In bulletpoints, yes. That's what I said. There's a problem, and then there isn't, apparently. Movie over. Bulletpoints are not a story.
I fail to see how simply labeling the story elements "bulletpoints" actually proves that there's no story to be found here. The bulletpoints you speak of are relevant to each other, they come together in a fairly logical, if somewhat meandering and over the top way, and they are played out as story elements, not just snippets of dialogue or ideas. There are extended scenes of story in this film. Is it particularly complex? No. But is it there? Yes.
I don't think that's what I said.
It's late.
Isn't the narrative the execution of the concept?
Only in broad terminology.
The narrative, by most definitions of the term, is the story itself. The execution of it is something else entirely. The execution of a narrative is more akin to quality, or the approach to the story ideas themselves, at least it is in the context in which we are discussing.
Because good is better than bad? If I think it's bad and you ask me to tell you what would be good, that is, by necessary consequence, asking me to tell you what's better.
Without context, "good" and "bad" are somewhat relative aren't they? What a lot of fans might consider a good Transformers movie, general audiences would probably mock elements of. And vice versa, obviously.
Of course I'm asking you to tell me what you think is better, but I'm not asking you to write a script, or even a complete story.
Although it's a moot point, because apparently you don't mind the story of Sam leaving home and finding himself, or the over elaborate story about The Fallen's machine and the Primes and Prime's death, you mind that it wasn't paced well, and resolved satisfactorally. At least as far as I can tell.
Consider the problem this way: we once had a rather lengthy discussion about whether or not Bruce Wayne was accurately portrayed in the film. One of your problems was that he simply does what he's told. However, you don't seem bothered by the fact that Optimus executes defeated Decepticons. This is not an accurate representation of Optimus Prime, and this is what I'm talking about. You've defended aspects of this movie that you wouldn't have defended in that one. I understand why you might to that on a case by case basis, but overall I find the tone of your discussions on movies like Transformers and X3 to be much more forgiving than those on Batman Begins or The Dark Knight.
That was years ago. This is now. Am I capable of saying "That's not like the source material" still? Oh yeah. But to be quite honest, especially after elements of THE DARK KNIGHT were embraced after Batman killed Two-Face and framed himself for Two-Face's crimes, I don't particularly care about *****ing about the changes to the source material anymore ad nausem in someone else's adaption, as they're pretty much going to happen. I just care if they work well in context. If they don't work, then I'll *****.
I look at things in context more now in general. That goes for X3, THE DARK KNIGHT, damn near anything, really.
Is Optimus Prime in the movie entirely faithful to his comic and cartoon counterpart? Nope. But then, it's been my experience that his comic book and cartoon counterpart rarely kills in battle, autobots and decepticons pretty rarely actually die in battle, etc.
So given the character they presented from the first film, I find this appropriate for the character, especially with the idea that Prime is aware of his flaws and the tragedy of the Transformers war, and hopes to avoid such things for the human race.
Would I applaud a Prime who offered Demolisher a chance to live without executing him? Sure. But what they presented works in context, because this Prime was never set up as anything but a dedicated (albeit compassionate to innocents) warrior.
