consistent in my measure of ‘crossing the line’. I mostly look at things contextually: ex, girls at a car show or girls in a strip club speaks more to accuracy imo, girl walking around in bikini’s happens on the beach all the time..etc. All I said is that there is far more of it here, than in any of these TF movies, particularly the latest one. I'm glad you finally did change this line of discussion though. Now that it’s (finally) been conceded that this stuff exists outside of bay films, it's a matter of rationalizing the rhetoric as to why Bay gets more slack than any of these other things, which is always where things get fickle and fun. Especially on the issue of ‘no other directors being praised where bay is being faulted’ in and of itself.
On a side note, I actually could see a similar sexualized montage made for the IM films, it might not be as long as the fast/furious one but then again, it only has 3 films to pilfer from. The fact that I could make one is the issue I’m point out here. From widow slinking around in skin tights to the stripper poles and stage girls bending over in stage clothes to sports bras and cleavage and legs and so on. Wouldn’t be too hard. Safe to say I’d imagine if you sat and watched this particular youtuber deconstruct said film, you’d likely find youself in a similar position as my self in the present scenario. [YT]oDhbKh3H5uI[/YT]I would however point out the irony as well as the basic understanding that none of these films are actually ‘exempt’ but rather some line in the sand is being drawn and then explained by way of ‘frequency and amplitude and low angle’ acceptability…I mostly find it all hypocritical to be honest. One that works best with fickle opinion and preference vs some declaration of the truth.(I would at that this same user goes on to deconstruct various other works including Whedon, worth a watch if for it might give some other opinion on this so called consensus).

Bond
As for Bond, sorry but I've mostly only seen bond girls celebrated in our culture, when some leading/supporting actress gets herself cast it’s bells and whistles and “she was a great bond girl, and when I was a young girl I always wanted but never dreamed this would actually happen to me…”. The first(Ursula) reaping unrivalled fame in her pantheon for such things. Public outcry is the last thing I've seen pertaining to Bond, ESPECIALLY from the fan boy/forum community. You say they've decidedly toned it down due to out cry? Where on earth will I find these articles or conversation, I'm pretty keen on following it. Furthermore, I personally haven’t seen any difference in the sexualization of women in the series. I mean all the things pointed out about bay movies(close up of legs? Slow motion? Undearwear?) are still very much prensent in every single one of these things, topped off with being used as conquest/sex objects by the lead only to be discarded…the character of M being made the main bond girl was perhaps the most progressive turn in recent history. But even in that film they couldn’t escape their usual trappings and in my opinion just depowered what used to be a more ‘power wielding’ character though it added some levels. There has been in change in the ‘bond girls’ but it’s one of becoming more ‘capable and kick ass’. That’s not only been around since the 90’s but it’s also very much a staple of the bay films.

Magazine links
“US Weekly” is a gossip column/tabloid. I assume most things I encounter in the grocery aisle are, their editorials mainly exists in the agenda of pushing some sort of falling out or juiciest controversy in premise. Next we’ll be hearing from the Enquirer as to why Edgar Wright actually left Marvel. That being said, her cheating on her then boyfriend, now husband doesn’t actually address the content we were discussing about what he said, it simply speculates that she cheated. It aslo has little to do with why fox left which was the actual topic of discussion(see she went on to do more of the same(worse even)). However, this insight by shia is very much an opinion of who the he thinks the visuals most appeals to having watched the films himself. Given the TF films as well as the characters are formulated around “16/boys” his words seem pretty loaded. Bay shoots his women/cars/muscles/explosions in the same way, that of lavish commercial and designed to appeal, but given the context of this discussion…’women& 16 year old boys”. It’s like of someone asked shia to describe who the women are shot to appeal to in a bond movie…Or if he was questioned on just whom black widow was(very obviously) shot to appeal to? He’d mention ‘male’ followed by age. Doesn’t speak to anything imo.

Inherited Audience
That last bit about why it's it's acceptable in the fast flims and not in the TF flims is the final bit I was expecting to hear. It speaks to an entire can of worms. To answer your question, I don't understand it, no. When it comes to adding 'new' elements to an adaptation I'm of the mind that said entry should be taken on it's own merits and with minimal preconception(if at all). You speak of the 20 years of kids this film inherits and is then responsible to/for? What about the many more years of kids inherited by the Xmen and Batman 60’s/cartoons that are now being exposed to all sorts of language and mature themes and blood and death and role models smoking..etc. This realm of actual responsibility goes out the window in the face of the mpaa rating and parental discretion. All those kids holding yellow costumed TAS wolverine toys don’t dictate what is appropriate in those films. And neither do the kids here. It’s a double standard to evoke them in one instance so fervently and completely discard the issue in another. If an Xmen book is released and it says 18plus on the corner, then all this talk of responsibility to the kids goes out the window and the actual rating for the material in hand takes precedence as it pertains to the material in hand. All these films with their regulated ratings do just that and should be judged in that paradigm. Lest you find yourself criticizing Nolan for getting too dark/heavy/violent for all the Adam West fans he has inherited. That being said, who knew this entire time you and yours weren't actually talking about the way bay 'treats' women and how that offends you; but rather that(this entire time) it was you speaking for others and about how it's not appropriate for the 20 year fanbase of children. I thought ‘you’ were offended. And yes, I can understand why some people are having a hard time with this, that doesn’t change the idea that I think they are wrong.

Lastly, It’s like every time I meet one of your criteria you come up with a new one. Clearly I don’t agree with your excuses for the former(Fast/Bond) and simply see it as a way of rationalizing your own definition of sexualization and objectification of the woman, but instead of the back an forth on that. Looking to the next entry that challenges your criteria. I assume you’ve seen these latest GI Joe movies? The pg13 ones based on 80’s kids toy commercial? Was the sexualization present in them more or less than that of the ‘Bay Standard’. I’m referring to things like the Baroness and her endless cleavage and slow motion and legs and sexuality and more recently(and particularly) Lady Jaye? http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/palicki-gijoe-retaliation-topless.jpg, http://s1.dmcdn.net/BRXnc/526x297-wYo.jpg, these specifically speak to your point about the inherited audience clause. Even though I personally didn’t see a lick of outrage about such things in the Joe discussions/threads/or even reviews, I’m going to assume you(and yours) did for it’s not like there is some sort inconsistent double standard thing worth pointing out. However, I’m speaking beyond that, I’m speaking as to how her use was taken as a talking point, for it’s not our own fickle opinions and preference we are really discussing but rather whether this stuff is or isn’t offensive and inappropriate for the innocent 20 years of children. These same children often exposed to the sexualization of the female form in beast wars on several occasions mind you.
You say that Bay isn't singled out and I just have selective hearing? Try, looking through the forum discussions for all 3 of these films, particularly the negative ones posts for those seem to be the ones prone to fixate on things they do, or want to hate. My hearing's just fine.
 
@ Scatterax

This issue of giving things a ‘pass’. Allow me to be very specific and speak to you or at least my assumptions as they pertain to you. I assume you are fan of Naruto given your choice in avatar here(could be wrong). Given I personally encountered the animation on Cartoon Network of all places; Unless all the lechery, sexuality(see legs and supersized cleavage and boogers shooting out of nose male gaze) nudity(however implied), sexy no jitsu , innuendo of that animated children’s programming is also to come under this same level of fire, by this same level of people…I imagine you see where I’m going with this. Why is it someone that is ok with celebrated children’s programming containing such things in one instance yet fully against a such things in a far less capacity in another(another that happens to be even harder for children to access imo)? I find that slightly odd into itself. Which brings me to another analogy as it pertains to giving of a pass and selective outrage. If someone were to come down hard on Naruto for these things because say; ‘these things not only bother them personally but it’s simply not appropriate for children’s programming and thus it stinks’. Ok that seems like a noble cause, however overstated but sure. So then when I ask this same person if they have any issue at all with the likes of most other anime/manga(bleach) of this nature particularly the that of Dragon Ball which contained if not god fathered the very same things in some form or another and this person then starts to talk about how it’s not at all comparable(the camera isn’t low enough, it’s not the same quantity)….Right. It’s not about giving something a pass because “it’s hardly the first time this nonsense has happened,” no it’s far too late for that. It’s about getting to the root of the double standard. It’s about calling out hypocrisy in the here and now and asking you to explain yourself cause I wasn’t there to question you the last time. It’s also about questioning what it is in fact that actually bothers you. It’s about a lingering suspicion that either you are in fact fine with this stuff and you just have some greater bone to pick with the one you choose to rag on, or you really do have a problem with this stuff by only choose now to come out with it because you wanted to give the prior ones a pass due to some agenda. In both cases hypocrisy as it pertains to art criticism is an issue for me personally, especially when it’s so loud and common, clearly not an issue for everyone.

To that end.
I personally thought the ‘my face is my warrant’ line pretty funny. It was a joke at the cost of our gov’t services(something bay does time and again). Does this film have to be called fast 5 and the line be coming from a caricature like Hobbs himself before it’s seen in it’s proper context? Or does this level of caricature only bother people in certain films and not othe…...
 
Last edited:
I was pleasantly surprised by this. I'm a lifelong TF fan, but post-DOTM, I was starting to get tired of Bay's take on the franchise. While liking the first three despite their various flaws, I was hoping for a complete reboot.

But AOE was a huge improvment for me. The Autobots got some decent characterization, Lockdown and even Attinger were decent villains, less military involvment, better human characters, and little-to-no bad humor.

If Bay can keep it up and not succumb to his dumber propensities, then TF5 may turn out to be pretty decent. They have a currently good set-up for it with Galvatron on the loose and whatever is going on with the creators. Which will undoubtedly turn out to the Quintessons.
I too was hoping bay would leave after the trilogy. I can't see him doing another. Though TF with bay is pretty much the surest best Paramount has going right now.

Trek, Joe, Turtles and even mission impossible aren't really sure bets. And as much WW money as TF get's it's domestic will continue to dip, even moreso without the bay name. At first anyways.
 
[YT]bEg9y9QliXc[/YT]
To follow up on a previous point, here's yet another gratuitous T&A shot in a MCU film, this from a director (James Gunn) with a documented track record of explicit misogyny.

Somehow, I suspect that many of the people who claim they hated T4 due to its depiction of women will love GoTG, and will in fact deny that the image caption of the linked youtube video (Zoe Saldana zipping her top showing cleavage) is in any way gratuitous.

Clearly, very few scifi blockbuster fans actually hate the TF movies due to their excess and their portrayal of women. They hate them for other reasons (perhaps to be fashionable) and then flatter themselves with dishonest progressive justifications.
 
Last edited:
Before I post my review I would like to say I walked in with a huge open mind but I'd like to point out some things about me. Firstly I was never a fan of the toys or the cartoon, I'm a 90's kid and FOX Kid's Marvel cartoons were all the rage as was pokemon in the late 90's.
What I liked

The action was pretty good. Bay knows how to direct action and explosions. Slo-mo helps you absorb the action which there is alot of it, it's not needed like how Singer or Webb used it in their films to show a character's powers (Quicksilver's superspeed or Spider-Man's Spider-Sense) it still works.

Mark Wahlberg is good. He's funny and I liked his character

The story is pretty good with human's using the Alien technology

Visuals, The robots looked awesome, particularly the Dinobots

Some humour and that rich guy trying to use the Alien Tech
What I didn't like

The Soundtrack, kinda forgettable

The female lead. The daughter is poorly written. Stupid stuff like when they are on the rope getting off the spaceship and mid-way she wants to turn back.

Character Development. Outside of Mark Wahlberg's character there is not much of it. The Irish Boyfriend is never really fleshed out.

The Action is like fireworks, cool to watch but draggs on.

Mechanic's death. It was pretty bad. Not really emotional and poorly acted

Verdict:
This film is much like Bay's female leads, nice to look at and at times fun to be around but they lack personality and can be kinda annoying to be around. I give this 4/10, it's better
as it knows what it is.
Should I see it?
I always encourage people to make up their own minds. I wouldn't recommend this at all if like me you like some drama or character development in your popcorn movies as Bay does little to get you excited about Robot A fighting Robot B. However, if your really into CGI or if your in the mood for dumb fun then go see it.
 
Zack Snyder, he's like Michael Bay 2.0

He's busy and he's not like Michael Bay at all. There is no glorification of the US military in Snyders films, and Snyder's visual focus is on the individual shot wheras Bay's focus is on motion. Snyder desaturates the colour in his movies, Bay supersaturates the colour in his movies.

If Snyder was like Bay he would have cast Alexandra Daddario rather than Amy Adams to play Lois Lane.

Snyder's movies have ambiguous victories, Bay's movies have total victories.
 
Snyder is a much better film maker than Bay. Modern Bay anyway.
 
He's busy and he's not like Michael Bay at all. There is no glorification of the US military in Snyders films, and Snyder's visual focus is on the individual shot wheras Bay's focus is on motion. Snyder desaturates the colour in his movies, Bay supersaturates the colour in his movies.

If Snyder was like Bay he would have cast Alexandra Daddario rather than Amy Adams to play Lois Lane.

Snyder's movies have ambiguous victories, Bay's movies have total victories.

I was half joking. The Snyder comparisons come from the jokes about MOS's third act being from a Transformers movie.

Snyder does style over substance, kinda like Bay. I wouldn't mind a darker film for 5 and Snyder could do that.
 
Thing is Snyder does go for substance. It's just a lot of the time he fails to communicate what he's going for properly. The execution can be lacking.

Sucker Punch is the biggest example. In the interviews prior to release he gives all this lip service about how it's a female empowerment film and all this... then the film itself has these girls dressed up in blatant sex fantasy outfits taking orders from a man.

Man of Steel did the same with the Codex and the genetically created Kryptonians. He explained what they mean in interviews etc... but i shouldn't have to see an interview with the film maker to grasp his half baked concepts.

But Bay? He has no intention of doing anything intelligent or deep with his TF films. He just panders to horny 14 year olds and dudebros whilst having ludicrous action scenes and broadstroke characterization.
 
.
But Bay? He has no intention of doing anything intelligent or deep with his TF films. He just panders to horny 14 year olds and dudebros whilst having ludicrous action scenes and broadstroke characterization.
Actually there is plenty of undertone and allegory to find in the TF films when people want to talk about things they don't like. Particularly foreign policy(see TF3) and jingoism, industry..etc. What's being missed here(as usual) is intent. Not every director intends to make deep intelligent films and double meaning with each go. Sometimes they simply intend to make good times, sometimes they make buddy cop films...

Sometimes they make the Island, in which they intend to make something more.

Not every (good) film wants to be and or is about 'something' more than it is. ID4 was mostly about being fun and lucrative and basic('family') and it succeeded at that. GoG will no doubt be similar imo. And you're right, one shouldn't have to see interviews to get at the mean and allusions in films, one should be able to discern those things themselves. Some people like to blame films and directors for this short coming, others blame their own abilities.
 
About Lois Lane, i think he made her very interchangeable and much more generic than the character usualy is in The Man of Steel, i won't deny that Snyder is a feminist though, but he's not very good at executing his themes properly, i know what he was going for in Sucker Punch, but it had the opposite effect he intented it to have.

As for a replacement Director for Bay, i just hope they hire someone capable and with an interesting vision, probably thinking outside the box like when the likes of Del Toro, Cuaron or Refn were brought to Hollywood, or even hire someone who has proven himself in the past, like the guy who made District 9, instead of going with Michael Bay copy/ yes-man like Liebesman.
 
Last edited:
I don't know how Bay does it but these continue to get worse.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,481
Messages
21,737,387
Members
45,566
Latest member
Cap2024
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"