Revenge of the Fallen Transformers: ROTF User Review Thread

[The Lizard]

DISCLAIMER: I'm pretty sure being I'm trolled here. Marvin is being purposefully obtuse and pseudo-condescending to keep me on a roll. But whatever, here we go...

if you see me writing the same thing over and over it's probably in response to something.

Or maybe just you taking refuge in a state of denial, eh?

how fitting you bring this term up in a direct response to my calling you out on such things

can't say I'm surprised.

So you can't see the difference between comparing the cinematography of two disaster scenes in two big-budget sci-fi blockbuster event films, and comparing the hand-to-hand-battle in a martial arts movie to said sci-fi films. Yep - the latter is a straw man, the former not so much.

Can't say I'm surprised you don't get it, though.

where did I claim that?
Somewhere in my faint memory I remember the words "selling point" being used. Most of the advertising fo ID4 was centered around iconical imagery of say the white house with a laser in it, or a popular tunnel with a fire in it(see; emmerich strategy for putting ppl in seats 101(see the final shot in his newest trailer))

Actually, you said : "destruction of city scapes was the draw in that particular production (ID4)."

But regardless, what is perceived as "the draw" has no bearing on the overall quality of a sequence, which is what I'm focusing on. So you'd claim that one has no business comparing any aspect of any two films (in the same genre, I might add) that aren't about the same subject? See: film criticism 101.

if you honestly think ROTF would be better if bay focused on the public death as much/well as he did his other films then that's great, every little bit helps I suppose, maybe the film would have felt as long as it did...

I'm saying he shouldn't have put those kind of scenes in ROTF at all, and you know it. Nice try with the aforementioned purposeful obtuseness, though.

speaking on the scenes themselves.
Considering your the first person, not just on these boards but really anywhere I've checked to feel he "composed" those scenes/shots poorly, I'll chalk that you to your reasonable opinion.

I think they were shot very well.
even if they weren't the focus and or selling point of the film.

Hint: there's a difference between an "unsuccessful" scene and a "poor" scene, but yes, that is indeed my opinion - thanks for reminding me.
And kudos to your "reasonable" opinions as well. Great thing we live in a free country where we can put those out there, eh?

first of all you said
my memory must be slipping cause I didn't notice the subtitle rotf in the first transformers film

You might be being purposefully obtuse again, but to clarify:

TF 2007 - protoforms crash, "Armageddon" reference by kid
ROTF 2009 - many more protoforms crash "Armageddon"-style, with destruction mirroring that movie and Pearl Harbor (and yes, stupid "Bad Boys 2" poster as well).

secondly you say he only pays homages to his own film? "homages" go well well beyond having a kid reference another film in on a comedic beat. It could be said the entire pearl harbor film was a homage to a earlier style of film, the same could be said about parts of the Island. So no, I disagree, I don't think it's funny how bay only includes "homages" to himself...cause he doesn't

Homages or self-referential scenes or easter-eggs...whatever you want to call it. And yes, he does.

actually i should be sorry, maybe he should have went for a truly comedic feel for that scene, that would have driven you boys up the wall.
yes someone mentions 9/11, the movie isn't completely off the wall. It's still a light hearted film.

Not quite sure who "you boys" are, son, but whatever.

And we both know it was more than just a mention of 9/11, is was the whole overblown disaster scene, and the 9/11 reference was just the twisted cherry on top of the schizophrenic cake.

and how can I claim that you ask? (staw man, power up)
disney films are considered light hearted, even you (i think would agree) Lion King a light hearted musical for the whole family yes?
well somewhere in the first and third act it deals with death, and it makes no joke about it (yet it doesn't deal with it in the way it would be dealt with in a good drama), the dancing and music stop.
The film is still light hearted as a whole.

Schindler's list, monster, passion of the christ, these are not light hearted films.

point being, TF is a light hearted film unlike pearl habor, bay treats the casualties and collateral damage of robots fighting each other differently than he does in previous films and with good reason. However, he does not treat them as they would in spoofs. (or even star trek)

You are again giving ROTF the benefit of the doubt by merely calling it "light hearted". It has elements that are truly ridiculous and juvenille, as well as slapstick "adult" humor that falls far outside your Lion King example.

did any of these soldiers have faces, was there real drama there, as you were getting at before, bay doesn't handle these scenes with as much care as he has in the past...when he was making a drama about dying soldiers and the tragedy of war with the selling point being the attack on pearl harbor.

this film handles it like it would in a comic book or even in the cartoon show(funny how that works)

Disagree. The intent was clearly there, even if the time and effort to make the scene just like "Pearl Harbor" wasn't. While I do see how the more recent Transformers comic titles (eg: those published by Dreamwave or IDW) would depict such a disaster and loss of life as that seen in the movie, those comics series are too mature to feature leg-humping dogs/robots or robots farting.

And speaking of farting...

my memory again, i don't recall any robots or humans farting in this movie.

Jetfire rips one off after he transforms and a parachute shoots out his ass. How did you miss that one? I'd suggest you go back and watch the movie again, but I wouldn't wish that abuse on anyone -- not even you.

it's only when I defend something unpopular that people resort to the belittling and name calling. go figure, transformers was an immature film after all.

Funny, you post just as many "duhs" and supposedly subtle digs at the intelligence and maturity of those who disagree with you as many of the anti-ROTF people here. Your insulting tone is somewhat more subtle than most, but less subtle than I believe you think it is.

But if you really feel the need to try to contradict every single thing negative that's been observed about this film (and they are legion), then by all means do what you think you need to do.

However, despite the big box office, there is indeed a spreading word-of mouth that is showing that not all the "non-fanboy general public" loves ROTF. I'm seeing it IRL.

And not to beat a dead horse, but: TF 2007 Rottentomatometer score : 57% ROTF score : 19%

 

[Jake Cassidy]

You two are just as bad as each other, sometimes.

 

[terry78]

Everytime people fight on this board, it's like they're old married couples.

 

[Marvin]

You took what Ebert said out of context.

His comment about intellect being vilified is in line with alot of comments on this site. The paragraph beforehand he states how people tend to tell him that how thinks "too deep" about films and that he knows too much and does not allow himself to overlook things that the GA does not care about. EXACTLY like the reponses on here, exactly. This lead to the comment about where kids seek magic. Just because he thinks about what he watches does not mean he forgot how to be a kid. Even a kid wants to watch something that makes sense. Even my - what a coincidence - 12 yo cousin asked me what the story was about in the movie. He did not bash the cartoon or people who watched it.

Jared was basically taking a look at SOME movie fans and speaking on how it would be if sports fans were the same way. We all know the some people go to the movie, no matter how stupid it is, and think its one of the best things they have seen. Why do you think they keep coming out with these movie spoofs nowadays?

In short(cause i gotta go), those brainiac pics need not be on that article

the use of the word vilified is in that article for a reason

lastly, and most importantly
ROTF is not a spoof, if it was, ppl calling it the "dumbest, most pointless, potty humor garbage and marks the end of cinema..etc"
would be right and I would be out of the business of schooling people on forums

there is a story, there are themes there are characters with full arcs

if they are not "good enough" thats one thing give it a poor review.
but that's not what's happening here.

not even in eberts review

 

[Marvin]

You two are just as bad as each other, sometimes.

you won't ever see me call names,
guess that makes me peggy bundy

 

[Jake Cassidy]

you won't ever see me call names,
guess that makes me peggy bundy

I can insult him if you like. I love insulting people. I'd probably get banned for it, though. t:

Married With Children is ****in' great.

 

[The Lizard]

You two are just as bad as each other, sometimes.

The only fair thing to do is make us both stand in the corner.

you won't ever see me call names,

Same with me.

Although "not calling names" and not being insulting are two different things, eh?

 

[Jager X]

In short(cause i gotta go), those brainiac pics need not be on that article

the use of the word vilified is in that article for a reason

lastly, and most importantly
ROTF is not a spoof, if it was, ppl calling it the "dumbest, most pointless, potty humor garbage and marks the end of cinema..etc"
would be right and I would be out of the business of schooling people on forums

there is a story, there are themes there are characters with full arcs

if they are not "good enough" thats one thing give it a poor review.
but that's not what's happening here.

not even in eberts review

Those pics are there in the article because is Ebert is being a smartass. He states multiple times in the article how people who does not like what he says calls him a man is, just like you said, too smart for his own good. If him approaching a movie with logic makes him a "Braniac" then he is proud to take on the title.

Not ONCE did I call ROTF a spoof. Not sure how you comprehended that. You make it seem like he is being an elitist when he is stately the truth. I sure you wouldn't be making this argument if this was a thread about "Meet the Spartans" or "Disaster Movie". People love stupid, crap-ass films. And I'm not talking about ROTF specifically but the proof is in the Box Office.

You're right, there is a story. A terribly crafted one, but there is a story nonetheless. Like I stated in another thread, if some of the characters expessed any sense of logic or intellect in this film then there would be no sequal to Transformers.

 

[Episode29]

you think too much

maybe you should start a blog playing the victim as well.

Za?

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Za?

At some point you just have to stop trying to comprehend his posts and do the best you can to respond to them. You'd need a freaking Interwebs Rosetta Stone to fully translate them, though.

 

[Marvin]

DISCLAIMER: I'm pretty sure being I'm trolled here. Marvin is being purposefully obtuse and pseudo-condescending to keep me on a roll. But whatever, here we go...

if I respond I'm a troll if I don't, someone might think you made a point
lol. I'm not trying to keep you on a roll, quite the opposite actually.

Or maybe just you taking refuge in a state of denial, eh?

believe me it's the former.

So you can't see the difference between comparing the cinematography of two disaster scenes in two big-budget sci-fi blockbuster event films, and comparing the hand-to-hand-battle in a martial arts movie to said sci-fi films. Yep - the latter is a straw man, the former not so much.

Can't say I'm surprised you don't get it, though.

Actually, you said : "destruction of city scapes was the draw in that particular production (ID4)."

But regardless, what is perceived as "the draw" has no bearing on the overall quality of a sequence, which is what I'm focusing on. So you'd claim that one has no business comparing any aspect of any two films (in the same genre, I might add) that aren't about the same subject?

the filmmakers focus on different things during their movies, emmerich's biggest selling point is his landmark destruction, look at teh posters for his movies, transformers focuses on other things.

here's a more focused comparison for you, TF handles it's alien motivation a lot better then ID4's voiceless terrorists.
that is not entirely because emmerich is weak when it comes to character motivation but rather because one of the selling points of Transformers has always been decepticons with personality seeking resources on earth and saying funny things whereas the aliens in ID4 are just "bad guys"
It's only natural that the antagonistic motivation in TF gets more focus and "better" handling than that in ID4

if someone then said, "well at least I know what the aliens want and why they want it in TF, in fact i can kinda of realate to them" you'd say "well, duh."

id4 was sold around the idea that large ships camp out over big city land marks and at the quasi climax of the film, marked by a timer of all things, the director focuses all his (production) energy and money into giving the audience what they came for.

Will smith has a hand to hand bout with an alien no, it's pretty quick and not full of tension. In tf sam has great encounters with aliens.
the films handle this differently because again, one film focuses on it whilst another decides to focus on other things.

The minute you said, and I paraphrase, "well the big city destruction is handled so much better and more indulgent in Id4 than in TF"
first I said to my self "duh" and then I proceeded to tell you why I thought it was.(better handled, yet still not better shot)
"selling points"

looking at story for a moment;
the destruction in TF2 about aliens landing
the destruction in ID4 is about destruction and the loss of human life
if you wanna start talking about straight comparisons, start there.

lastly, the whole argument is based on the assumption that you're right about the cinematography being better in ID4. It isn't, but that comes down to opinion.

I'm saying he shouldn't have put those kind of scenes in ROTF at all, and you know it. Nice try with the aforementioned purposeful obtuseness, though.

Story wise, because trying to convince you of their quality isn't going to happen. story wise, those scenes had good reason to be there, I know that much.

Hint: there's a difference between an "unsuccessful" scene and a "poor" scene, but yes, that is indeed my opinion - thanks for reminding me.
And kudos to your "reasonable" opinions as well. Great thing we live in a free country where we can put those out there, eh?

do you also know that there is a difference between a bad scene and a successful scene
here's some perspective [YT]Mw6xfpZ7xpw&feature=related[/YT]

TF is shot by a world class cinematographer and it's very successfull.

what this is is more of ppl coming down on this film at every facet, I'll be the first to say it has major flaws but now even the destruction cinematography is piss poor?

sorry but that's why I appear to be defending "every" aspect of this production, cause i personally find this ridiculous
from the racism to the misygony, it's all here, like everyone has been holding back some pent up criticism for the past few years and TF's success was the last straw.
"worst movie ever!"

You might be being purposefully obtuse again, but to clarify:

TF 2007 - protoforms crash, "Armageddon" reference by kid
ROTF 2009 - many more protoforms crash "Armageddon"-style, with destruction mirroring that movie and Pearl Harbor (and yes, stupid "Bad Boys 2" poster as well).



Homages or self-referential scenes or easter-eggs...whatever you want to call it. And yes, he does.

ok so you were talking about the kid making reference to armageddon in the first one, there was some confusion.

I'm not sure how any one makes any reference to armageddon in the second film unless you mean the scenes with fireballs falling from the sky?
why again is this a self homage to armageddon and not any number of other films?
becuase a kid from the first movie made a silly joke?
because bay is shameless?

maybe in part three, for bay not to embarrass himself with the self indulgent homages to his own films he'll avoid the fire ball like protoform re entries that have been clearly established, and if he can't do that he'd better at least find a way to make sure they don't hit anything breakable.
sorry for the sarcastic tone but I find that point worked well that way, at least I avoided the eye roll.

the bad boy poster;
in 1971, Kubrick did the same thing with clock work orange.
if anything it was an homage to that.

it's also been said that bay paid homage to his producers first film with the use of optimus in his truck form

Not quite sure who "you boys" are, son, but whatever.

didn't mean boys in a condescending way.

And we both know it was more than just a mention of 9/11, is was the whole overblown disaster scene, and the 9/11 reference was just the twisted cherry on top of the schizophrenic cake.

it was a mention of the event and then the film went on with it's own story.
for example, if the film them asked a reporter how they thought the disaster compared to the real 9/11 and then showed stock footage of the real event, you'd have a good point.
but as I recall, someone mentions the date.

You are again giving ROTF the benefit of the doubt by merely calling it "light hearted". It has elements that are truly ridiculous and juvenille, as well as slapstick "adult" humor that falls far outside your Lion King example.

the presence of all that humor, no matter how adult and not kiddie, make it light hearted. Most of the humor in the 40 year old virgin is very adult...yet still it's a very light hearted film(see kevin smith). Maybe I shouldn't have used lion king, I was so juiced on that straw man theme, you understand.

Disagree. The intent was clearly there, even if the time and effort to make the scene just like "Pearl Harbor" wasn't. While I do see how the more recent Transformers comic titles (eg: those published by Dreamwave or IDW) would depict such a disaster and loss of life as that seen in the movie, those comics series are too mature to feature leg-humping dogs/robots or robots farting.

just like most of the comics the new batman movies are based on are too mature to pull off some of the cheese seen in Begins, movies need to have a wider appeal I suppose. But I'm glad you agree about the TF comics doing it the same way.

And speaking of farting...

Jetfire rips one off after he transforms and a parachute shoots out his ass. How did you miss that one? I'd suggest you go back and watch the movie again, but I wouldn't wish that abuse on anyone -- not even you.

jetfire's parachute shot out his back side in a malfunction due to his old age, in a very character driven gag that drives his personal exposition along, the fact that I can defend it is a testament to it's subtlety of execution.

moreover, there's this.

beast wars homage
[YT]Sk7sqHdl0Ws[/YT]
with a set up and everything, regarded as one of the best written incarnations of transformer ever beast wars pulls this visual gag off and no ones is the wiser. It even references the odor.

just goes to show how much fun can be had with the source material but when put on the big screen and or bay, even the most level headed fan can turn into a..um..not so level head viewer..

But if you really feel the need to try to contradict every single thing negative that's been observed about this film (and they are legion), then by all means do what you think you need to do.

not everything no, like I said i have a very long list of my problems with the film, I just do not agree with yours.

However, despite the big box office, there is indeed a spreading word-of mouth that is showing that not all the "non-fanboy general public" loves ROTF. I'm seeing it IRL.

there must have been some new exit polls done cause last I heard it was a 90% positive.

And not to beat a dead horse, but: TF 2007 Rottentomatometer score : 57% ROTF score : 19%

ugh critics.

Funny, you post just as many "duhs" and supposedly subtle digs at the intelligence and maturity of those who disagree with you as many of the anti-ROTF people here. Your insulting tone is somewhat more subtle than most, but less subtle than I believe you think it is.


See: film criticism 101.

it's becoming increasingly apparent that this is getting personal, if I offended you I apologize here and now

that being said, my little digs here there with the "duhs" seem well within this forums etiquette, this being a forum that promotes the use of smilies the first 3 being subtle digs in nature.

out right calling people names on the other hand, especially in response to a point being made seems petty

they aren't the same thing, even a "straw man" could tell you that.

but hey I apologize again

 

[CelticPredator]

Now you're just talking nuts.

Thats a lot of NUTS!

 

[Sarge 2.0]

if I respond I'm a troll if I don't, someone might think you made a point
lol. I'm not trying to keep you on a roll, quite the opposite actually.


believe me it's the former.



the filmmakers focus on different things during their movies, emmerich's biggest selling point is his landmark destruction, look at teh posters for his movies, transformers focuses on other things.

here's a more focused comparison for you, TF handles it's alien motivation a lot better then ID4's voiceless terrorists.
that is not entirely because emmerich is weak when it comes to character motivation but rather because one of the selling points of Transformers has always been decepticons with personality seeking resources on earth and saying funny things whereas the aliens in ID4 are just "bad guys"
It's only natural that the antagonistic motivation in TF gets more focus and "better" handling than that in ID4

if someone then said, "well at least I know what the aliens want and why they want it in TF, in fact i can kinda of realate to them" you'd say "well, duh."

id4 was sold around the idea that large ships camp out over big city land marks and at the quasi climax of the film, marked by a timer of all things, the director focuses all his (production) energy and money into giving the audience what they came for.

Will smith has a hand to hand bout with an alien no, it's pretty quick and not full of tension. In tf sam has great encounters with aliens.
the films handle this differently because again, one film focuses on it whilst another decides to focus on other things.

The minute you said, and I paraphrase, "well the big city destruction is handled so much better and more indulgent in Id4 than in TF"
first I said to my self "duh" and then I proceeded to tell you why I thought it was.(better handled, yet still not better shot)
"selling points"

looking at story for a moment;
the destruction in TF2 about aliens landing
the destruction in ID4 is about destruction and the loss of human life
if you wanna start talking about straight comparisons, start there.

lastly, the whole argument is based on the assumption that you're right about the cinematography being better in ID4. It isn't, but that comes down to opinion.




Story wise, because trying to convince you of their quality isn't going to happen. story wise, those scenes had good reason to be there, I know that much.



do you also know that there is a difference between a bad scene and a successful scene
here's some perspective
TF is shot by a world class cinematographer and it's very successfull.

what this is is more of ppl coming down on this film at every facet, I'll be the first to say it has major flaws but now even the destruction cinematography is piss poor?

sorry but that's why I appear to be defending "every" aspect of this production, cause i personally find this ridiculous
from the racism to the misygony, it's all here, like everyone has been holding back some pent up criticism for the past few years and TF's success was the last straw.
"worst movie ever!"



ok so you were talking about the kid making reference to armageddon in the first one, there was some confusion.

I'm not sure how any one makes any reference to armageddon in the second film unless you mean the scenes with fireballs falling from the sky?
why again is this a self homage to armageddon and not any number of other films?
becuase a kid from the first movie made a silly joke?
because bay is shameless?

maybe in part three, for bay not to embarrass himself with the self indulgent homages to his own films he'll avoid the fire ball like protoform re entries that have been clearly established, and if he can't do that he'd better at least find a way to make sure they don't hit anything breakable.
sorry for the sarcastic tone but I find that point worked well that way, at least I avoided the eye roll.

the bad boy poster;
in 1971, Kubrick did the same thing with clock work orange.
if anything it was an homage to that.

it's also been said that bay paid homage to his producers first film with the use of optimus in his truck form


didn't mean boys in a condescending way.



it was a mention of the event and then the film went on with it's own story.
for example, if the film them asked a reporter how they thought the disaster compared to the real 9/11 and then showed stock footage of the real event, you'd have a good point.
but as I recall, someone mentions the date.



the presence of all that humor, no matter how adult and not kiddie, make it light hearted. Most of the humor in the 40 year old virgin is very adult...yet still it's a very light hearted film(see kevin smith). Maybe I shouldn't have used lion king, I was so juiced on that straw man theme, you understand.



just like most of the comics the new batman movies are based on are too mature to pull off some of the cheese seen in Begins, movies need to have a wider appeal I suppose. But I'm glad you agree about the TF comics doing it the same way.



jetfire's parachute shot out his back side in a malfunction due to his old age, in a very character driven gag that drives his personal exposition along, the fact that I can defend it is a testament to it's subtlety of execution.

moreover, there's this.

beast wars homage

with a set up and everything, regarded as one of the best written incarnations of transformer ever beast wars pulls this visual gag off and no ones is the wiser. It even references the odor.

just goes to show how much fun can be had with the source material but when put on the big screen and or bay, even the most level headed fan can turn into a..um..not so level head viewer..




not everything no, like I said i have a very long list of my problems with the film, I just do not agree with yours.


there must have been some new exit polls done cause last I heard it was a 90% positive.



ugh critics.



it's becoming increasingly apparent that this is getting personal, if I offended you I apologize here and now

that being said, my little digs here there with the "duhs" seem well within this forums etiquette, this being a forum that promotes the use of smilies the first 3 being subtle digs in nature.

out right calling people names on the other hand, especially in response to a point being made seems petty

they aren't the same thing, even a "straw man" could tell you that.

but hey I apologize again

He wasn't calling you a straw man, a straw man argument is a type of logical fallacy.

 

[Marvin]

He wasn't calling you a straw man, a straw man argument is a type of logical fallacy.

I know exactly what it is

the way it was used however, the imagery provided, has an ad hominem vibe to it.

straw man make for a good pun.

 

[Marvin]

Za?

well in reference to an article with the theme of over thinking and how it has led to a man being called names and or things he doesn't believe he deserves to be called

and then this being said

Yikes. Me thinks Ebert's article may have hit a bit too close to home for his comfort.

which I'm sure implies I'm one of these detractors he's referring to
(in truth I usually like him, I just think he needs some perspective in this particular case)

I simply responded to your assumption with one of my own

you think too much

maybe you should start a blog playing the victim as well.

in keeping with the thinking theme, I simply flipped your wording in what I assumed would be a clever way, it appears I failed. You know what they say about assuming. That second part was in reference to my thoughts on Eberts little article.

save your money, I hear Rosetta Stones don't come cheap nowadays.
just ask

 

[kane9321]

Ok I finally saw Transformers:ROTF and without a shadow of a doubt I can honestly say..this movie was garbage, upon crap,mixed in with trash. About at the 45min mark into this movie, I "checked out" meaning... I wanted to leave,. The movie seemed rushed,piss poor acting (meagan fox..I'm looking at you) and you have the nerve to talk trash about michael bay...wow. There's just so much wrong with this movie.The jokes were bad and juvenile.Did I really need to see John Torturro's azz,or Sam's annoying idiot roomate? Meagtron, The great leader of the decepticons...has a Boss....what? Wheelie "humping" fox's leg,you have got to be kidding me! Devastator transforming....what the hell was he supposed to be? and after a while I just didnt care , he surely wasnt the devastator i knew as a child. Jetfire, I couldnt understand a damned thing he was babbling about, I thought he just jumped off the " black pearl" from the pirates of the carribean movies. Now to the most ridculous thing about the movie...the female decepticon posing as a human...A BIG WTF.That was just about as dumb as dumb gets, I thought I was watching Transformers not Terminator. Now hearing all the talk about the "twins" I was eagerly awaiting their time on screen, Unfortunatley I got my wish. I was totally upset when they talked and how they looked, yeah they were trying to be from the "hood". Listen to what they were saying, then the biggest insult...one had a gold effing tooth..Me being a black man, I really was upset and pissed off, that was so sterotypical.The final battle was a joke in itself, talk about outnumbered, you see the main core of decepticons then all of a sudden..here comes their "reinforcements". So where were the rest of the autobots?...A big joke! All in all this movie was a waste of time and money "my time,my money". I really wouldnt tell anyone to see this at all.

 

[Rock Sexton]

^ Or any film, tv show, music, book, sport etc.

The point is ............ because nearly $600 million dollars worth of tickets have been sold, we have to put up with more of this in the future...........ultra-fanboy is obviously fine with every aspect of this film, but the movie clearly has major flaws and could be so much better. But we'll never get that as long as gen-pub continues to flood the BO in support of soul-less films like these.

 

[Batman137]

heres my review...it sucked...badly. I just think Michael Bay is one big pervert

 

[Rock Sexton]

heres my review...it sucked...badly. I just think Michael Bay is one big pervert

Yup. A pervert who had a $200+ million budget and 2.5 hours of screen time to fill and that juvenile escapade is what we got as the final result.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

Again, making an argument out of where there isn't one. Explosions and CGI were a given and I never denied this. However it doesn't mean that the story had to be half-arsed. It was rushed because the team didn't care. Instead they tried to cover everything up by tossing in too many characters, a ton of gratuitous juvenile humor, and as much Megan Fox as they could muster.

Like I said before, the story wasn't great. Most of that was due on the writer's strike at the time.

Roberto Orci: We took the job with Ehren Kruger two weeks before the strike so in that two weeks, we had to generate a 20-page outline that we handed in, and then during the strike, Michael and the amazing (producer) Ian Bryce tried to prep everything they could off of that outline. Then from the day the strike ended to the first day of shooting was three months, so we had to write the script in those three months, handing in pages at the end of every day so they could be prepped. It was crazy. We finished writing the movie two weeks ago, literally.

Alex Kurtzman: Because you're writing lines for the robots in post. Not only did we rewrite on set but we spent the last six months with Michael in post, cutting the movie and writing the lines for the robots, just making jokes or making plot points more clear. Literally, they had to just rip it out of our dead hands the other day.

So if you going to blame anyone, then blame the writers strike. Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and Ehren Krueger were holed up in a hotel to pound out the script in a short time to get the film ready for production.

Bay didn't write the film. He might of had some say in it, but he didn't sit down in the hotel and come up with most of the story.

For some reason, you think this one film making so much, is the end of cinema or something. No, far from it.

 

[SsM]

The point is ............ because nearly $600 billion dollars worth of tickets have been sold, we have to put up with more of this in the future...........ultra-fanboy is obviously fine with every aspect of this film, but the movie clearly has major flaws and could be so much better. But we'll never get that as long as gen-pub continues to flood the BO in support of soul-less films like these.

Wow, that's a lot.

 

[Marvin]

People, friends;

If a film doesn't appeal to your liking why can't you just proclaim that and by all means tell the rest of us why. What's happening here, and what happens with most bay movies in general I've noticed, is that people begin to lob grandiose statements about the majority of the movie going audience or insults implying that that if you liked it you are a neanderthal or perv or a sheep or a supporter of soul-less cinema.
At the same time, a critic, that is put off by his audience critiquing his own critiques pokes at their intelligence. You'll see all that and more in this very thread.

why wasn't the "bad" film wolverine: origins received this way?

truly something to think about


...bring on TF3

 

[SsM]

I thought XMO flopped.

 

[Adrian89]

People, friends;

If a film doesn't appeal to your liking why can't you just proclaim that and by all means tell the rest of us why. What's happening here, and what happens with most bay movies in general I've noticed, is that people begin to lob grandiose statements about the majority of the movie going audience or insults implying that that if you liked it you are a neanderthal or perv or a sheep or a supporter of soul-less cinema.
At the same time, a critic, that is put off by his audience critiquing his own critiques pokes at their intelligence. You'll see all that and more in this very thread.

why wasn't the "bad" film wolverine: origins received this way?

truly something to think about


...bring on TF3

+1 dude.

 

[The Lizard]

DISCLAIMER # 2 -- I'm going to edit some of Marvin's responses for the sake of space and clarity, since he seems to be throwing large amounts of words at me to see what sticks at this point. If I leave something important out, please bring it to my attention.

if I respond I'm a troll if I don't, someone might think you made a point

You're the one who's dodging, ducking, tapdancing and doing gymnastics to try to make a point there, slick.
But I'm referring to the calculated wording and effect of your responses, not the fact that you respond.

the filmmakers focus on different things during their movies, emmerich's biggest selling point is his landmark destruction, look at teh posters for his movies, transformers focuses on other things.

Right -- the posters for two different films determines what you can and can't compare with regards to subject matter. Do you really want to continue with this? Two SF movies have major destruction scenes shot in different styles. Those styles may be validly compared stylistically - end of story. Geez.

here's a more focused comparison for you, TF handles it's alien motivation a lot better then ID4's voiceless terrorists.
that is not entirely because emmerich is weak when it comes to character motivation but rather because one of the selling points of Transformers has always been decepticons with personality seeking resources on earth and saying funny things whereas the aliens in ID4 are just "bad guys"
It's only natural that the antagonistic motivation in TF gets more focus and "better" handling than that in ID4

Ignoring that fact that you're now talking about a plot element as opposed to an actual scene composition, you're wrong about the ID4 aliens not having an established motivation.
It's clearly determined in ID4 during the Area 51 lab scene that the aliens are nomadic parasites that travel the galaxy invading worlds, using up all the natural resources, and then leaving to find another planet.

The ID4 aliens are not given any individual personalities because A) they are a hive mind, and B) it wasn't in the script. Apples and oranges, again.

id4 was sold around the idea that large ships camp out over big city land marks and at the quasi climax of the film, marked by a timer of all things, the director focuses all his (production) energy and money into giving the audience what they came for.

Do you recall that the big cities destruction scene in ID4 happens less than halfway into the film? There were plenty of other things for Emmerich to focus his production energy and money on after that point.

The minute you said, and I paraphrase, "well the big city destruction is handled so much better and more indulgent in Id4 than in TF"
first I said to my self "duh" and then I proceeded to tell you why I thought it was.(better handled, yet still not better shot)
"selling points"

looking at story for a moment;
the destruction in TF2 about aliens landing
the destruction in ID4 is about destruction and the loss of human life
if you wanna start talking about straight comparisons, start there.

But there was plenty of destruction and loss of human life depicted in the disaster scene in ROTF, even though the point was about aliens landing. This is the main part of my argument why it was inappropriate and incongruous with the tone of the rest of the movie. Duh.

lastly, the whole argument is based on the assumption that you're right about the cinematography being better in ID4. It isn't, but that comes down to opinion.
Story wise, because trying to convince you of their quality isn't going to happen. story wise, those scenes had good reason to be there, I know that much.
do you also know that there is a difference between a bad scene and a successful scene
here's some perspective [YT]Mw6xfpZ7xpw&feature=related[/YT]
TF is shot by a world class cinematographer and it's very successfull.

Opinion, opinion, opinion. Thanks, got it.

BTW, what's the deal with the clip from The Host? That was a very well-staged scene in a very quirky film. Your point?

what this is is more of ppl coming down on this film at every facet, I'll be the first to say it has major flaws but now even the destruction cinematography is piss poor?
sorry but that's why I appear to be defending "every" aspect of this production, cause i personally find this ridiculous
from the racism to the misygony, it's all here, like everyone has been holding back some pent up criticism for the past few years and TF's success was the last straw."worst movie ever!"

I did give ROTF 5/10 you know. I didn't hate every aspect of the film (I loved Ravage, for example).
However, we're at a point now where the outspoken fans of ROTF have had their say about how super-awesome everything was, and it's honestly more fun and interesting for those of us who DIDN'T love the movie to compare notes on all the stuff that was wrong with it.
So yeah, maybe not all the negative criticism is valid, but when a movie has as much "WTF" elements in it as ROTF, that criticism is going to go on a long time, so get used to it.

in 1971, Kubrick did the same thing with clock work orange.
if anything it was an homage to that.

Yep, Bay = Kubrick, you nailed it.

But seriously, Bay is self referential. It's just something predictable he does, and I mentioned it in passing, so what? Your mountain is still a molehill.

it was a mention of the event and then the film went on with it's own story.
for example, if the film them asked a reporter how they thought the disaster compared to the real 9/11 and then showed stock footage of the real event, you'd have a good point.
but as I recall, someone mentions the date.

It was unneccessary and incongruous, as I've already said.

just like most of the comics the new batman movies are based on are too mature to pull off some of the cheese seen in Begins, movies need to have a wider appeal I suppose. But I'm glad you agree about the TF comics doing it the same way.

"Cheese" in Batman Begins? Whatchoo talkin 'bout Willis? Gordon saying "I got to get me one of these" in regards to the Batmobile? Because that was about it for the cheese factor in BB. Nothing even in the same solar system as ROTF's cheese level.

jetfire's parachute shot out his back side in a malfunction due to his old age, in a very character driven gag that drives his personal exposition along, the fact that I can defend it is a testament to it's subtlety of execution.

OK, now I know you're just pulling my leg. Well played, sir.

moreover, there's this.
beast wars homage
[YT]Sk7sqHdl0Ws[/YT]
with a set up and everything, regarded as one of the best written incarnations of transformer ever beast wars pulls this visual gag off and no ones is the wiser. It even references the odor.

It was a lame gag then (on a kid's TV show I might add), and it's lame now. Although an animal beast-form farting makes more sense than a metal robot farting, but the Bayformers' schtick constantly involves all sorts of squirting liquids and such, so would would you expect?

just goes to show how much fun can be had with the source material but when put on the big screen and or bay, even the most level headed fan can turn into a..um..not so level head viewer..

I think level-headedness is actually the biggest enemy facing ROTF.

not everything no, like I said i have a very long list of my problems with the film, I just do not agree with yours.

Maybe I need to search around more, but I'd honestly be interested in hearing your list of problems you had with ROTF. I'm sure there's some stuff we agree on there.

there must have been some new exit polls done cause last I heard it was a 90% positive.

Yeah, those were the exit polls conducted and publicized by ROTF's distributor Paramount at advanced screenings actively packed with Bayformers fans. Not the best impartial indicator of actual public opinion.

However, I will say that the ROTF public opinion polls in general are indeed a much higher positive percentage than the critic's ratings .... as they always are with any mainstream movie.

ugh critics.

I know, right? - Damn them for doing their jobs and having the gall to not sufficiently "turn off their brains". *trying not to overuse rolleyes*

out right calling people names on the other hand, especially in response to a point being made seems petty
they aren't the same thing, even a "straw man" could tell you that.
but hey I apologize again

As has been pointed out, "straw man" refers to the argument, not you (see also "argumentum verbosium" for another one). So you have still not been called any names by me.
However, my little "digs" in response to any perceived condescension are certainly there too, and I realize that.

But hey. we haven't gotten threatened with probation yet, so we can't be that bad with the bickering. (Having flashbacks to Shyair, for those who remember him - yeeesh.)