Revenge of the Fallen Was Optimus a little TOO brutal in this?

[Marvin]

well said, when honor comes into play

optimus definitely has better changes of winning in a forest

um anyone here see a little film by the name of Superman 2
he literally gives up when zod grabs a human hostage

better story telling I suppose

 

[terry78]

Like he said when Megatron axed him isn't the protection of their race worth at least one human life, he says he would never stop at one. So even accidentally killing one human would tear Optimus up.

 

[Bren]

Marvin I'm definitely on the same page with you.

I'll choose to stick to the thought that Optimus was in fact holding back in Mission city as to not jeopardize the lives of the humans scattering all over the place. Hero's with values like Prime are willing to risk losing as long as they go down honorably while upholding their own ideology. Thats what makes a message resonate. Even in the face of complete annihilation, sticking to your beliefs instead of bending them is more important.

Multiple heroic figures have shown this common attribute and Optimus isn't the exception.

I can agree with this up to a point. But OP states "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" and he's fighting for that ideal.

But you're saying that he would hold back to save a couple hundred or thousand people, lose and then sacrifice himself with the cube, and thereby subject the earth to a pissed-off Megatron (who doesn't really need the cube to enslave ALL the people scattered all over the Earth).
Where does this fit in with the ideology he was fighting for in the first place?

As I said, makes him a pretty stupid leader. I could understand "'hold back, try not hurt anyone"...... "okay, this isn't working, I'm getting thrown around and could kill someone. Better up the aggro here" but we didn't get this...

Just differing opinions and all - I'd prefer having an OP that knows he's not strong enough, but will try his best anyway to ultimately save humankind. Rather than a leader who (imo) chooses the stupid strategy.

Like he said when Megatron axed him isn't the protection of their race worth at least one human life, he says he would never stop at one. So even accidentally killing one human would tear Optimus up.

That kind of is my point; OP knows that Megatron won't stop. So sacrificing himself is going to accomplish what exactly? Megatron isn't going to simply up and leave the human race just because the cube's gone...

(comparitively) Weak OP fights to save all of humankind = hero.
Holding-back-to-save-the-few-and-cost-millions-their-lives/freedom OP = idiot.

All in good fun, just my opinion... I'm done.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Marvin, i think that Batman was serious angsty and very focused. He joked with Alfred because thats what happens in the comics. Well, in comics nowadays they go as far as to completely wipe out the Bruce Wayne personna and have him constantly in the suit being furious no matter what.

I think that Nolan's Batman is more Zen and more focused. I frankly didnt like Burton's batman. Yes he is supposed to be miserable but burton took it too far. In any case, he is still in his early years and it makes sense.

what final test did he pass? finding the real ducard in the middle of a fight simulation?

That was smart. Smarter than anything Batman ever did in the non Nolan movies.

i guess ras taught him how to film filter and focus his rage, but still at what cost, a batman that smiles when no one is around..

I think that he barely made any jokes. You can be miserable and still try to shake it off with some humor now and then.

I came away from that movie wondering what makes batman so special apart from the money and the suit..
his will to act?

at least stark is a special person
"stark built it in a cave"

I think that Nolan has given us a more realistic batman. And after spending 3/4 of the film with his training and character development, he didnt have time to show bruce make all that stuff. Not to mention that it would be ridiculous to see Wayne with a spanner building the batmobile.

it was better in TDK
but this isn't the place, batman has gotten enough press already.

True, lets move on. I just had to answer to you though...

as for the bridge jump, I've seen nic cage do it with less

The two sides of the river were at the same height, and batman didnt use a ramp to jump upwards. The car did that.

as for bay pointing his camera at boobies?
how many boobie shots do you count when he in the military board rooms or president speeches?
unlike nolan bays movies have material that allows for such a thing
like miami drug cartel parties, or college dorms

Well i think that Bay is probably the only director that does such shameless shots of women without directing porn. I bet my head that the only reason that Alice had a tail, was that it would lift her skirt....twice!

nolan has a great script in front of him, some of the greatest actors of our generation and the second biggest comic book character invented

in begins, he simply sat there and pointed his camera
(tdk is a bit different)

Artistically, Begins is far better than TDK in my opinion. TDK was sterile and mostly shot in complete darkness where you could barely make out anything.
As for the cast, i am sorry, but Nolan wouldnt have shot a film with a script as bad as ROTF's. Nolan is considered by tons of critics as a visionary director and Insomnia, Memento and Prestige are considered works of art and excellently directed. There isnt anything in Bay's career than can match any of these movies. And that's not the actors' fault, its his.

Seriously, you are defending Bay vs Nolan. Do you hear what you re saying?

 

[Mr. Earle]

C. 2 years of fighting side by side with brave human soldiers could have inspired him to become a better soldier himself.

After a few millenia of fighting, Prime just got better in two years because he fought with humans? And fighting is a matter of perspective. A full battalion of marines and about 10 autobots vs one decepticon isnt a fight, its slaughter.
Prime becoming better in two years is like Bruce Lee becoming better in a minute. Thats the exact analogy of time.

Marvin I'm definitely on the same page with you.

I'll choose to stick to the thought that Optimus was in fact holding back in Mission city as to not jeopardize the lives of the humans scattering all over the place. Hero's with values like Prime are willing to risk losing as long as they go down honorably while upholding their own ideology. Thats what makes a message resonate. Even in the face of complete annihilation, sticking to your beliefs instead of bending them is more important.

Multiple heroic figures have shown this common attribute and Optimus isn't the exception.

But he would rather hold his morals higher than the fate of the world? Not even batman has done that (see Final Crisis). And again, getting tossed around by Megatron endangers as much lives. Had he fought well he could have ended it.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Smarter than anything Batman ever did in the non Nolan movies.

Except maybe Batman Forever were he solved the Riddlers... um... riddle.

 

[Marvin]

After a few millenia of fighting, Prime just got better in two years because he fought with humans? And fighting is a matter of perspective. A full battalion of marines and about 10 autobots vs one decepticon isnt a fight, its slaughter.
Prime becoming better in two years is like Bruce Lee becoming better in a minute. Thats the exact analogy of time.

better not so much, more passionate no doubt
it's like optimus spending time with the spartans and leaning what passion is
spending time with the natives when john smith showed up to rape their women

like the time spent with the vikings in the 13 warrior, the arabian became an all and all better warrior simply by hang with passionate men

not saying optimus who has been at war for 1000 years on the dot needed to learn anymore hand to hand combat but to say he's learnt nothing from humans that he couldn't have learnt from robots is pretty lame

But he would rather hold his morals higher than the fate of the world? Not even batman has done that (see Final Crisis). And again, getting tossed around by Megatron endangers as much lives. Had he fought well he could have ended it.

so you think if megatron grabbed a baby by the hair and said don't move or the rodent gets it, optimus would pull his gun out and save the day


nah

 

[craigdbfan]

After a few millenia of fighting, Prime just got better in two years because he fought with humans? And fighting is a matter of perspective. A full battalion of marines and about 10 autobots vs one decepticon isnt a fight, its slaughter.
Prime becoming better in two years is like Bruce Lee becoming better in a minute. Thats the exact analogy of time. But he would rather hold his morals higher than the fate of the world? Not even batman has done that (see Final Crisis). And again, getting tossed around by Megatron endangers as much lives. Had he fought well he could have ended it.

All assumptions on both parts. Seriously people keep trying to rebuttal each other trying to give a definitive answer.

I'll choose to stick to the reason I stated and you can go ahead and believe your own theory.

 

[Marvin]

Artistically, Begins is far better than TDK in my opinion. TDK was sterile and mostly shot in complete darkness where you could barely make out anything.
As for the cast, i am sorry, but Nolan wouldnt have shot a film with a script as bad as ROTF's. Nolan is considered by tons of critics as a visionary director and Insomnia, Memento and Prestige are considered works of art and excellently directed. There isnt anything in Bay's career than can match any of these movies. And that's not the actors' fault, its his.

Seriously, you are defending Bay vs Nolan. Do you hear what you re saying?

people make jokes about batmans lack of humor, it's usually a plot device used when something is wrong with him, ie, braniac mind controlled bruce wayne

I guess it comes down to preference, I just don't see how batman can function that way, I was raised to believe he's only able to do the amazing things he does because he's quite and intense..

but i think even guard would disagree on that

anyways

yes I'm marvin, i tend to go against the grain

I can compare bay and nolan, they do different things but to say one is more artistic?

shut off the volume and judge the direction of something like pear harbour and then say there isn't an artist at work...

all the work that went into designing bumble bee and then ppl claim these films don't have a single shred of art

the character animaton direction of someone like jet fire..

no sir
I was impressed with TDK on paper(script), before nolan "directed" it

tdk's lighting as more atmosphere then begins
and in batman ask any artist that has worked on him
it's all about atmosphere

did you see the way nolan lit arkham?
it was sad, but not in a good way.
arkham of all places

when it comes to art, bay is an award winning photographer, sure he dosn't chose the greatest critic worthy stories to tell,(he makes films for the blue collar)
but no one can knock the photography in his films

except maybe Malick

 

[Mr. Earle]

so you think if megatron grabbed a baby by the hair and said don't move or the rodent gets it, optimus would pull his gun out and save the day


nah

No, but instead of endangering humans by getting tossed around the city, he could toss Megatron around. Same number of people are in danger, but at least he can kill Megatron.
I simply didnt see him hold back. No robot was in fact. Ironhide was doing rolls and shooting the ground over a woman who was screaming. All hell had broken loose.
In any case, Prime did his best in the city but it wasnt enough. I have no problem with it, on the contrary i think that underlines how powerful the decepticons and megatron especially really are. In the forest he probably got some more juice just because he was fighting a desperate fight against 3. You can tell he is exhausted when he unmounts Grindor and is looking for Sam. Though i really think that the decepticons should have hit him more. Other than those 5 seconds that he gets his mouthpiece off and he gets blown across the battlefield, they didnt land a hit on him. I think that was too much.

Anyway, i dont think i have much more to say on this. I just hope that in the third its Megatron who does the gory stuff and the executions and not Prime. Also, it would be good for Bay to realise that we, fans i mean, love Prime, but we want to see a movie about all the robots, not just Prime. He made Prime like Seagul in order to please us. It wouldnt be bad if Omega Supreme, Superion, or whatever handled the big decepticons. Or if the autobots teamed up to fight a powerful decepticon. There is nothing wrong with that. Besides, as i said before, we dont love Prime because he is John Mclane or because of his power level, otherwise we would love Metroplex.

 

[Mr. Earle]

All assumptions on both parts. Seriously people keep trying to rebuttal each other trying to give a definitive answer.

I'll choose to stick to the reason I stated and you can go ahead and believe your own theory.

Freedom is the right of all sentient beings!

Spoiler

 

[Mr. Earle]

all the work that went into designing bumble bee and then ppl claim these films don't have a single shred of art

ILM designed him. Bay handled the direction. And especially in the first film he couldnt hold the camera steady for more than 2 seconds. You could barely make out what was going on. This from the supposedly "master of action".

people make jokes about batmans lack of humor, it's usually a plot device used when something is wrong with him, ie, braniac mind controlled bruce wayne

I guess it comes down to preference, I just don't see how batman can function that way, I was raised to believe he's only able to do the amazing things he does because he's quite and intense..

You are referring to Batman, not Bruce Wayne. Wayne could often crack a smile even in the cave, especially in the BTAS (which i think is the best and most balanced portrayal of the character).
Now, i think that a completely sad and tight lipped bruce wayne would have made for a dull and miserable film like burton's. Nolan's bruce is obviously focused, obsessed and sad, but he has his normal moments as well. As i said before, i think he is more balanced as a person than Miller's. Also, when he is spilling his drink in TDK or when Alfred says "if you pretend to have fun, you might have some by accident" you can tell that Bruce barely has any moments of fun.
I like that he can crack a smile once in a while. Its a matter of taste i suppose.

 

[Mr. Earle]

making jokes and wanting to sleep more..

He didnt joke that much with Alfred. He just said "bats are nocturnal". He only really joked when Fox came in and it did it only to throw him off his batman identity. Basically he was hiding behind his finger when it came to Fox. In TDK he had opened up to fox and they could talk more openly.
Basically, its Alfred and Fox that are trying to make him lighten up.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Prime becoming better in two years is like Bruce Lee becoming better in a minute. Thats the exact analogy of time.

I'm sorry, I dont wont to get in the middle of this but thats a terrible analogy.

Yes TF's are long lived but they are still liner, they still experience the passage on time the same way we do.2 years for us is just as long for them.

If we could learn a lot in 2 years so can they.

I'm not saying Prime did learn a lot in 2 years but..... it is very possible that he was exposed and inputted more info in 1 day then he did in the last 200 years.

So it is possible he learned a lot in 2 years.

 

[Marvin]

He didnt joke that much with Alfred. He just said "bats are nocturnal". He only really joked when Fox came in and it did it only to throw him off his batman identity. Basically he was hiding behind his finger when it came to Fox. In TDK he had opened up to fox and they could talk more openly.
Basically, its Alfred and Fox that are trying to make him lighten up.

if you can sit through that movie again, go back and watch his delivery of that line
and the sad reality is, I can see that line being given in a batman way, I can honestly see it in a time sale/jeph loeb book

but the way nolan directed it, it's so not batman.
after seeing bale struggle with his lack of humanity whilst having a heart in Equilibrium in such a dramatic way, everything in this batman comes off as just him saying he's mad

when fox was over he was doing his public identity thing which is fine, but then when he's with alfred it's not that much different, you just feel he's not flat out joking...

You are referring to Batman, not Bruce Wayne. Wayne could often crack a smile even in the cave, especially in the BTAS (which i think is the best and most balanced portrayal of the character).
Now, i think that a completely sad and tight lipped bruce wayne would have made for a dull and miserable film like burton's. Nolan's bruce is obviously focused, obsessed and sad, but he has his normal moments as well. As i said before, i think he is more balanced as a person than Miller's. Also, when he is spilling his drink in TDK or when Alfred says "if you pretend to have fun, you might have some by accident" you can tell that Bruce barely has any moments of fun.
I like that he can crack a smile once in a while. Its a matter of taste i suppose.

I see what your saying, I just feel that the normality(especially the amount in this film) diminishes everything else about the character


dull and miserable?
Rorsach(sp) was anything but dull, in fact he was many people(critics alike) find was maybe the most entertaining part/character of that film. It's kind of ironic considering Moore designed him as a spoof on characters like batman.

he was more batman then bale, he didn't just say he was obsessed or angry he really lived it on screen, he could fight any number of people and the audience could feel that he was formidable, his thought bubbles were brilliant and he was walking around grave yards with a magnifying glass in his hand(more or less), he had a psychosis problem in which he felt more comfortable with his mask on really driving the point home that his public identity is his mask,

when he's locked up in prison, he makes us truly believe that he's a danger to everyone, that "you're locked in here with me" line was ten times more powerful then the whole bruce wayne in an asian prison being dangerous and trapped, and when he screamed at the end it was raw and demon like, a man that never flinches in the face of even apocalypse.

I want my batman film dammit.

but like I said, it's just a preference thing, I think what bale did in Equilibrium really had me pumped to see a dark batman full of internal dialogue delivered though bubbles, instead it was just bale with non black hair being a normal determined person.

if you're happy with what nolan did with bale and batman in begins, that's your prerogative it really is.

I think it's terribly overrated, but hey, this is the forum where we talk about how overrated Michael Bays Transformers is

"...my bad"

ILM designed him. Bay handled the direction. And especially in the first film he couldnt hold the camera steady for more than 2 seconds. You could barely make out what was going on. This from the supposedly "master of action".

just like some writers designed the "amazing" story, themes, and character work in the batman films, Nolan just said action.

how true that statement is depends on how true your statement is...

like I said, as a whole to say the film has nothing artistic about it is wonderfully unfair, because weather you give credit to bay or not, it's there in the film.

as far as his action, yes there were a certain amount of cough* geezers...I mean people that couldn't keep up, but there were just as many people that could and as a whole the film was considered to have amazing action that people wanted to see over and over.
so yea not bad for the "duke of destruction/master of action"

(especially that one shot where megatron flies into prime for the first time)

begins on the other hand, not only was it truly "hard to see" even in places where that wasn't a plot device...
the bits you did see were luck star at best
the action Adam West was doing in the 60's was more engaging then the stuff in that first film.

what makes bays action such a draw is simple
he puts just as much time and thought into making it inventive and dynamic as other directors put into having their actors read their lines right.

for example if bay did the action on the hulk, beyond the lighting being on point, it would be pretty sweet.

 

[Mr. Earle]

dull and miserable?
Rorsach(sp) was anything but dull, in fact he was many people(critics alike) find was maybe the most entertaining part/character of that film. It's kind of ironic considering Moore designed him as a spoof on characters like batman.

he was more batman then bale, he didn't just say he was obsessed or angry he really lived it on screen, he could fight any number of people and the audience could feel that he was formidable, his thought bubbles were brilliant and he was walking around grave yards with a magnifying glass in his hand(more or less), he had a psychosis problem in which he felt more comfortable with his mask on really driving the point home that his public identity is his mask,

Rorschach is disturbed, psychotic. Batman isnt. Unless you re referring to Frank Miller's who is crazier than the Joker hahahaha...
Rorschach is so interesting because he is mad. Batman is not supposed to be so extrovert.

when he's locked up in prison, he makes us truly believe that he's a danger to everyone, that "you're locked in here with me" line was ten times more powerful then the whole bruce wayne in an asian prison being dangerous and trapped, and when he screamed at the end it was raw and demon like, a man that never flinches in the face of even apocalypse.

That prison scene was great. The fight choreography was specifically designed to show that Bruce is has some skill but his method is not refined. He fights more like a bull rather than a ninja. The martial artist that trained them even says so in the extras.

Now, again, Bruce isnt psychotic, he didnt want to kill anyone. He was there to study the criminals and to train while fighting them. He was there by choice as Ducard remarks.

instead it was just bale with non black hair

Now wait a minute....

just like some writers designed the "amazing" story, themes, and character work in the batman films, Nolan just said action.

Nolan co-wrote the script with Goyer and his brother. He also helped design the batmobile and designed the batpod by himself. Also, you say its because of the actors, well those top class actors would never work with Bay and that's his fault. Now why would they reject Bay? Because he sucks.

for example if bay did the action on the hulk, beyond the lighting being on point, it would be pretty sweet.

I guess we would get a chance to see under Betty's skirt too! You see what i mean about Bay's ethics? He just wants to make money. Nolan would have rather killed himself than shoot a film with a bad script. Bay has no problem. Just as long as he thinks that it will make money.

 

[baerrtt]

people make jokes about batmans lack of humor, it's usually a plot device used when something is wrong with him, ie, braniac mind controlled bruce wayne

I guess it comes down to preference, I just don't see how batman can function that way, I was raised to believe he's only able to do the amazing things he does because he's quite and intense..

but i think even guard would disagree on that

anyways

yes I'm marvin, i tend to go against the grain

I can compare bay and nolan, they do different things but to say one is more artistic?

shut off the volume and judge the direction of something like pear harbour and then say there isn't an artist at work...

all the work that went into designing bumble bee and then ppl claim these films don't have a single shred of art

the character animaton direction of someone like jet fire..

no sir
I was impressed with TDK on paper(script), before nolan "directed" it

tdk's lighting as more atmosphere then begins
and in batman ask any artist that has worked on him
it's all about atmosphere

did you see the way nolan lit arkham?
it was sad, but not in a good way.
arkham of all places

when it comes to art, bay is an award winning photographer, sure he dosn't chose the greatest critic worthy stories to tell,(he makes films for the blue collar)
but no one can knock the photography in his films

except maybe Malick

TDK is flawed beyond repair on closer analysis but quite frankly trying to 'expose' it's flaws continually in order to defend a complete piece of **** like ROTF is laughable. Defending Bay on the grounds that he makes films for the 'blue collar' (when every popular filmmaker from John Ford to Spielberg to Pixar has done as well) is equally laughable.

At the end of the day I could give a damn if Bay photographs his films better than Nolan or if Bay's 'characters' behave more consistently than Nolan's I had more genuine fun watching TDK's setpieces than anything in Bayformers 2 (that's right the only thing this sequel has to offer, action scenes, I found better executed in TDK).

Why can't you just be content with the fact that it's done well even though some of us don't like it? Praising a film simply because it panders to the lowest common denominator without any sign of inventiveness or originality (which is what distinguinshes say B movies like THE EVIL DEAD or even the recent CRANK from it) and makes HUGE amounts of money is pointless. You've defended in post after post shoddy storytelling and bad, cliched writing.

 

[Marvin]

Rorschach is disturbed, psychotic. Batman isnt. Unless you re referring to Frank Miller's who is crazier than the Joker hahahaha...
Rorschach is so interesting because he is mad. Batman is not supposed to be so extrovert.

actually many a book has referenced him and joker being two sides to the same coin

that duality is often played upon
89 batman; they claim to have made each other (the point of that movie)

TDK; an underlying theme reflected in two face with batman and joker on either side.
Joker continually tells batman that he's a freak...like himself

really, why because he puts on a funny suit?
missed opportunity

the point of Rorschach, the point of the whole watchmen story was to convey that only someone mentally disturbed would put on a costume in real life, with the ink blot mask to boot.

batman doesn't have to be extroverted, your right, that's joker
batman is an introverted mad man.

notice all of his villains belong in an asylum, the theme of the serious is about sainty.

Miller just pointed it out for anyone that didn't get it.

That prison scene was great. The fight choreography was specifically designed to show that Bruce is has some skill but his method is not refined. He fights more like a bull rather than a ninja. The martial artist that trained them even says so in the extras.

I know all about what it was supposed to do, I just think it was lost in all of nolans subtlety.
(I had to find all that out in the novel, which is my point)

Now, again, Bruce isnt psychotic, he didnt want to kill anyone. He was there to study the criminals and to train while fighting them. He was there by choice as Ducard remarks.

it was just weak/lame and full of the film literally telling us.
in that very scene wayne asks why there putting him in solitary, and the guards tell us, for everyone's protection...i get it
(if that scene really worked you could pull it off without the guards telling us)

rorscharch didn't have to kill anyone and it was ten times more apparent.

but then again, snyder is another one of those excessive young mtv like directors...

Now wait a minute....

more of that subtlety...I wonder what nolan would do with superman's hair colour

Nolan co-wrote the script with Goyer and his brother. He also helped design the batmobile and designed the batpod by himself.

nolan also "re-wrote" begins
and judging by what I read of Goyers original script that "re-write consisted of running the draft through spell check.

when it comes to nolans writing credit, I'll reserve judgment until I see him get sole writing credit.

Also, you say its because of the actors, well those top class actors would never work with Bay and that's his fault. Now why would they reject Bay? Because he sucks.

are you assuming that world class actors have never worked with bay?

or are you implying that the world class actors in the batman film have never taken on dumb stupid yet fun roles...???

I guess we would get a chance to see under Betty's skirt too! You see what i mean about Bay's ethics? He just wants to make money. Nolan would have rather killed himself than shoot a film with a bad script. Bay has no problem. Just as long as he thinks that it will make money.

yea just like the many shots up sams mom's skirt, and the many ass shots of Kate Beckinsale in pearl harbour?

bay does uses it with his protagonists, but as a plot device

ie check out Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder in Dr. No, does anyone ever call that s#$t shameless or excessive or pornographic

sam is a young man, megan is a "sexy" young woman and she has his car open, it as shot as excessive as that Dr. NO scene because bay doesn't just tell the audience things, ask any young male if they understand how sam's feeling in that scene(megan fox opens up BB's hood scene)

I'm sorry but I really don't know why bruce loves katie holmes "so damn much"

atleast we understand why sams attracted to makela.

sams college scene are all about temptation, the story calls for his loyaty to be tested, simple visual story telling would allow for alice to come off as sexy as she did...
damn that bay, she should have been wearing a three piece suit and a pony tail.

I like leslie bibb
but atleast bay's "chicks" wear pants

plot device

 

[Mr. Earle]

batman doesn't have to be extroverted, your right, that's joker
batman is an introverted mad man.

notice all of his villains belong in an asylum, the theme of the serious is about sainty.

Miller just pointed it out for anyone that didn't get it.

I'm on the Morrison side of the arguement. Batman is an obsessed individual, kinda like House is, but he is not crazy. What he does is not normal, but is it normal for spiderman, ironman, superman, etc? Its a world that half its populace are vigilantes. Its not supposed to be a big deal. And yet some batman writers make it a big deal. Batman is only different because of his dedication and obsession. The other superheroes are normal doctors and he is House.
So I prefer Morrison's Batman. He is a Zen type warrior whose mental training keeps him from falling into insanity. If you read an analysis of Morrison's batman work, you ll realise that all he is trying to do is bring batman back to sanity and cast away those silly stories that had him one step away from throwing feces. A good writer can write batman stories. A hack writer just portrays batman constantly in the suit, angry at everyone and just as crazy as the joker.

I know all about what it was supposed to do, I just think it was lost in all of nolans subtlety.
(I had to find all that out in the novel, which is my point)

I didnt read the novel and i got it just fine. No offense but it seems to me that you prefer a more "in your face" approach. So Nolan is not for you.

in that very scene wayne asks why there putting him in solitary, and the guards tell us, for everyone's protection...i get it
(if that scene really worked you could pull it off without the guards telling us)

I think it was part of Nolan's subtle humor. He doesnt do sex jokes.

more of that subtlety...I wonder what nolan would do with superman's hair colour

Bruce's hair were black.

I'm sorry but I really don't know why bruce loves katie holmes "so damn much"

atleast we understand why sams attracted to makela.

Thats the most ridiculous thing i have heard. Sam is horny for Mikaela. Bruce is childhood sweethearts with Rachel. Do women have to be babes or show off their panties for someone to fall in love with them?

Seriously man, you are defending the second worst director in the world (Uwe Boll is the worst). You trying to dismiss Nolan only to defend Bay. You like Bay more? Fine, just say so. But objectively speaking, Bay has never made a movie that can compare with Memento or the Prestige.

 

[Marvin]

TDK is flawed beyond repair on closer analysis but quite frankly trying to 'expose' it's flaws continually in order to defend a complete piece of **** like ROTF is laughable. Defending Bay on the grounds that he makes films for the 'blue collar' (when every popular filmmaker from John Ford to Spielberg to Pixar has done as well) is equally laughable.

not trying to expose it's flaws, those are apparent, I'm just pointing out what I don't like.

yes blue collar, as much as educated critics look down their noses at films like armageddon and bad boys(1), my uncle who has a very simple job and education thinks their some of the most entertaining and relatable experiences he's had with film.

so keep on laughing

At the end of the day I could give a damn if Bay photographs his films better than Nolan or if Bay's 'characters' behave more consistently than Nolan's I had more genuine fun watching TDK's setpieces than anything in Bayformers 2 (that's right the only thing this sequel has to offer, action scenes, I found better executed in TDK).

well, weather you "give a damn or not" it's great to see it go unappreciated when he is called a hack.

as for your opinion on the set pieces that's great, something you need to acknowledge is within what you just said you also pointed out that the set pieces being the only good thing about TF2 somehow pushed it to achieve the huge success it has
...they can't be all that bad

Why can't you just be content with the fact that it's done well even though some of us don't like it? Praising a film simply because it panders to the lowest common denominator without any sign of inventiveness or originality (which is what distinguinshes say B movies like THE EVIL DEAD or even the recent CRANK from it) and makes HUGE amounts of money is pointless.

I can write just as many posts about what (I believe) is wrong with bays films and Transformers in particular
I can even tolerate post after post of people ignoring what bay does well

what I won't do is sit by and and let him be called talentless (speilberg has praised the man many times)
he makes a certain type of film, others try but he opens huge in 5 days
there is no reason what so ever why wolverine or even the hulk sequels didn't do as well as TF(rotf)

unless you measure the talent of the people involved, he's crew is amzaing and unlike many productions they have zero casualties..

----------------------

I'm not pointing out the flaw in Nolans direction in any attempt to convince ppl to like TF
I'm pointing them out because these forums are all about bashing directors, why should nolan be any different?

If I wrote a review of this film(shame i don't believe in reviews) it would probably get a 6, for I would point out many a problem with the film but I would also point out the many good things

what I see on this very forum is people pointing things out...for example the "many plot holes" and then a few level headed people correcting them.

some points take longer to prove then others but I will "correct" people if I believe they are wrong.

I love when bay movies come out because I get to call people out on their Hypocrisy

Devin F
visibly upset about the way Watchmen was received this year,

also has a blood mission to out Orci and Krutman(tf writers) on their hackiness, he even goes as far as to tell the world he likes star trek but its only because abrams is so great with an article he writes called "why stark trek works inspite of itself)

he gives TF a good review and then TF 2 comes out and he's a completely different person...(bad timing I suppose)
I'm just not convinced.

Harry knowles
I read his TF2 review and then I read his Crank 2 review and I see nothing but agenda.


"Come to think of it, I was pretty stupid when I was six years old. So is this film. "
-Sean Gandert

good call sean, good call.


but I digress

what's so low can common about the denomination it panders to?

so it's the inventiveness of Evil Dead that earned it %100 on RT
I assumed you needed a film that focused on plot and real characters to get that?

people talk of the excessive style, hyper camera and the mysoginism of transformers
yet Crank is literally praised of it, with real pornstars to boot

I wouldn't really have a problem with mis guided bad reveiws, it's the hypocrisy

If I watched TF and the audience booed the whole film, that would interesting, instead they cheer and laugh on cue, they even applaud when it's over.

You've defended in post after post shoddy storytelling and bad, cliched writing.

because when the story telling isn't shoddy, it's really good and I'm not going to let that go un noticed.

cliched writing you say?
disney built it's studio on it

some would say the best story telling is cliched

or should the bad guys win in the end

 

[Mr. Earle]

yes blue collar, as much as educated critics look down their noses at films like armageddon and bad boys(1), my uncle who has a very simple job and education thinks their some of the most entertaining and relatable experiences he's had with film.

You mean the same critics that loved Begins, TDK and Ironman? Movies about a guy dressing like a bat and another who dresses like Robocop? I rest my case.

 

[Marvin]

I'm on the Morrison side of the arguement. Batman is an obsessed individual, kinda like House is, but he is not crazy. What he does is not normal, but is it normal for spiderman, ironman, superman, etc? Its a world that half its populace are vigilantes. Its not supposed to be a big deal. And yet some batman writers make it a big deal. Batman is only different because of his dedication and obsession. The other superheroes are normal doctors and he is House.
So I prefer Morrison's Batman. He is a Zen type warrior whose mental training keeps him from falling into insanity. If you read an analysis of Morrison's batman work, you ll realise that all he is trying to do is bring batman back to sanity and cast away those silly stories that had him one step away from throwing feces.

morrisons, pre infinite crisis batman writing wasn't the same as his post, DC editors wanting to have batman be more "nice"

A good writer can write batman stories. A hack writer just portrays batman constantly in the suit, angry at everyone and just as crazy as the joker.

the best regarded batman novels of the past 30 years must have been written by hacks then

I didnt read the novel and i got it just fine. No offense but it seems to me that you prefer a more "in your face" approach. So Nolan is not for you.

guess not, then again his work with joker and pretty much most non bale realated things in TDK please my inkling
and for some reason that film got along better with just about everyone.

I think it was part of Nolan's subtle humor. He doesnt do sex jokes.

no that would be faverau

Bruce's hair were black.

nah

Thats the most ridiculous thing i have heard. Sam is horny for Mikaela. Bruce is childhood sweethearts with Rachel. Do women have to be babes or show off their panties for someone to fall in love with them?

sam is horny for mikaela, there is no clearer story telling then that, for all the knocks on the story "telling" you would think that would be more obvious

if a monster comes into the city and he's destroying it, and then a second monster strolls bay and bats her pretty lashes, and gasps the first monster stops destroying the city and pursues the pretty monster
I'd say that is an excellent character motivation piece and as good as story "telling" gets.

playing the whole childhood love angle in begins?
sure they were friends as kids, they grew up and now they're in love? wow

I actually find what Raimi did with Peter Parker's childhood love to be far more effective.

Seriously man, you are defending the second worst director in the world (Uwe Boll is the worst). You trying to dismiss Nolan only to defend Bay. You like Bay more? Fine, just say so. But objectively speaking, Bay has never made a movie that can compare with Memento or the Prestige.

I'm defending the second most looked down upon director in the world yes.
I like what I like and try to defend it. better then just joining a forum and saying the cool in thing and leaving it at that.

I'm am dismissing nolan for reasons I have stated, that has nothing to do with bay.

do I like bay more?
depends on the category
you need to stop putting everything in a category together

I'm an fine artist/animator/filmmaker

when it comes to what bay has put on the screen I appreciate the beauty in it at the same time this is a person that puts simple potty humor on the very same palette

I appreciate the contrast present

I also think he is an interesting person, for the industry, for every single one of Kubricks films were received poorly by critics

are they the same quality filmmaker, NO

kubrick made films for himself
bay makes films for his audience

but neither of them made films for the critics

and I respect that.

nolan doesn't interest me, and i think he's overrated
and then I saw TDK and I liked it

I grew up reading batman so i have strong opinions on what I felt that film could have been, and alot of it was there in the script, but to me he pulled a singer with Begins, and it felt flat...TDK felt anything but flat.

I also have strong beliefs in what a director should get credit for.

as for your closing comparison?
how can someone compare any two art pieces

for example, has nolan ever made a better comedy then judd apatow?
what is a comedy?
is comedy better then drama?

what is better film?

has nolan ever made a better film then apatow?

people do different things within the medium, comparisons of that nature are kinda dumb.

 

[Marvin]

You mean the same critics that loved Begins, TDK and Ironman? Movies about a guy dressing like a bat and another who dresses like Robocop? I rest my case.

what case is that?

 

[Mr. Earle]

what case is that?

That those arrogant elitist critics had problem with fighting robots, but they loved a film about a man dressed like a bat? Maybe their problem doesnt lie with the genre, but with the way each movie is made. BB and then TDK set the bar on the superhero films. When T2007 was pretty good, ROTF was a noisy piece of crap. And that's the problem.

The only reason it sells is because of the robots, their design and those setpieces. And Megan Fox. Plot, direction, script are non existent at best.

 

[Marvin]

That those arrogant elitist critics had problem with fighting robots, but they loved a film about a man dressed like a bat? Maybe their problem doesnt lie with the genre, but with the way each movie is made. BB and then TDK set the bar on the superhero films. When T2007 was pretty good, ROTF was a noisy piece of crap. And that's the problem.

The only reason it sells is because of the robots, their design and those setpieces. And Megan Fox. Plot, direction, script are non existent at best.

arrogant? elitist?
now now, don't be so harsh

anyways
I never said anything about them having it out for the genre, I actually said they had it out for bay, but in the context of your point

they have it out for films that entertain, how buddy put it, people in the lowest common denominator.

I'm sorry that armageddon wasn't smart enough to compare to other space films such as sunshine or 2001 but it was very pleasing to someone that just wants an escapist feel good movie about average joe saving the world and his relationship with his daughter at the same time

oh but wait, there must have been something really dumb about it because movies that don't pretend to be anything but dumb get high praise as feel good comedies

guess i'm wrong