Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Shadowman wrote:

Burn wrote:

Shadowman wrote:I think Spielberg knows if anyone is going to screw up Indiana Jones, he has to be the one to do it himself. And boy did he prove that with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

nah, think he's even come out and said it was more Lucas' fault.

I think both KOTCS and ROTF were more the Writer's Strike's fault than anyone's.

Burn wrote:And from what i've seen of TinTin, it looks fine. If it proves to be a good movie then that just proves even more KOTCS was Lucas' fault.
See, could be worse, you could have George Lucas instead of Bay.

It's the visuals, especially the character design. They try to make the characters too realistic but that's impossible with current technology, and instead they fall face-first into the uncanny valley. It's the same problem with all those Zemeckis movies like Polar Express and Beowulf.

Eh, Tin Tin has one thing going for it: The people don't look friggin' creepy. The Polar Express had some soulless eyes that were kinda creepy and haunting.

Crystal Skull was a hell of a lot better than Temple of Doom.

Shadowman wrote:Because there's a huge line of Academy Award winning directors willing to work on a movie series about children's toys.

As opposed to those who are eager to work on movies about adult toys?

Shadowman wrote:It's the same problem with all those Zemeckis movies like Polar Express and Beowulf.

Beowulf was f***ing awesome, though.

Shadowman wrote:

SEXFIGHTER wrote:Jetfire was a disgrace.

Jetfire was awesome.

Go read Dinobot hunt and get back to me. Aside from a relative bitpart as an Armada character, Jetfire's done nothing of note since G1 until ROTF. I'm not gonna bother trying to change your mind, just point out they're NOT even close character or look wise.

SEXFIGHTER wrote:Bay's whole approach to these films, ROTF inparticular, lack respect for what I thought were established characters.

No such thing as established characters in this franchise. Core character traits, maybe, but every character has gone through so many changes and redesigns you can't call any of them particularly wrong.

I think the Autobots were mainly ok, not great, but recognisable...wasn't keen on the Cons at all. I disagree, they were established for me.

SEXFIGHTER wrote:but i bet he wouldn't let Bay do an Indiana Jones or Tin Tin film, no, time to get serious then eh Mr Spielberg.

I think Spielberg knows if anyone is going to screw up Indiana Jones, he has to be the one to do it himself. And boy did he prove that with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

And Tin Tin? That just looks awful.

I took the kids to see Tin Tin and it's bloody good stuff I assure you all. I've gotta side with Burn on Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Lucas has completely lost the plot, look at what he did to the Star Wars franchise!!! My point is Spielberg wouldn't let him near a project that was more personal to him.

SEXFIGHTER wrote:All I'm asking is that at some point, when we reboot, get someone credible in.

Because there's a huge line of Academy Award winning directors willing to work on a movie series about children's toys.

Thats pretty negative mate, if you build it, they will come! Look at Bryan Singer doing X-Men or Nolan doing Batman, there are creative people out there who would jump at the chance to put a big franchise in a good place. Imagine Terry Gilliam or David Cameron doing it, very diferent styles but very well respected, I dont respect Bay. Hes a hard worker, his films make money, but they're braindead and lack heart imho.

SEXFIGHTER wrote:Thats pretty negative mate, if you build it, they will come! Look at Bryan Singer doing X-Men or Nolan doing Batman, there are creative people out there who would jump at the chance to put a big franchise in a good place. Imagine Terry Gilliam or David Cameron doing it, very diferent styles but very well respected, I dont respect Bay. Hes a hard worker, his films make money, but they're braindead and lack heart imho.

Bryan Singer also did Superman Returns, so he's hit-and-miss. Nolan hates overuse of CGI, so he'd never touch a franchise that would require it. And David Cameron is the Prime Minister of England, so I'm not sure why he'd direct. James Cameron, though, can do a great action scene, but his dialogue makes Michael Bay look like Shakespeare.

Imagination, creativity, heart, etc. are all fine and dandy but they don't mean you can do just everything. Being a great race car driver doesn't make you a great fighter pilot.

Shadowman wrote:James Cameron, though, can do a great action scene, but his dialogue makes Michael Bay look like Shakespeare.

Is that why Aliens and the first two Terminator movies are some of the most quotable movies of all time?

Game over, man, game over!

cotss2012 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:James Cameron, though, can do a great action scene, but his dialogue makes Michael Bay look like Shakespeare.

Is that why Aliens and the first two Terminator movies are some of the most quotable movies of all time?

Game over, man, game over!

Listen to any of the words that come out of Edward Furlong's mouth in Terminator 2. For fun, listen only to his lines, and see how long it takes to inflict bodily harm on yourself.

Also Avatar. Great visuals, but the script is just Dances With Wolves, a big old pile of cliches.

Having a few quotable lines does not a great writer make.

Shadowman wrote:Listen to any of the words that come out of Edward Furlong's mouth in Terminator 2. For fun, listen only to his lines, and see how long it takes to inflict bodily harm on yourself.

Okay. What am I looking for?

First-Aid wrote:Because he's Spock and he's just awesome that way.

I am of the opinion that the explanations you provide offer plausible answers to the questions I posed. However, I am also of the opinion that these answers should have been present in the narrative. By way of example: a little research turned up a quote by Orci and Kurtzman in which they took the opportunity to clarify that indeed, Kirk fired on the Narada - and thus risked losing his ship to the growing threat of a black hole - specifically to prevent the possibility of Nero and his vessel from escaping. This issue could have been addressed within the scene itself, simply by the addition of a line of dialogue - something to the effect of "We cannot risk losing them", "This ends here" or similar.

5150 Cruiser wrote:Personally, i see nothing wrong with anything you pointed out as being faults or plot holes in the latest Star Trek movie. Mainly because 80% of those "problems" can't be proved faults since we have so little understanding of how black holes really work. And even if we did have enough knowledge, this is Star Trek. Many of the standard rules and laws of physics go out the window.

You are quite right to state that a work of fiction is in no way bound to follow the physical laws of our own universe. However, I would argue that any work of fiction should attempt to remain internally consist in regard to the rules of its universe, for the express purpose of avoiding confusion in its target audience.

Take, for instance, the issue of Red Matter. When initially introduced to the audience, Red Matter is shown to be an incredibly destructive substance, a single drop of which results in the destruction of an entire planet. Shortly thereafter, it is explained that Red Matter can create black holes that allow vessels to travel through time unharmed. Next, Nero attempts to use Red Matter to destroy Earth itself; in a reversal of events, Spock is able to use the Red Matter to instigate the destruction of the Narada. Finally, Kirk orders his crew to accelerate the annihilation of the enemy vessel, for fear that the Red Matter will allow the Romulans safe passage to another era.

So: at times, Red Matter is an utterly lethal material, able to wipe out billions of lives in the blink of an eye; or, a relatively stable form of travel into the past. Which outcome should the audience expect at any given moment? (Is it any surprise that Orci and Kurtzman were called upon to clarify Kirk's reasons for firing on an the incapacitated Narada?)

5150 Cruiser wrote:At some point you have to just sit back and enjoy the ride. If your that critical of a movie that is based on many "facts" that only live in that particular universe, then your never going to have fun.

This is a premise I take particular umbrage with - I see absolutely nothing wrong with having high expectations for the narrative element of a given work of fiction. Indeed, let me play fair turnabout here - what if Transformers featured Oscar-worthy levels of writing and acting, but portrayed the titular robots using stunt personnel in cardboard outfits? How would you feel if you were informed to simply "Close your eyes and enjoy the story?"

cotss2012 wrote:Yeah... the blame still lies mostly with the guys who designed a bad engine. The designer of the whole car has to worry about whether the frame should be steel or aluminum, will the airbags deploy correctly, should the seats be made of leather, does anyone still drive a stick shift anymore, where to install the flux capacitor, etc... if you show him an engine that seems to work well enough on the factory floor, then that has to be good enough for him, and it's not his fault if the thing explodes 2 minutes after leaving the parking lot.

Your first point seems to indicate that we should somehow remove the blame from a director (or in the case of the given analogy, a project manager) if it transpires that he or she does not have the necessary skills to manage each facet of such a large and demanding undertaking. I'm sorry, but to my mind it still sounds as if the person at the top is to blame - only in the situation you cite, it is for the crime of biting off more than they can proverbially chew.

I can also assure you that in the even of a post-parking lot engine explosion, the project manager will most certainly be held responsible for allowing an unsafe product to enter final production (either intentionally, or as a result of insufficient quality assurance efforts).

cotss2012 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:No, the feeling you experienced in ROTF was the joy of a Transformers movie in which Optimus doesn't take a whole goddamn hour to show up.

Fixed

That too!

Shadowman wrote:

SEXFIGHTER wrote:Thats pretty negative mate, if you build it, they will come! Look at Bryan Singer doing X-Men or Nolan doing Batman, there are creative people out there who would jump at the chance to put a big franchise in a good place. Imagine Terry Gilliam or David Cameron doing it, very diferent styles but very well respected, I dont respect Bay. Hes a hard worker, his films make money, but they're braindead and lack heart imho.

Bryan Singer also did Superman Returns, so he's hit-and-miss. Nolan hates overuse of CGI, so he'd never touch a franchise that would require it. And David Cameron is the Prime Minister of England, so I'm not sure why he'd direct. James Cameron, though, can do a great action scene, but his dialogue makes Michael Bay look like Shakespeare.

Imagination, creativity, heart, etc. are all fine and dandy but they don't mean you can do just everything. Being a great race car driver doesn't make you a great fighter pilot.

Superman Returns wasn't a bad film for me so, it's just opinions here. As for me typing DAVID Cameron instead of James, well thats because the b*****d hasn't been off the TV here in the UK thanks to the Eurozone crisis. Also, take note, he is Prime Minister of The United Kingdom, not just England,ignore the scots, Welsh and Northern Irish at your peril mate.
Lets try and steer away from ACTION for a minute, let's get a good story on the table, not generic robots smashing eachother interlaced with L'oreal advert style scenes. The comics had many, many dark storylines and plenty of maturity, let Bay go now for Gods sake. Thanks for everything but time for fresh blood. Imagine Schumacher had stayed on after Batman and Robin.... As for Camerons dialogue, well I'm sorry but Bay is the worst offender out there for me.

JOP wrote:So: at times, Red Matter is an utterly lethal material, able to wipe out billions of lives in the blink of an eye; or, a relatively stable form of travel into the past. Which outcome should the audience expect at any given moment? (Is it any surprise that Orci and Kurtzman were called upon to clarify Kirk's reasons for firing on an the incapacitated Narada?)

I think the only problem with the red matter was that they didnt do a good job of explaining what it was and what it could do, particularly in different cases.

Basicly they neglected to ass the "techno babbgle" that has become expected in trek stories.

the idea with red matter is that when it explodes it creates a artificial singularity that consumes all the mater and energy that is near by.The larger the mass and energy it consumes the larger it becomes and the stronger its pull.

the time travel is p0ssible by passage of the event horizon

In trek history, blackholes,black stars and regular stars have all been a means for time travel and universe jumping before, so I'm not surprised that it was used here.

SEXFIGHTER wrote:Lets try and steer away from ACTION for a minute, let's get a good story on the table, not generic robots smashing eachother interlaced with L'oreal advert style scenes.

Um, no, that would never work. I'm not hear to watch robots talk about their problems, I'm here to watch them smash each other senseless over them.

SEXFIGHTER wrote:Imagine Schumacher had stayed on after Batman and Robin....

This is another situation where you can't blame the director. Schumacher had actually wanted to do something similar to Year One, but WB slapped him around a bit and told him to make something more "toy-friendly". Then, they were finally going to agree to his requests with a fifth movie in the continuity, Batman: DarKnight, which would have featured Scarecrow and played heavily with the theme of fear (wow, why does this sound so familiar?), but the project was scrapped because of the poor box-office numbers from Batman & Robin.

Studio execs are morons.

cotss2012 wrote:

SEXFIGHTER wrote:Imagine Schumacher had stayed on after Batman and Robin....

This is another situation where you can't blame the director. Schumacher had actually wanted to do something similar to Year One, but WB slapped him around a bit and told him to make something more "toy-friendly". Then, they were finally going to agree to his requests with a fifth movie in the continuity, Batman: DarKnight, which would have featured Scarecrow and played heavily with the theme of fear (wow, why does this sound so familiar?), but the project was scrapped because of the poor box-office numbers from Batman & Robin.

Studio execs are morons.

Ridiculous as The Number 23 was, it would have been amazing if he had extended that kind of style over to Batman, instead of neon-Gotham.

cotss2012 wrote:This is another situation where you can't blame the director. Schumacher had actually wanted to do something similar to Year One, but WB slapped him around a bit and told him to make something more "toy-friendly".

I'm not so sure I believe Schumacher truly wanted something darker, and I dont think he would have done "yearone" any justice.

Shadowman wrote:

SEXFIGHTER wrote:Lets try and steer away from ACTION for a minute, let's get a good story on the table, not generic robots smashing eachother interlaced with L'oreal advert style scenes.

Um, no, that would never work. I'm not hear to watch robots talk about their problems, I'm here to watch them smash each other senseless over them.

I'm not saying NO action, I'm saying let's work out a great story, then work out the action parts later, NOT vice versa.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

cotss2012 wrote:This is another situation where you can't blame the director. Schumacher had actually wanted to do something similar to Year One, but WB slapped him around a bit and told him to make something more "toy-friendly".

I'm not so sure I believe Schumacher truly wanted something darker, and I dont think he would have done "yearone" any justice.

I read and watched a lot of Schumachers press when Batman and Robin was released. He was completely behind the film, going so far as to say he'd had enough of Bruce Wayne moping around missing his mum and dad, THIS Bruce Wayne was ditching the baggage etc. Also, I doubt the execs insisted on nipples on the Batsuit and close ups of Batmans ass, that was probably for Schumachers own gratification.
I think Schumacher wanted another go so he could right the wrongs of B+R, but the fans would have lynched the execs so they waited until they got the right man and script. I've read Batman-the frightening, it's online if anyone wants to check it out. Would have been the best since Returns no doubt, but the damage was done.

SEXFIGHTER wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

SEXFIGHTER wrote:Lets try and steer away from ACTION for a minute, let's get a good story on the table, not generic robots smashing eachother interlaced with L'oreal advert style scenes.

Um, no, that would never work. I'm not hear to watch robots talk about their problems, I'm here to watch them smash each other senseless over them.

I'm not saying NO action, I'm saying let's work out a great story, then work out the action parts later, NOT vice versa.

That would still be boring.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:I think the only problem with the red matter was that they didn't do a good job of explaining what it was and what it could do, particularly in different cases.

That's very much my take on the issue - I can happily accept that Red Matter-induced black holes both create crushing gravitational force and enable time travel; but Star Trek does little to explain which particular outcome is in effect at any given time. I am of the opinion that a failure of this variety lies primarily with the writing (although in line with my other argument regarding directorial responsibility, JJ Abrams should have preferentially caught and corrected the issue prior to release).

cotss2012 wrote:This is another situation where you can't blame the director. Schumacher had actually wanted to do something similar to Year One, but WB slapped him around a bit and told him to make something more "toy-friendly".

In fairness though, Schumacher could have backed out of the project. (He may have faced penalties as a result; that, unfortunately, is the cost of maintaining artistic integrity).

cotss2012 wrote:Studio execs are morons.

Perhaps not morons insomuch as overly concerned with the profitability of their productions. The end result, however, is very much the same.

SlyTF1 wrote:That would still be boring.

I feel that Die Hard very much disagrees.

Interestingly, Orci and Kurtzman once gave an interview in which they partially explained the origins of their writing process - during their formative years as a duo, they would analyze and reverse-engineer films they held in high esteem. I believe this to be apparent in their writing: they have a real gift for creating interesting premises and action set-pieces, but they are also prone to committing basic writing faux-pas. This strikes me very much as a direct result of their attempt to synthesize the formula for raw blockbuster appeal from existing works.

JOP wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:I think the only problem with the red matter was that they didn't do a good job of explaining what it was and what it could do, particularly in different cases.

That's very much my take on the issue - I can happily accept that Red Matter-induced black holes both create crushing gravitational force and enable time travel; but Star Trek does little to explain which particular outcome is in effect at any given time. I am of the opinion that a failure of this variety lies primarily with the writing (although in line with my other argument regarding directorial responsibility, JJ Abrams should have preferentially caught and corrected the issue prior to release).

initially I felt the same way.But then I thought.....with this particular script, there was no need to really explain it.

In just about every case of techno-babble explaining things they had characters that we knew and trusted examining the phenomenon in question when it happened or when it effected the characters, and I always felt that the reason so many fans just accepted the techno babble crap because it came out of the mouths of trusted characters.

trew out the series it would be Spock & Scotty,LaForge & Data,O'Brien % Dax,Harry & 7,T'Pal and Tucker..............we always had someone explaining things as they effected the characters.

We didnt have that in this film, in both cases of time travel, in this film, none of the characters were around to study what happened.So even if JJ had written something in I dont think it would have been readily accepted

SlyTF1 wrote:

SEXFIGHTER wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

SEXFIGHTER wrote:Lets try and steer away from ACTION for a minute, let's get a good story on the table, not generic robots smashing eachother interlaced with L'oreal advert style scenes.

Um, no, that would never work. I'm not hear to watch robots talk about their problems, I'm here to watch them smash each other senseless over them.

I'm not saying NO action, I'm saying let's work out a great story, then work out the action parts later, NOT vice versa.

That would still be boring.

Explain why that is? Are you really proposing 100 minutes of relentless, unexplained carnage and explosions featuring giant robots? Surely that in itself would be boring wouldn't it? You need story, characterisation, and structure in place so that when the action comes, the stakes are raised and we're on the edge of our seats.

SEXFIGHTER wrote:I read and watched a lot of Schumachers press when Batman and Robin was released. He was completely behind the film

The following is nearly an exact, word-for-word quote from the commentary track: "I made the movie that they wanted me to make". So take that for whatever it's worth. Also, he's somewhat obligated to pimp out the movie at release time, no matter what he thinks about it...

SEXFIGHTER wrote:going so far as to say he'd had enough of Bruce Wayne moping around missing his mum and dad, THIS Bruce Wayne was ditching the baggage etc.

Well, considering that the "I miss mom and dad" card can only be played so many times before the franchise gets stale, it was a good call. B&R was instead about Batman's new family: Robin, Batgirl, and Alfred. That direction allowed it to be less grim without being less dramatic.

SEXFIGHTER wrote:Also, I doubt the execs insisted on nipples on the Batsuit and close ups of Batmans ass, that was probably for Schumachers own gratification.

What about Alicia Silverstone's ass?

cotss2012 wrote:

SEXFIGHTER wrote:I read and watched a lot of Schumachers press when Batman and Robin was released. He was completely behind the film

The following is nearly an exact, word-for-word quote from the commentary track: "I made the movie that they wanted me to make". So take that for whatever it's worth. Also, he's somewhat obligated to pimp out the movie at release time, no matter what he thinks about it...

SEXFIGHTER wrote:going so far as to say he'd had enough of Bruce Wayne moping around missing his mum and dad, THIS Bruce Wayne was ditching the baggage etc.

Well, considering that the "I miss mom and dad" card can only be played so many times before the franchise gets stale, it was a good call. B&R was instead about Batman's new family: Robin, Batgirl, and Alfred. That direction allowed it to be less grim without being less dramatic.

SEXFIGHTER wrote:Also, I doubt the execs insisted on nipples on the Batsuit and close ups of Batmans ass, that was probably for Schumachers own gratification.

What about Alicia Silverstone's ass?

agreed, her ass was a better actor than her head She was completely unconvincing,its hard enough trying to believe in a character like Robin.
Schumacher doesn't convince me, he was complicit in delivering that pile of garbage, he's a YES man, Burton was not.
The mum and dad card I'm afraid is part of Batmans DNA, it's just that Akiva Goldsman wrote the script on the crapper and delivered it once he'd wiped his ass on it.

Indeed, I have to wonder what Akiva was smoking when he wrote that crap... the occasional quip about "Adam and Evil" or being "cold-hearted" can be quite enjoyable, but stuff like that shouldn't constitute 1/4 of the dialog.