Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

headsortails wrote:

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

Gemini220 wrote:From alot of the reviews I've read here with people shredding this movie to bits a few questions?

Where you expecting an Oscar type movie?
Did you submit scrips to Bay & Co?
What cartoon, comic book, action figure made into a live action film has been perfect?

People have hated the first 3 Star Wars movies which were excellent. People have love or hated the Superman, Batman, XMEN, Ironman movies but the key word is Movies. You go to escape from the real world for a few hrs, some take it as though it's the end of the world because "Their favorite cartoon, comic book, action figure characters etc" wasn't The Movie they wanted it.

I'm pretty sure this time around he had alot of input on do's & don'ts, how things should go who knows.

It's just wild reading these responses.

As for when I said people were applauding, why do some clap & cheer after riding a roller-coaster?

I never understood how people can get so worked up over movies. Are their lives so cushy and boring that watching a movie is the worst thing that can happen to them? Maybe some people just live to complain I guess.

Totally agree there. I guess all these "film critics" gotta complain about something, though. I just saw the movie for the second time today, and I have to say the second time around was better. But hey, I don't know movies like the "film critics" on this site.

Whatever happened to just going to a movie and enjoying it for what it's worth. Some people are slamming this movie like they have seen the Transformers land on earth and are telling us "that's not how it happened". Plus those who say it is more like an "alien movie"- technically, they are of alien origin since they came from a planet not our own. And like the others just said, "IT'S A FREAKIN' MOVIE" for Cybertron's sake......

Exactly!!

http://youtu.be/r1a8Koclz_w

That's my lousy spoken thoughts for anyone who cares to sit through it. XP

So, yes, anyway, I went ahead and saw the movie again today (as I threatened I would, LOL), in a much better theater, and with theater goodies to snack on as I pleased.
I also watched the first and second films before I left for the theater today, to have some comparisons.

Eventually I've come to the conclusion that the third film is as good to me as the first two for one main reason - and that is that it has inspired me.
Without these films I would not have taken up costuming as I have. I would have never developed those skills. And this has once again spurred me on to make another costume. I can't wait!
Less directly, the film franchise in general has made me a better person, and better off as well, because now I not only have something as a hobby- since Zoids have mostly gone- but also in that it's helped me develop friends, and less so, contacts in the 3D field. Without Transformers as a movie franchise, dragging me back into interest with the main Transformers franchise, I would not have gotten as far as I am in life now. And that is a good thought, to me.

Speaking of Zoids, once Real Steel comes out (I'm excited for that), Zoids should be next on the list of robots brought to the big scren! XD I would ADORE that! <3


To answer some standing questions on the thread:

I think it was Seibertron who mentioned he didn't catch the G1 transforming noise in dotm yet. I can say I heard it really clearly on Bumblebee's transformation shortly after Prime is done offing Megatron and Sentinel.

Secondly - I haven't heard mention of this yet - Laserbeak plays a dial tone/ring tone version of the G1 theme when he is a fax machine, shortly before attacking Sam. I thought I heard some music the first time I watched, but I couldn't be sure at the time of what it was. Now I know

Thirdly, again too answer a standing question in the thread:
YES, I do think Sentinel "runs out" of Cosmic Rust solution after the scene with Ironhide. Note the injector on his right forearm/wrist. It's filled with a slightly green liquid (IIRC) up to that point in the film (when him and OP are out in the wilds with the matrix you get a good close-up of it), and after his shooting spree in the scene with Ironhide you can see better into the vial and it has a sort of barber shop diagonal swirl pattern to the backing of it (not in those colors, and not rotating, just the angled stripes backing). You'll also notice no other 'bots take direct hits from his shots during this scene, hence none of them corroding. Bee appears to be knocked back by one of the blasts/shockwaves/explosions of a shot, but that's the most contact any robot character has with it in that scene where Sentinel appears to use the solution up.

Also, since I watched the first two films before going to the theater today, I remembered that Sentinel Prime is mentioned in RoTF - when Sam has his brain wave in college and starts rambling and drawing on the chalk board. Have fun with that.

Oh well. With the exception of the 1st movie (2007) the franchise of Tranformers just pissed on and disrespected by Hollywood. Thanks Hasbro for allowing it to happen. (If the "Battleship" movie is better than TF I'm going to be pissed!!) I wouldn't complain nearly as much if they waited 3 yrs. between movies and produced a more focused and quality finished product. Any movie with a near $200 million budget should never be made in < 2 yrs. Titanic took at least 3+ yrs. and Avatar took 4 yrs. (of course I shouldn't compare Cameron to Bay -no contest & i really hate it when Cam compliments Bay -doesn't need to give him a bigger head) Let's hope Voltron, Thundercats and He-man don't get ruined (for all of us children of the 80's). I really hope whatever they're doing for Voltron is done right.

Much kudos to ILM and Digital Domain & the other FX houses - these guys really carried the movies ROTF and DOTM. They really wouldn't be worth watching much if the effects sucked.

As a staunch critic of Michael Bay and ROTF, I had mixed feelings about going to see this movie. However I must say, it certainly delivered in terms of action. Heres my thoughts, good and bad..

THE GOOD
1. Without question the movie Optimus Prime is now the definitive Optimus Prime for me. In this film he shows a real edgier side, a real violent bastard when he needs to be.
2. The Cybertron scenes were awesome.
3. Turturro was hysterical,the funny parts in this one were ACTUALLY funny
4. Mom and dad had about 2 scenes I think
5. Sentinel Prime
6. the 3D

THE BAD
1. Bay can't seem to direct young men and women without making it look and sound like a TV commercial...JUST SHOOT THE SCENE FOR GODS SAKE AND LEAVE THE LAME ASS ELEVATOR ROCK MUSIC OUT!!!!
2. Some of the new Autobots bear zero resemblance to any characters I remember... The Wreckers?? didn't even catch the others new guys names. They just seem to follow the same generic pattern of whats already been done.
3.Lazerbeaks design looked like something from a Jim Henson show
4. No one is going that cinema to watch hot chicks so dont even BOTHER with a romantic interest in the next one...its actually painful to be pulled away from the Transformers to Rosie pouting.

I finally had a chance to see it again, still haven't gone to see it in 3D, doubt I will, actually.

The second time around, I have to admit, it loses a bit of it's luster and oomph.

The first 18 minutes are now torture to me. The whole space race scene is necessary, I know, but it really grated on my nerves this time.

Malkovich and Jeong are criminally underused, and I'm saddened they got screwed over like they did.

It must've been the rush of seeing it the first time, because the pace wasn't quite as fast as I thought it was. In fact, during the Chicago battle, it's what I thought it would be, initially. Long and overblown.

But, to be fair, I did say I would correct myself once I had a chance to watch it again. And so I shall.

It needs trimmed at least 25-35 minutes, the Chicago segment especially.

I felt that Sam's parents were incredibly cruel this time around. I took notice of it in the first viewing, but it really stood out this time. Some of their scenes were funny, but ultimately...eh...yeah, they could've gone with less screen time.

I had a closer look, and I was able to pay more attention, and I have to say, that aside from a few offkilter seconds here and there... Rosie is actually quite competent as an actress, and she pulled off the role even better than I remembered from the first viewing. She's quite lovely, to boot.

Megan Fox/Mikaela was more of a hot, sweaty calendar girl who is truly eye candy, but she tried. I'll give her that much, she tried.

Rosie Huntington-Whiteley/Carly is more a woman of class and sophistication, along with beauty. There IS a substantial difference between the two. And while her performance wasn't perfect, she really didn't have to try, either. She has genuine acting talent, and I think she could be headlining marquees for ginormous blockbusters beyond this franchise.

After seeing it a second time, I can truly say that Optimus was justified in his execution of Megatron and Sentinel. I paid closer attention to what Megatron said... After Cybertron is destroyed, he realizes that Earth is all they have left, and he offers the truce, but he clearly says he wants to be leader once again, and then asks Optimus where he'd be without him. So Megatron was offering his leadership here, on Earth. Prime ain't havin' that.

Sentinel had no right to beg for mercy. He has no right to ask for that which he didn't give. He was merciless.

Sideswipe had some actual dialogue this time, and James Remar was a perfect choice to replace the original VA. Dino just had loads of fun, and so did the audience. I think he has potential to be a really cool character.

The Wreckers still make me laugh.

I noticed, I didn't get choked up like I did last time, in fact, outside of laughter during a few scenes, there was no real emotional impact.

The story itself is still solid as a rock, it really is, but the end product not as much.

My girlfriend wants to go see it this weekend when she comes for a visit, so I will, but we're going to the drive in. I ain't payin' 3D prices for this.

Now, I realize that sounds like I'm dogging the movie out, completely. I'm not. I still found it enjoyable and well worth watching, but it wasn't quite the experience I thought it was.

I can't remember what grade I gave the film, I believe it was a B+... I'm going with a solid B- It's not bad enough to drop to a C, but it's not A material.

It is overly violent, the adult humor is unnecessary, and it's a tad too long. (and now I hear that the DVD/Blu-Ray release is supposed to have deleted scenes included! Oy vey!)

Yeah, a B- for me. It's well worth seeing, and I'll add it to my collection when it's released on video, but I'm less enthusiastic about it, having seen it again.

I do worry whether or not my opinion will drop on the 3rd showing...

sushilove wrote:All the chicago action was slowly paced and the scenes were disconected. One minute we see bumblebee saving sam and lennox and they are in the side of the river unable to go to the other side... and the next minute we see bumblebee captured by the decepticons... how this happened?

Yeah that confused me as well. It's like there's little bits missing in places.

Bleak5170 wrote:

sushilove wrote:All the chicago action was slowly paced and the scenes were disconected. One minute we see bumblebee saving sam and lennox and they are in the side of the river unable to go to the other side... and the next minute we see bumblebee captured by the decepticons... how this happened?

Yeah that confused me as well. It's like there's little bits missing in places.

michael bay is a **** director ?

i liked it better than 2, the transformers actually felt like they had more screentime, I'm just not sure why the Decepticons are all slobbering and drooling now, they didn't the previous 2.

and for some reason, Carly's introduction, a giant ass in 3-D, I thought was kind of hilarious

I think that the only real thrilling moment in the film is when Suondwave its about to shoot Bumblebee...in thath moment i really wonder if he is gonna kill Bee...

Going in, I never expected to see an Oscar quality work of art. It's an action film by Michael Bay. I think I may have been a bit disappointed in the end...Guess I'll have to wait for the DVD to come out so I can give it a second look. I doubt I'll got see it again in the theater.

Visually, it's stunning. Some of the action scenes, primarily the one on the highway with Sam and Bee when they're flying through the air - that rocked! - were just jaw-dropping. The Cybertron scene in the beginning I thought was executed beautifully. I saw it in Imax 3D, so I felt like I was in the air on those helicopters as they're being shot down and all the chaos that ensues as the soldiers are flying into Chicago. So much destruction and violence - some of it justified, some was just superfluous.

I always get a little bent out of shape when it comes to character development. Shockwave is supposed to be badass, and I expected that. He just wasn't developed at all. He looked cool, but no personality. He should have scared the pants of us! Instead, he was there to break buildings in half with his, uh, snaky appendages(?). Sure, I guess that's scary, but this is SHOCKWAVE! Where's all the cold, calculated, logical stuff? And I really dislike not knowing which bot is which - I wanna know names!

John Malkovich was in this movie. Why? There was no real purpose for his character at all. That part could have been played by anybody. What was that thing with Bee all about? That was something that could have been cut out.

That hairy Autobot is Q? Wheeljack? Huh? Maybe I need to go see it again. Or, maybe read the prequel comics...

Why are there only 8 or so Autobots and a bazillion Decepticons? If 8 Autobots can kick the ass of the entire Decepticon force, how the hell did they lose Cybertron? Ok, so I guess the humans help a little...

At least Soundwave gets some cool screen time. Sentinel Prime turning on the Autobots - I didn't see that one coming! Carly walks right up to Megatron and calls him Sentinel's Bxxxh - which then prompts Megatron to go do something about it. I liked that.

I'm kinda up in the air about the overall story...I liked it, but the end left me kinda empty. Even after 2 and a half hours - I feel like something was missing...haven't figured it out yet. Maybe it has to do with Cybertron's destruction, the deaths of so many key Decepticons - where does the story go from here? Yeah, I know. Someone will figure it out.

I am also disappointed that the whole trilogy did not explore the power struggle-relationship between Megatron and Starscream. The films made Starscream out to be some groveling, hunchback "Yes Master....." type of character. And that is not Starscream at all. Starscream was always there to call Megatron a FOOL and Megatron was alway there to realize that no mattter how much he was angered by Starscreams insolence he knew that he still needed Starscream to be there as his right hand man (that is until Starscream would finally cross the line in some way). Why dont the Cons get any screen or story time anymore in any series nowadays. Its starting to burn up.

Well just got back from seeing it again and maybe because I'm not a TF fanatic dissecting every little thing about the movie and maybe because I'm not a Bay basher I totally enjoyed the film & the people I was with did to!!

Oh and a different theater different state people were applauding at the end.

One question? Why didn't Starscream just transform when Sam had the clamp on his eye?

Gemini220 wrote:Well just got back from seeing it again and maybe because I'm not a TF fanatic dissecting every little thing about the movie and maybe because I'm not a Bay basher I totally enjoyed the film & the people I was with did to!!

Oh and a different theater different state people were applauding at the end.

One question? Why didn't Starscream just transform when Sam had the clamp on his eye?

Quite possibly he was genuinely scared and in tremendous pain. I had a rock thrown in my eye when I was 5. I can barely remember what happened after that, the pain and blood overwhelmed me.

It's quite possible that Starscream was scared and feeling extraordinary pain. You can't always function during moments of duress of that magnitude.

but you can when your foot gets stuck between plates in Autobot City!

After watching the all 3 Transformers movie, it is clear that this is Michael Bay's version of the Transformers, if they release a Trilogy set, I hope they get to fix some of the inconsistencies or add scenes not shown.

Gemini220 wrote:Well just got back from seeing it again and maybe because I'm not a TF fanatic dissecting every little thing about the movie and maybe because I'm not a Bay basher I totally enjoyed the film & the people I was with did to!!

Oh and a different theater different state people were applauding at the end.

One question? Why didn't Starscream just transform when Sam had the clamp on his eye?

I think because he's a coward...after all he's running away from battles in the previous films.maybe the pain was to high and he was incapable of doing something else.

Totally agree there. I guess all these "film critics" gotta complain about something, though. I just saw the movie for the second time today, and I have to say the second time around was better. But hey, I don't know movies like the "film critics" on this site.

Whatever happened to just going to a movie and enjoying it for what it's worth... And like the others just said, "IT'S A FREAKIN' MOVIE" for Cybertron's sake......

Sorry to pick on this one post (nothing personal, honest), but I see a lot of posts like this.

The argument goes that it's only a sci-fi action movie, it's there simply to excite and entertain, it's never going to win any Oscars. It's an adventure movie based on a bunch of toys, after all. As such, we should therefore hold it to a lower standard than if we were judging, say, a highbrow art movie.

Sorry, but that argument is just dumb.

It's been proven time and time again that it is possible to have a sci-fi / action movie and a have bit of depth in there as well. Off the top of my head, 'Starship Troopers', 'Terminator 2', 'Watchmen' and even the much-maligned Ang Lee version of 'Hulk' all manage to combine special-effects driven action set-pieces with a bit of depth, character and subtext. Compared to those films, the Transformers franchise is a shallow mess of a movie series.

Why can't you have action and depth? Why can't we use spectacle as a means to convey an idea or theme, instead of just spectacle for its own sake? 'Total Recall' managed it. 'Jurassic Park' managed it. 'Frankenstein', the very first sci-fi ever written, got it right at the first attempt. At least those stories were trying to tell me something, underneath the high concepts. Take away the effects in the 'Transformers' films, and what have we got? Emptiness.

Even the bloody 80s comics and cartoons got it right where Bay could not. The classic comic story 'Target: 2006' was both epic and thought-provoking. The tragicaly ill-fated Kranix character in the 80s animated movie had more character in five minutes than Michael Bay's Ironhide did in hours of footage - and guess whose death mattered to me the most? Clue: not Ironhide.

Yes, Bay's Transformers movies are exciting, action-packed, slick, noisy and visceral, that much is true. In terms of visual effects, sound design and orchestral score, Bay's Transformers films are, in my view, at the very very top.

But surely it's not such a crime to ask for a bit more, considering all those millions of dollars that went into their production?

I saw it again today and enjoyed it a bit more than the 1st time around.

I liked it in 2D better since the visuals seemed clearer and less cluttered.

The 1st half still drags and the film still lacks the "wow" factor, but it's a pretty competent action flick.

Don't know if this was mentioned, but the cartoon transformation sound can be heard right at the end as Sam gets out of BB and the latter transforms.

starfish wrote:

Totally agree there. I guess all these "film critics" gotta complain about something, though. I just saw the movie for the second time today, and I have to say the second time around was better. But hey, I don't know movies like the "film critics" on this site.

Whatever happened to just going to a movie and enjoying it for what it's worth... And like the others just said, "IT'S A FREAKIN' MOVIE" for Cybertron's sake......

Sorry to pick on this one post (nothing personal, honest), but I see a lot of posts like this.

The argument goes that it's only a sci-fi action movie, it's there simply to excite and entertain, it's never going to win any Oscars. It's an adventure movie based on a bunch of toys, after all. As such, we should therefore hold it to a lower standard than if we were judging, say, a highbrow art movie.

Sorry, but that argument is just dumb.

It's been proven time and time again that it is possible to have a sci-fi / action movie and a have bit of depth in there as well. Off the top of my head, 'Starship Troopers', 'Terminator 2', 'Watchmen' and even the much-maligned Ang Lee version of 'Hulk' all manage to combine special-effects driven action set-pieces with a bit of depth, character and subtext. Compared to those films, the Transformers franchise is a shallow mess of a movie series.

Why can't you have action and depth? Why can't we use spectacle as a means to convey an idea or theme, instead of just spectacle for its own sake? 'Total Recall' managed it. 'Jurassic Park' managed it. 'Frankenstein', the very first sci-fi ever written, got it right at the first attempt. At least those stories were trying to tell me something, underneath the high concepts. Take away the effects in the 'Transformers' films, and what have we got? Emptiness.

Even the bloody 80s comics and cartoons got it right where Bay could not. The classic comic story 'Target: 2006' was both epic and thought-provoking. The tragicaly ill-fated Kranix character in the 80s animated movie had more character in five minutes than Michael Bay's Ironhide did in hours of footage - and guess whose death mattered to me the most? Clue: not Ironhide.

Yes, Bay's Transformers movies are exciting, action-packed, slick, noisy and visceral, that much is true. In terms of visual effects, sound design and orchestral score, Bay's Transformers films are, in my view, at the very very top.

But surely it's not such a crime to ask for a bit more, considering all those millions of dollars that went into their production?

i agree 100%. The lack of character development makes these films hard to swallow. The action scenes would be even better if there were more depth added. This is Transformers, not alien war robot killers that hang out with lingerie models. If a re-boot is done, I want Bay no where near it. No where!! Please.

starfish wrote:

Totally agree there. I guess all these "film critics" gotta complain about something, though. I just saw the movie for the second time today, and I have to say the second time around was better. But hey, I don't know movies like the "film critics" on this site.

Whatever happened to just going to a movie and enjoying it for what it's worth... And like the others just said, "IT'S A FREAKIN' MOVIE" for Cybertron's sake......

Sorry to pick on this one post (nothing personal, honest), but I see a lot of posts like this.

The argument goes that it's only a sci-fi action movie, it's there simply to excite and entertain, it's never going to win any Oscars. It's an adventure movie based on a bunch of toys, after all. As such, we should therefore hold it to a lower standard than if we were judging, say, a highbrow art movie.

Sorry, but that argument is just dumb.

It's been proven time and time again that it is possible to have a sci-fi / action movie and a have bit of depth in there as well. Off the top of my head, 'Starship Troopers', 'Terminator 2', 'Watchmen' and even the much-maligned Ang Lee version of 'Hulk' all manage to combine special-effects driven action set-pieces with a bit of depth, character and subtext. Compared to those films, the Transformers franchise is a shallow mess of a movie series.

Why can't you have action and depth? Why can't we use spectacle as a means to convey an idea or theme, instead of just spectacle for its own sake? 'Total Recall' managed it. 'Jurassic Park' managed it. 'Frankenstein', the very first sci-fi ever written, got it right at the first attempt. At least those stories were trying to tell me something, underneath the high concepts. Take away the effects in the 'Transformers' films, and what have we got? Emptiness.

Even the bloody 80s comics and cartoons got it right where Bay could not. The classic comic story 'Target: 2006' was both epic and thought-provoking. The tragicaly ill-fated Kranix character in the 80s animated movie had more character in five minutes than Michael Bay's Ironhide did in hours of footage - and guess whose death mattered to me the most? Clue: not Ironhide.

Yes, Bay's Transformers movies are exciting, action-packed, slick, noisy and visceral, that much is true. In terms of visual effects, sound design and orchestral score, Bay's Transformers films are, in my view, at the very very top.

But surely it's not such a crime to ask for a bit more, considering all those millions of dollars that went into their production?

Oh, you're absolutely right, there is no reason you can't have depth and spectacle but that doesn't mean every film needs depth and spectacle. You don't expect character development when you go to see the opera, do you? And you don't look for a deep plot when you go to the ballet, do you? So why expect those things of a film?

The Transformers films are clearly spectacle-for-the-sake-of-spectacle and when you accept the films on those terms you can start to enjoy them.

Of course, to make a 2 hour film like that would cost 600 bajillion dollars so it's all spaced out with the Sam/Human plot, but you get my drift I hope.

starfish wrote:

Totally agree there. I guess all these "film critics" gotta complain about something, though. I just saw the movie for the second time today, and I have to say the second time around was better. But hey, I don't know movies like the "film critics" on this site.

Whatever happened to just going to a movie and enjoying it for what it's worth... And like the others just said, "IT'S A FREAKIN' MOVIE" for Cybertron's sake......

Sorry to pick on this one post (nothing personal, honest), but I see a lot of posts like this.

The argument goes that it's only a sci-fi action movie, it's there simply to excite and entertain, it's never going to win any Oscars. It's an adventure movie based on a bunch of toys, after all. As such, we should therefore hold it to a lower standard than if we were judging, say, a highbrow art movie.

Sorry, but that argument is just dumb.

It's been proven time and time again that it is possible to have a sci-fi / action movie and a have bit of depth in there as well. Off the top of my head, 'Starship Troopers', 'Terminator 2', 'Watchmen' and even the much-maligned Ang Lee version of 'Hulk' all manage to combine special-effects driven action set-pieces with a bit of depth, character and subtext. Compared to those films, the Transformers franchise is a shallow mess of a movie series.

Why can't you have action and depth? Why can't we use spectacle as a means to convey an idea or theme, instead of just spectacle for its own sake? 'Total Recall' managed it. 'Jurassic Park' managed it. 'Frankenstein', the very first sci-fi ever written, got it right at the first attempt. At least those stories were trying to tell me something, underneath the high concepts. Take away the effects in the 'Transformers' films, and what have we got? Emptiness.

Even the bloody 80s comics and cartoons got it right where Bay could not. The classic comic story 'Target: 2006' was both epic and thought-provoking. The tragicaly ill-fated Kranix character in the 80s animated movie had more character in five minutes than Michael Bay's Ironhide did in hours of footage - and guess whose death mattered to me the most? Clue: not Ironhide.

Yes, Bay's Transformers movies are exciting, action-packed, slick, noisy and visceral, that much is true. In terms of visual effects, sound design and orchestral score, Bay's Transformers films are, in my view, at the very very top.

But surely it's not such a crime to ask for a bit more, considering all those millions of dollars that went into their production?

I don't think lumping "The Hulk and Starship Troopers and T2" in with TF3 is realistic. The hulk has only 1 CGI Character to add depth too. Add 15 plus transformers in 2 hours and try to add the same depth all while telling a story.

Starship Troopers.....wasn't much depth with the aliens right? Some cool scenes....but not much depth other then the humans.

T-2....... similar to the Hulk. 2 terminators to have depth vs 15 or more in about 2 hours and tell a story also. All the shootouts are limited to 1 vs 1 or 1 vs a few.

I agree 100% with ya, there could have been plenty more....plenty more depth. but it would only realistically happen if at the sacrifice of some of the movie. With a Robots only movie....I think this could have been pulled off easily, but that isn't the route they took.

Think of all the scenes that "you" would have removed to do this and I'm sure it would have added other questions while answering others. Unless you add a good half hour or more to develop every character more or a Robots only movie I don't see it as realistic.

RogueDeathangel wrote:

starfish wrote:

Totally agree there. I guess all these "film critics" gotta complain about something, though. I just saw the movie for the second time today, and I have to say the second time around was better. But hey, I don't know movies like the "film critics" on this site.

Whatever happened to just going to a movie and enjoying it for what it's worth... And like the others just said, "IT'S A FREAKIN' MOVIE" for Cybertron's sake......

Sorry to pick on this one post (nothing personal, honest), but I see a lot of posts like this.

The argument goes that it's only a sci-fi action movie, it's there simply to excite and entertain, it's never going to win any Oscars. It's an adventure movie based on a bunch of toys, after all. As such, we should therefore hold it to a lower standard than if we were judging, say, a highbrow art movie.

Sorry, but that argument is just dumb.

It's been proven time and time again that it is possible to have a sci-fi / action movie and a have bit of depth in there as well. Off the top of my head, 'Starship Troopers', 'Terminator 2', 'Watchmen' and even the much-maligned Ang Lee version of 'Hulk' all manage to combine special-effects driven action set-pieces with a bit of depth, character and subtext. Compared to those films, the Transformers franchise is a shallow mess of a movie series.

Why can't you have action and depth? Why can't we use spectacle as a means to convey an idea or theme, instead of just spectacle for its own sake? 'Total Recall' managed it. 'Jurassic Park' managed it. 'Frankenstein', the very first sci-fi ever written, got it right at the first attempt. At least those stories were trying to tell me something, underneath the high concepts. Take away the effects in the 'Transformers' films, and what have we got? Emptiness.

Even the bloody 80s comics and cartoons got it right where Bay could not. The classic comic story 'Target: 2006' was both epic and thought-provoking. The tragicaly ill-fated Kranix character in the 80s animated movie had more character in five minutes than Michael Bay's Ironhide did in hours of footage - and guess whose death mattered to me the most? Clue: not Ironhide.

Yes, Bay's Transformers movies are exciting, action-packed, slick, noisy and visceral, that much is true. In terms of visual effects, sound design and orchestral score, Bay's Transformers films are, in my view, at the very very top.

But surely it's not such a crime to ask for a bit more, considering all those millions of dollars that went into their production?

Oh, you're absolutely right, there is no reason you can't have depth and spectacle but that doesn't mean every film needs depth and spectacle. You don't expect character development when you go to see the opera, do you? And you don't look for a deep plot when you go to the ballet, do you? So why expect those things of a film?

The Transformers films are clearly spectacle-for-the-sake-of-spectacle and when you accept the films on those terms you can start to enjoy them.

Of course, to make a 2 hour film like that would cost 600 bajillion dollars so it's all spaced out with the Sam/Human plot, but you get my drift I hope.

Opera and ballet are not good examples to use. Heavily music, song and dance based. I expect some character development in a TF film because there are over 25 yrs. of comics, cartoon and other source material with rich character depth to draw from. Bay's movies are blatantly made to A) make $ and B) sell toys for hasbro. 'B' i'm less concerned about b/c I have bought some of the toys.

starfish wrote:

Totally agree there. I guess all these "film critics" gotta complain about something, though. I just saw the movie for the second time today, and I have to say the second time around was better. But hey, I don't know movies like the "film critics" on this site.

Whatever happened to just going to a movie and enjoying it for what it's worth... And like the others just said, "IT'S A FREAKIN' MOVIE" for Cybertron's sake......

Sorry to pick on this one post (nothing personal, honest), but I see a lot of posts like this.

The argument goes that it's only a sci-fi action movie, it's there simply to excite and entertain, it's never going to win any Oscars. It's an adventure movie based on a bunch of toys, after all. As such, we should therefore hold it to a lower standard than if we were judging, say, a highbrow art movie.

Sorry, but that argument is just dumb.

It's been proven time and time again that it is possible to have a sci-fi / action movie and a have bit of depth in there as well. Off the top of my head, 'Starship Troopers', 'Terminator 2', 'Watchmen' and even the much-maligned Ang Lee version of 'Hulk' all manage to combine special-effects driven action set-pieces with a bit of depth, character and subtext. Compared to those films, the Transformers franchise is a shallow mess of a movie series.

Why can't you have action and depth? Why can't we use spectacle as a means to convey an idea or theme, instead of just spectacle for its own sake? 'Total Recall' managed it. 'Jurassic Park' managed it. 'Frankenstein', the very first sci-fi ever written, got it right at the first attempt. At least those stories were trying to tell me something, underneath the high concepts. Take away the effects in the 'Transformers' films, and what have we got? Emptiness.

Even the bloody 80s comics and cartoons got it right where Bay could not. The classic comic story 'Target: 2006' was both epic and thought-provoking. The tragicaly ill-fated Kranix character in the 80s animated movie had more character in five minutes than Michael Bay's Ironhide did in hours of footage - and guess whose death mattered to me the most? Clue: not Ironhide.

Yes, Bay's Transformers movies are exciting, action-packed, slick, noisy and visceral, that much is true. In terms of visual effects, sound design and orchestral score, Bay's Transformers films are, in my view, at the very very top.

But surely it's not such a crime to ask for a bit more, considering all those millions of dollars that went into their production?

Well said.

vectorA3 wrote:Opera and ballet are not good examples to use. Heavily music, song and dance based. I expect some character development in a TF film because there are over 25 yrs. of comics, cartoon and other source material with rich character depth to draw from. Bay's movies are blatantly made to A) make $ and B) sell toys for hasbro. 'B' i'm less concerned about b/c I have bought some of the toys.

But there's no reason that films have to be heavily character and plot based. There's just as much artistic validity in a film being an exercise in style as a film that's an exercise in substance.

You make a good point about there being 25 years worth of depth to draw on but surely it's a worth-while endeavour to attempt to take the franchise in a direction it's never been in before? Transformers have never been used to make a big-budget, wide-screen, pop corn action extravaganza before so why not try that, rather than retreading the same old ground that the franchise has been going over for the past quarter of a century?

And of course the film is designed to make money. No company, no matter how artistically-driven would ever pony up a fifth of a billion dollars to make a film and NOT try to at least make its money back.

vectorA3 wrote:*snip everybody else*

Opera and ballet are not good examples to use. Heavily music, song and dance based. I expect some character development in a TF film because there are over 25 yrs. of comics, cartoon and other source material with rich character depth to draw from. Bay's movies are blatantly made to A) make $ and B) sell toys for hasbro. 'B' i'm less concerned about b/c I have bought some of the toys.

Movies can, and in this case are, heavily visually based. I personally go to these films because a) I like mechs and sci-fi in general, and b) I'm in college for video games. CG is my passion, and I watch these movies over and over, the CG-involving scenes frame-by-frame to enjoy and learn, and otherwise get the most out of the visuals. The rest of the movie is just there to me.

However, just like in ballet or opera, you CAN have story. Story doesn't have a medium that works best for it that I know of. Books are no better story tellers than movies/cartoons/tv, ballet, opera, music, comics, et cetera, and so it seems irrelevent to me in the first place to argue that going into any one of these mediums to expect a deep story is a must have.

The sad truth is if you want story to be a prominent place in any medium, you need to start with the story (most of the time, there are exceptions, but no guarantee comes with them, just like procrastinating doesn't guarantee good work to any degree, but it's possible for it to occur). IE, in the case of a film, a scriptwriter needs to have drafted a good story and then get the production to come AFTER that. Not anyone else (Hasbro, Paramount, etc) decide to make a film based on Transformers, and then they pick a director and he gets a crew together based on his vision for the film version of the franchise. Some writers jump on, and they try to make a story within their deadline.
Obviously, this is a rare occurance, especially for existing franchises/media (where producers seem to think it'll be easy to make a film out of a story/concept that already exists, not taking into account that the story may not fit into a film's timeframe, or that a scriptwriter may have a hard time producing a good script to represent both the vision of the producer, and be faithful enough to its predecessor, especially with a close deadline).

Pixar does this right in that they don't do a project until they're sure it's capable of living up to their standards. Look how long they wait to produce sequels.
Don't ask me how Naughty Dog does it. They're made of magic. :]

Anyway, I hope I haven't gone too far off tangent here to try and share my opinion. And as a disclaimer, this is my opinion, sorry if it offends you (anyone who reads this). I ask that you take the higher ground and try to positively critique why you disagree. Thank you.