So do all bad movies do badly at the box office? Okay, then are the twilight movies good because they did well at the box office? I have a list of some pretty bad movies that did well at the box office:
http://www.hitfix.com/articles/10-of-the-worst-box-office-hits-of-all-time
Are all those movies good because they did well at the box office? I hate that notion that just because something is successful, that instantly makes it good, instead of debating the pros and cons of the work itself.
People like junk food, binge drinking and cigarettes, just because people like these things doesn't make them any less bad for you.
Nope, but most do.
Especially when they aren't coming off of such things as the most loved franchises in the history of film or are the sequels to critically and financially successful installments. Or are adapted from books that are worldwide pop culture zeitgeist machines. If a film is coming off of nothing but it's own merit or better yet a hated series of films, it's most likely not anywhere near that top 20 list unless it's doing something right.
I like your food analogy. Here's another. There is a well cooked meal and then there's ice cream. That's all well and good. Now there is good ice cream and there's bad ice cream.
Good ice cream has it's place. Next you will be saying there's no place for comedy in the film industry because it offers no "substance." I mean people like it but you know, that doesn't make it any less "bad for you".
So no one in the local media decided to cover this story and it didnt get picked up by CNN? I call BS on that. What about the thousands of eye witnesses who saw the whole thing. What happened to them? How did the government cover up that giant battle in Shanghai? Its a bad plot point that makes no sense.
You can call all the bs you want. Like I said, there are many ways around it, you but need to apply yourself. And perhaps imagine what the gov't and military are truly capable off on their own soil.
ie, robots, not alien monsters, so who's to say it wasn't a military experiment or attack. Are there enough locals to doubt that? A localized emp could stop any footage being recorded or immediately sent out...I digress, because it wasn't shown I suppose that makes it a hole.
I honestly wonder how they even cleaned up the city, seeing as how that wasn't shown either.
And suspension of disbelief doesn't a work should not have any sort of internal rules or logic. Spider-Man getting powers from a spider that is covered by suspension of disbelief, but if what no where, he started shooting lasers out of his hands and there is no explanation for it, that wouldn't be covered, you are introducing new elements out of nowhere. There are way too many things that come out of nowhere, have no build up, no set up or just blatantly contradict other things in the franchise. In the first movie the Allspark kills Megatron, in the second it brings him back to life, Jetfire teleporting everyone to Egypt comes out of nowhere and since we never saw any Transformer teleport anyone anywhere before, it looks like something the writers pulled out of their butts.
Suspension of Disbelief ends where the story wants it to end. If Shia all of a sudden transforms you would cry bloody murder, then the script would say, he's had alot of exposure to the all spark and you would still cry bloody murder. If spiderman started shooting lasers out of his hand, after he was bit and anyone but fan boys cried about it, I would be surprised. A radio active spider bite and we're supposed to understand what comes next, outside of nothing or death
Do you know the physics, quantum or otherwise of how the all spark works, moreover how it reacts with cybertronian physiology, let alone what state the robot's body has to in(dead or alive) when it is put in contact with the artifact ....you don't. So why act like you just saw an apple bounce off the ground and reach orbit.
Jetfire used a mobile ground bride, I thought that was clear.
And he is the same annoying little bastard by the start the second film. He never seems to learn anything that is retained. Character regression is one of the problems I had with Iron Man 2, but it was worse with Sam.
Character regression as you put it is very much Marvel's stigma. Well as long as you complained about it in those films, I don't need to bring it up. That being said, again Sam’s growth, similar to Tony's is still present, what you are critiquing is their personality traits. To suggest sam isn’t a better person by the end of the movie…
btw, I'm having a hard time recalling Captain America's oh so important character arc. I suppose one could say that after the steroids, he started to believe in himself more.
Except none of that is actually in the movie, its just stuff you are projecting on this character. If after Prime killed that Decpeticon, he showed some regret and we get into why he did that, then I might sympathetize with him, as the scene stands now, he just seems like a thug.
Prime showed regret in the first film. The second is a year or so into the war in which Decepticons are now killing innocent humans every week or so. Call it what you will, he’s changed, but because it’s a change you aren’t hip too, now its bad.
You do realize that killing a helpless prisoner on the battlefield is considered a war crime, right? If a solider to is trying to kill you, you can kill him to defend yourself, but you can't kill a helpless prisoner.
Says who exactly?
Also, not every time a soldier kills other soldiers, is it an act of self defense in the strictest form. Especially when a bomb is used from a plane. Or better yet, a drone. Yet those aren't war crimes. But putting a dying building sized killer out do do more killing out of it's misery is the devils work. My point was that even our rules are fickle, whose to say what the rules are for these millennia old war time aliens.
So he becomes more of an A-hole as the movies progress? Yeah, that's what people want to see from Prime.
And these movies are rated PG-13, so they are not just for kids.
I never said he becomes more of an A-hole, those are your words. I said he becomes more of a soldier and less of an idealist. And yes, many people probably did want to see that.
Prime is not Conan, you are comparing apples to oranges.
Never said Prime is like Conan. I said Conan is a "Noble" warrior and leader.
I also said Prime is a Noble warrior and leader.
Apple and Oranges are both fruits.
Except I have seen many later Star Trek episodes where the "heroes" let a civilization die ans come off as A-holes. Check out "Dear Doctor" the Enterprise episode, where Archer's inaction results in genocide. How is that heroic? So yeah Prime doesn't seem noble, he seems like a callous A-hole and the humans seem stupid for exiling the Autobots. Its a bad plot, with characters acting stupid or cruel or both.
The TNG episode "homeworld" deals with the same issue only because it's TNG it's of course better handled imo. The Prime directive may make people come off as A holes, but that doesn't mean it's not right.
Superman could end world hunger and war and all sorts of things in a day yet any fool can argue why he has no right too. Mark Millar nailed it in RedSun.
If Prime doesn't listen to the worlds leaders who represent the people then he truly would be the Ahole you make him out to be.
I'd expect Superman to leave if faced with the same public outcry too.
With all the vile frat boy humor in these films, I don't see how they are aimed at kids. Are jokes about dogs humping and moms getting high and telling comprising stories and jokes about *********ion really for kids? Heck if these were just kids films I would be easier on them, but they have Bay's crass sense of humor that make them ill suited to be considered kids films.
I don't know about you but none of that is beyond the humor of a 13 year old boy. I say this cause I was one not too long ago. Oh no, dogs humping that's so juvenile. Mothers getting drunk off of band(in some states) substances, so vile...When bay shows a 17 year old masterbating on or off camera, bring it up. When parents have "the talk," and it's a big misunderstanding, it's a joke, one for the whole family.
Fresh Prince and Cosby both dealt with young adult sex, and those programs were intended for the entire family.
I say the films for kids because it's adapted from an 80's Saturday morning toy commercial only this time it's PG13. That means it can appeal to older audiences in it's humor and action. That doesn't mean the material isn't still based on an 80's Saturday morning toy commercial.
I’d expect a PG 13 rated Barney episode to not have G humor if made into a 100plus million dollar film franchise. Maybe they just shouldn’t bother though.
There are kids movies that are better written then this dreck, why should I be soft on these films? Almost any Pixar movie is way better written then the TF movies, so saying that because its a kids movie, so the no one has put any real effort forward, I would have to disagree with that.
Pixar films aren't trying to do what TF is trying to do. Transformers films and "no real effort" are hardly synonymous. Lots of people, artists and technicians and stunt men alike, work pretty darn hard to put this ultra successful franchise together. I just think it's offensive to ignore that fact. And say there is no effort here, just cause the script doesn’t appeal to your sensibilities or standards for an action comedy adapted from an 80’s Saturday morning toy commercial.
Here's the thing. The simpsons is a great great animated sitcom. Does it compare to the writing in a pixar film? I would argue no. It's great at what it's trying to do. I hate south park with a passion but I'm not on here saying , well it's no Grave of the Fireflies...No, it's great at what it's trying to do.
TF isn't failing at being Toystory 4, it's succeeding at being TF, lots of people don’t like it, but lots of people do. No one liked The Happening for sucking.
Something about Mary is a great little comedy, it's no Gosford Park, so it's a failure? No, it's a great little comedy. I'm personally tired of people missing this point. Bad boys is a great Buddy Cop movie in the Action/Comedy Genre. It's not a failed Serpico
John Tururro, John Malkovich, Frances McDormand all great actors, but all putting on their comedy faces for this as they have in times before. Yet people act like the "Acting" is bad in this one instance. Intent goes along way.
Avengers and dark Knight are not perfect, but they do not have as many problems as the TF films.
That's debatable.
For example (external link due to some language)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFqynqZIcoQ
It's a long 5 parts, but then again, there is alot of crap to cover. You might like it though, it asks the very same question you did above. Just because something is successful doesn't mean it's good. However, Batman isn't based on an 80's Saturday morning toy… it's a film that sent out "for your consideration ads. I ponder why be hard on an admitted romp yet no as hard on a critical study....as many’s like you do.
.
