i think it shows a large disconnect between critics and the GA. In all actuality I think the idea of a critic is the most stupid idea we ever came up with. Are we that lazy that we cant find out if we like a movie or a resturant that we need someone else to tell us?
In 1988 Eastwood directed BIRD (about Jazz musician Charlie Parker) starring Forrest Whitaker and a supporting cast that was 98% black as well, not to mention LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA a World War 2 movie in 2006 which depicted the Japanese side in it's entirety.
I actually liked bird, can't believe I forgot about that.
all I know of flags of our fathers and letters is that they have a controversial lack of african americans according to spike lee
but i guess those are two for clint.
And there is room for pro-America interpretations onscreen. I just ponder why they always have to be simple-minded Superhero fantasies where characters don't convincingly come across as 'real' in any shape or form. He depicts flawless, morally or physically, people overcoming odds whereas better directors (like Spielberg or even Tim Burton) gives us actual human beings (with flaws and all) we recognise.
at it's conception the hollywood industry was built on the idea of Escapism, in fact when the markets are down and or in recession the film industry tends to do well, mainly due to the idea that it's fueled directly by people that sit in theater seats (the system is different from say how TV money works) and those people more often then not watch films to escape the sad reality of life, that's just something to think about
more to the point, when the idea of relatability comes into the equation, I'm sure when the contemporary African American audience is not relating to Denzel being Denzel they or Jordy Lafordge being Kunta Kenteh, they are relating to the buddy cop mentality of will and martin.
In fact I was in a barber shop once(yes they do exist) and BB2 just came out and all everyone was talking about was how they felt Martins character did exactly what they all wanted to do when a young man showed up to date their daughters or how empowering Will's character is as a "brother" of action.
no doubt more recognizable to the average black ticket buyer than say Othello or even Morpheus.
perhaps if the film played out more like boys in the hood, which is great for people to watch a depressing film about where they live, but why can't they watch that on saturday and then some good old escapism on sunday?
bays movies are just an alternative yet it seems their very existence is a sin, for people should only have one choice when they go to their local cinemas...
And at the end of the day why should I praise Bay for doing stuff that panders to the audience too easily? A summer blockbuster doesn't have to be 'deep' to create characters and situations your audience will emotionally invest in but it sure as hell doesn't need to be that formulaic or dumb. The latter approach leads to BATMAN AND ROBIN, the former approach gave us RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, BACK TO THE FUTURE, DIE HARD etc.
humor is an emotion is it not, not all emotional investment need be of the dramatic kind, that being said bays films will get an emotional response out of it's audience.
moreover the cheesy romance, in armageddon for example, gets the women every time.
I do find myself agreeing with the last part of what you said, however it's misguided, Armageddon for example, is less batman and robin then wille e cayote john mc clain surviving a falling anvil with each new scene.
for all the people that knock the improbability of again armageddon, Back to the future confuses itself not only with too many twists of time the the plot relies on, but just the fact that it's insanely far fetched
but hey, maybe it's just so well done that the audience doesn't notice
or perhaps its' just that pesky double standard that reers it's ugly head whenever bays name appears on the title credits.
We could argue about what is more or less childish all day. My point is that excusing bad storytelling on its source is a cop out. And its not like this story was destined to be bad because of its source. I liked the first TF despite its flaws. This movie was just poorly done. And its sad, because I could see that there was a good story in there, Bay just had to Bayify a little too much.
I agree that this movie has flaws the previous one didn't(and vice versa) it also has strengths the previous one doesn't even come close to
for example Joseph campbells esteemed model for story structure, whens the last time any transformers property attempted such.
as far as excusing bad story telling on source material;
if a sponge bob square pants live action film is ever to be made, it better damn well be as dumb as the original material
...and i'm sure if bay is involved in any way, he will be blamed for how "dumb" it all is.
I find no one really takes intent into question when it comes to bays work
I mean if you apply the same line of thinking towards another film it would be silly
for example could you imagine reviews for Rush hour 2 read, rather never seems to take time to really humanize the characters, moreover carter and lee are the exact same people they were in the previous film except in a new location. Why does rather keep missing opportunities for drama by having physical comedy take over the scenes. The film isn't funny, and the just are 50% racist towards asians
meh
Yes, I think X2 as a standalone would work, maybe not for Storm because she didnt get much to do, but the rest of the returning characters, sure. And X2 illustrates my point perfectly, because not only does the original cast get built upon, the new characters do as well. Nightcrawler was awesome, Pyro and Iceman get tons more screen presence, and Stryker is a nasty SOB. The one new character that arguably sucked in that movie was Deathstrike, and thats for the same reason most of the robots sucked in RotF; no type of character development, only used as an obstacle.
And to further my point, we can move into X3 and Wolverine, which most people think are the weakest of the X movies. Most of the new characters in those movies get no great development, ie: Multiple Man, Spike, Archlight, Colossus (who is my favorite X Man, so its a shame), Blob, Will.i.am, that dude who could make lightbulbs light, Deadpool, Agent 0 (I think thats his name), and one could argue Juggernaut and Callisto as well.
I agree, however the reason I mentioned xmen was simply to point out that when you have an ensemble, there are characters that will suffer due to time
transformers, tho it doesn't give as much to as many characters, cannot be said to not give plenty to key characters, in fact it's very focused in that sense. Lets face it the movie is about 3 people (with many more arching) and it makes no false claims to be any thing else.
Jetfire I could agree that he was the best new Autobot, but even his portrayal is highly lacking. And like the rest of the new Autobots that get any significant screen time, he was nothing more than a caricature.
again, the movie wasn't about them, that's like complaining about all those little kids running around the X mansion not having any real lines or development, but of course with the pretty images this film has teased us with, we're dying for it.
Well, in my opinion, they do nothing with its core characters. Ironhide is barely used, Ratchet I think has literally one line of dialogue, Bumblebee not talking really hinders any type of real development, and Optimus, who is the biggest element of the movie, is dead for half of it. That only leaves Sam and Mikaela, and I guess Simmons.
what matters is that the characters that are needed to move the story along are functional
this wasn't their movie, just as X2 wasn't about cyclops(for some reason) and superman returns isn't about martha kent
And I dont want just more Autobots. I just want to care about(MORE OF) the characters. If they would have given Bumblebee a voice and had some real character interaction instead of just kind of being around, and substituted Brick and Brack with any combination of any of the other Autobots, AND made the Fallen a serious threat, I would have been content.
I want wesley snipes out of jail immediately, maybe if i knock on this film hard enough I'll get what I want as well
-point being, those are nice things to want but not necessarily objective or even subjective flaws with the given film.
evidently enough, that's more then enough to have most forum personalities give the film a bad review.
(for example for all his lack of "development" if bee died the audience would care)
The target audience isnt 8 year olds. The target audience has a wide range. Its PG13. If anything, the target audience would be late teens, early twenties. But they also want to get people who grew up with TFs, which could range up to mid-thirties, and people older who just want a popcorn flick.
there are elements in said film for someone 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15..maybe not 16, but definitely 17, 18, 19-28, 29, 30, 31(g1 fanboyman), 33...etc
something for everyone, that's the films weakness and it's strength, TDK alienated alot of children that went to see the new batman flim none the less..TF doesn't have the luxury, if bay was told to make the film for 24 year olds and that's it, it would probably still be "dumb and fun" but you can bet your ass the twins would be gone.
point being, don't be selfish, we're lucky we're getting the film at all, I think we should be able to deal with it having something the kids can grab complete hold of somewhere in there.
And you cant say TF wouldnt have been successful under Nolan. Thats impossible to know. But Im convinced a better story wouldnt have hurt the success of TF either.
I'm sure nolan would have "written" a better story and that probably wouldn't have hurt the success however,
it's been said this film is nothing but for it's visuals,
that's the biggest compliment bay can get (cgi work aside) for that's his skill set selling the movie.
flawless cinematography, it only a film like superman could have scenes packed with such a sense of compsition and visual story, the sense of wonder present in some of these very shots is also present in (more the first) the TF movies, that's what bay brings to this film and what he does better than most "directors" in the biz
[YT]NpP2GL7c4bA[/YT]
and nolan isn't a visualist, not yet
but who knows maybe story over visuals would garner more box office in the case of transformers
i think it shows a large disconnect between critics and the GA. In all actuality I think the idea of a critic is the most stupid idea we ever came up with. Are we that lazy that we cant find out if we like a movie or a resturant that we need someone else to tell us?
I like critics to be honest, and normally, I agree with them, but this year especially I have found myself disagreeing with them more and more. Empire and Total Film are the only ones i'll listen to mostly.
Most people do need someone else to tell them what to like. It's not lazy, it's just poor self esteem on our end. If a bunch of other ****ers like it and we don't, we feel odd.
Most people do need someone else to tell them what to like. It's not lazy, it's just poor self esteem on our end. If a bunch of other ****ers like it and we don't, we feel odd.
I dont really to be honest, I have liked many movies that get a hard time on here, ROTF is just the latest, I like what I like and thats it. Of course I do like when others like the same movies as well.
I agree that this movie has flaws the previous one didn't(and vice versa) it also has strengths the previous one doesn't even come close to
for example Joseph campbells esteemed model for story structure, whens the last time any transformers property attempted such.
as far as excusing bad story telling on source material;
if a sponge bob square pants live action film is ever to be made, it better damn well be as dumb as the original material
...and i'm sure if bay is involved in any way, he will be blamed for how "dumb" it all is.
I find no one really takes intent into question when it comes to bays work
I mean if you apply the same line of thinking towards another film it would be silly
for example could you imagine reviews for Rush hour 2 read, rather never seems to take time to really humanize the characters, moreover carter and lee are the exact same people they were in the previous film except in a new location. Why does rather keep missing opportunities for drama by having physical comedy take over the scenes. The film isn't funny, and the just are 50% racist towards asians
meh
I agree, however the reason I mentioned xmen was simply to point out that when you have an ensemble, there are characters that will suffer due to time
transformers, tho it doesn't give as much to as many characters, cannot be said to not give plenty to key characters, in fact it's very focused in that sense. Lets face it the movie is about 3 people (with many more arching) and it makes no false claims to be any thing else.
again, the movie wasn't about them, that's like complaining about all those little kids running around the X mansion not having any real lines or development, but of course with the pretty images this film has teased us with, we're dying for it.
what matters is that the characters that are needed to move the story along are functional
this wasn't their movie, just as X2 wasn't about cyclops(for some reason) and superman returns isn't about martha kent
that's nice
I want wesley snipes out of jail immediately, maybe if i knock on this film hard enough I'll get what I want as well
-point being, those are nice things to want but not necessarily objective or even subjective flaws with the given film.
evidently enough, that's more then enough to have most forum personalities give the film a bad review.
(for example for all his lack of "development" if bee died the audience would care)
there are elements in said film for someone 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15..maybe not 16, but definitely 17, 18, 19-28, 29, 30, 31(g1 fanboyman), 33...etc
something for everyone, that's the films weakness and it's strength, TDK alienated alot of children that went to see the new batman flim none the less..TF doesn't have the luxury, if bay was told to make the film for 24 year olds and that's it, it would probably still be "dumb and fun" but you can bet your ass the twins would be gone.
point being, don't be selfish, we're lucky we're getting the film at all, I think we should be able to deal with it having something the kids can grab complete hold of somewhere in there.
you're right i can't say that
I'm sure nolan would have "written" a better story and that probably wouldn't have hurt the success however,
it's been said this film is nothing but for it's visuals,
that's the biggest compliment bay can get (cgi work aside) for that's his skill set selling the movie.
flawless cinematography, it only a film like superman could have scenes packed with such a sense of compsition and visual story, the sense of wonder present in some of these very shots is also present in (more the first) the TF movies, that's what bay brings to this film and what he does better than most "directors" in the biz
and nolan isn't a visualist, not yet
but who knows maybe story over visuals would garner more box office in the case of transformers
You cant compare Sponge Bob with TF. Sponge Bob is supposed to be a comedy. Even Rush Hour is supposed to be an action comedy, whereas TF is an action movie with humor thrown in.
Ive never questioned the intent; I know its supposed to be a special effects laden summer extravaganza. My argument is that doesnt excuse what I see as sloppy story telling. And people do apply the same line of thinking to other movies. People generally hated Daredevil and Catwoman.
Once again, your X-Men example falls short. No one cares about the kids running around in the mansion. A closer analogy would be if the X-Men movies focused mostly on Senator Kelly and his quest to past anti-mutant legislation, and the X-Men were regulated to nothing more than extended cameos.
RotF isnt about 3 people. If anything, its supposed to expand on the story of a boy and his car. Regardless, the fact that the movie is named Transformers, that alone is a claim that the movie is, in fact, supposed to be about Transformers, not Sam, his girlfriend, and annoying roommate that he just met.
I know my wanting something doesnt mean Im going to get it, or even change RotF. Im just saying that three simple, and in my mind, obvious, changes in the movie would have made this movie, for me anyways, a high 8 or 9 out of ten instead of the low 6 that I gave it. And I disagree. I think the only reason people would care about Bumblebee dying in this movie is because of the attachments made in the first one. It was a sad scene when S7 caught BB because of the development of the character in that movie. If you went into RotF without ever seeing the first one, and BB died, I dont think it would have had much of an impact.
You were the one that suggested that RotF was targeted to 8 year olds. I realize its supposed to appeal to a range of people. And I dont think TDK alienated any children. If I was 8, I would have loved it. I was 9 when Burtons Batman came out, and I loved that. That movie was a big deal to us despite its dark mature nature. And Im not being selfish. I have no doubt kids would love RotF based solely on the fact that its about large transforming robots. I would have. BTW, the twins werent aimed at 8 year olds. Characters that call people *****es arent made for children. They were clearly aimed for the teenage MTV demographic.
And I agree, visually RotF is great. However, I dont think it was as good as the first, so even on that level, it was still inferior to the movie that came before it.
You obviously feel that the story was adequate enough. I dont. So I guess well have to agree to disagree.
You can’t compare Sponge Bob with TF. Sponge Bob is supposed to be a comedy. Even Rush Hour is supposed to be an action comedy, whereas TF is an action movie with humor thrown in.
at what point is the difference set because as an action comedy TF is wonderful.
thus the term "walking in with your brain turned off and getting what you expect"
every one I see knocking this films story elements are putting the film in a category it and bay never claim to be in and then scoring it based on those terms.
sure it would have been better as a straight genre actioner, but it's not, be upset about that, but don't act like it fails at doing what it sets out to do.
(besides had it been played straight it was have done so so)
lastly
it's not just that the visual are good,
it's that for all the credit we give directors for "directing" good scripts and actors
TF is a mega success due soley to the fact (and many critics would agree) that it's pretty and kinetic
well if that's all bay is good at, that kinda implies that the film made $200 mill in five days due to him
Bay's good at what he does. His stories are not necessarily "Oscar-worthy" material, but they suffice so he can do what he does best: Make big action movies.
Btw, I'm one of the few who really liked Daredevil (especially the Director's Cut). It's one of my favs. Then again, I'm not a Daredevil comic book fan, so I'm sure the things that people hated about it don't really bother me.
So for now it looks like Ice Age and Transformers are in a dead heat with 43mil. It's going to be interesting to see who comes out ahead in the final estimates and final numbers.
I dont really to be honest, I have liked many movies that get a hard time on here, ROTF is just the latest, I like what I like and thats it. Of course I do like when others like the same movies as well.
Bay's good at what he does. His stories are not necessarily "Oscar-worthy" material, but they suffice so he can do what he does best: Make big action movies.
Btw, I'm one of the few who really liked Daredevil (especially the Director's Cut). It's one of my favs. Then again, I'm not a Daredevil comic book fan, so I'm sure the things that people hated about it don't really bother me.
people know, there's just more going on here
in fact like my sig says, it's only in their diminishing of TF2 that they finally acknowledge any of the story elements and sense of wonder that they made little mention of back in 2007
if bay did a rush hour film, it would not be reviewed as a buddy cop comedy/fun time
how do I know?
I read all the reviews for the bad boys films
TF is a fun film, some people don't want that
however, box office would have you believe otherwise
at what point is the difference set because as an action comedy TF is wonderful.
thus the term "walking in with your brain turned off and getting what you expect"
every one I see knocking this films story elements are putting the film in a category it and bay never claim to be in and then scoring it based on those terms.
sure it would have been better as a straight genre actioner, but it's not, be upset about that, but don't act like it fails at doing what it sets out to do.
(besides had it been played straight it was have done so so)
lastly
it's not just that the visual are good,
it's that for all the credit we give directors for "directing" good scripts and actors
TF is a mega success due soley to the fact (and many critics would agree) that it's pretty and kinetic
well if that's all bay is good at, that kinda implies that the film made $200 mill in five days due to him
Obviously, everybody will have a different opinion on the action/comedy perspective. I would argue that TF wasn't advertised as an action comedy, unlike Rush Hour. You wouldn't say X-Men or TDK were action comedies despite humor being added into the movie. And you wouldn't say movies like Hot Shots were action comedies despite having action elements in the film.
And nobody is knocking the movie because of the humor, they are knocking the movie because of the BAD humor, but of course this is subjective as well.
people know, there's just more going on here
in fact like my sig says, it's only in their diminishing of TF2 that they finally acknowledge any of the story elements and sense of wonder that they made little mention of back in 2007
if bay did a rush hour film, it would not be reviewed as a buddy cop comedy/fun time
how do I know?
I read all the reviews for the bad boys films
TF is a fun film, some people don't want that
however, box office would have you believe otherwise
I think you are putting opinions into other people's words. Nobody want's TF to be humorless or unfun.
And who are these people that you are talking about that are finally realizing the good in TF1 because of TF2? Yes, there were people hating TF1 back then, but it was very few compared to now. Even the critics were generally positive even though they bashed the story.
And if your theory about if Bay did Rush Hour was true, maybe it's because while Bay is good at action shots, he sucks has a comedy director. I've never seen Bad Boys, so I can't comment on that movie.
A 61% drop isn't terrible but it's nothing to be proud of. The first film didn't suffer a dropoff this large. It's pretty obvious that the general audience didn't enjoy the sequel as much as the original.
I personally, enjoyed the movie for what it was but, it could have been a lot better without the annoying twins, a better script, and more screen time for the other autobots. I hope Bay does not come back for the sequel because I'm very concerned about the direction of this franchise.
Below is an article that had me wary about Bay after seeing the first transformers movie. I got the impression Micheal didn't give a rat's ass about what the fanboys thought after reading it. Unfortunately, the success of the first movie probably influenced Paramount to give too much control to Micheal this time around.
WTF!? A 61% drop off first off is as you said, alright...but from a first week gross of over 200 million and a first weekend gross of 108 million, which is still massive, that is still very good.
The first film only opened with 70 million and therefore didn't have a huge drop off because not very many people wanted to see it the first weekend. The general audience loved this film, hence the huge freaking numbers and this weekend once again shows that they are seeing it more than once.
Not saying this film didn't have flaws, which it does, but to say the general audience didn't like this when it will make 300 million in two weeks and it beat a new animated movie, Ice Age 3, is an incorrect assumption and an incorrect statement.
People are just splitting hairs when it comes to the box office now. If it makes a few hundred mil in a week, it still sucks because it doesn't have "legs" like TDK did, even if they both come out making the same amount. Whether a flick makes all its money being frontloaded or from longevity don't matter, the studio is the one getting the cash.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
) and superman returns isn't about martha kent
I liked TF2. 
Whether a flick makes all its money being frontloaded or from longevity don't matter, the studio is the one getting the cash.
