The Energon Pub

dirk2243 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:IDK if I should watch it. I'm still depressed from the last "review" of ROTF I watched...and that was when the movie first came out.

It's not bad Sly if you go into it knowing he only watched the movie twice and didn't pay attention to the movie, and it's his second review on the movie, the first a positive, and then this a negative

Well, I watched it and it didn't make me want to kill myself. It just made me want to jump through the computer and punch the guy in the face for not paying more attention to the movie.

SlyTF1 wrote:

dirk2243 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:IDK if I should watch it. I'm still depressed from the last "review" of ROTF I watched...and that was when the movie first came out.

It's not bad Sly if you go into it knowing he only watched the movie twice and didn't pay attention to the movie, and it's his second review on the movie, the first a positive, and then this a negative

Well, I watched it and it didn't make me want to kill myself. It just made me want to jump through the computer and punch the guy in the face for not paying more attention to the movie.

Most of the people who levy negative criticism didn't pay attention either. It's kind of a running theme.

Film Brain is hit or miss. While I enjoyed his review of dragon wars, and the Spirit, which were both genuinely awful films, it sounds like this review is totally skippable.

As far as people ripping on Revenge of the Fallen, so what? This been going on for two years, and I don't feel need battle everyone who feels different than me about. There's an endless supply of people if you go to IMDB forms for Transformers. Most the trolls there I found weren't worth my time as I wouldn't dignify their lame statements with my attention. These people made up their minds a long time ago where they fall on this subject.

Nothing I'm going say is going change that. Why they spend so much time nerdraging on forums for a movie they hate I won't understand but that's their choice. Don't get me wrong I've blasted a few movies over the years (like District 9 and the Dark Knight) but I didn't stay there for too long. I had my fun and moved on to locations where I could have more constructive discussions. That's just me.

Lastjustice wrote:As far as people ripping on Revenge of the Fallen, so what?

Because I've found in my stay on these forums that those who dislike it don't enjoy seeing the film praised. I treat others as they treat me, so if they feel the need to derail discussion on the film into why it must be hated, no exceptions, then I'll fire back every time with why they're too childish to accept that they are merely a minority who has to scream loudly to feel justified in their opinion.

I get along with plenty of forum members who didn't like RotF, and this is because they don't make it a mission to "correct" me. If certian posters didn't have this mindset (I refuse to name names) then I'd get involved in fewer shouting matches.

Capt.Failure wrote:I refuse to watch this too, but for different reasons.

When RotF came out he made a favorable review. He was pretty much brow beaten by his fellow reviewers on That Guy With The Glasses into going back on that reivew and saying he hated the film anyway. I refuse to watch a review made by someone who's presented opinion was forced upon them by disgruntled, butt hurt colleagues.

Also Starscream GaGa, posting this won't change the minds of anyone on these forums who like RotF. Just saying.

I remember that and I completely agree. I haven't watched a single one of his reviews since then.

SlyTF1 wrote: It just made me want to jump through the computer and punch the guy in the face for not paying more attention to the movie.

I'm curious, what wasn't he payign attention too? If anything, he was over-thinking things.

I have to admit, I don't like his voice either, and I'm British.

I do like to see the movie get ripped into though. Legitimate criticism or not, it's still funny.

Yea, I only watched until he got to the part Sideways gets cut in half. This guy's an idiot and doesn't pay attention. I still beleive ROTF was a decent movie given the writer's strike. It's my opinion the 3.5 out of 5 was merited.

Oh for Unicrons sake, he wasn't paying attention to every blink-and-miss details of a popcorn flick! How dares he??? BURRRN the infidel!!!!!!

Blackstreak wrote:Yea, I only watched until he got to the part Sideways gets cut in half. This guy's an idiot and doesn't pay attention. I still beleive ROTF was a decent movie given the writer's strike. It's my opinion the 3.5 out of 5 was merited.

Please, explain to me what part he didn't pay attention to! this fad ROTF-fans dismissing all criticism as "not paying attention" is quite ridiculous.

Starscream GaGa wrote:

Blackstreak wrote:Yea, I only watched until he got to the part Sideways gets cut in half. This guy's an idiot and doesn't pay attention. I still beleive ROTF was a decent movie given the writer's strike. It's my opinion the 3.5 out of 5 was merited.

Please, explain to me what part he didn't pay attention to! this fad ROTF-fans dismissing all criticism as "not paying attention" is quite ridiculous.

I put this up on the first page here.
1. he didn't pay attention to how 6 robots came from the deep.
2. he didn't pay attention to his own questions. He asked why it was important to elaborate on things that "wern't important, but then wanted elaboration on things. So..... he only wanted things explained that he was too lazy to take 5 seconds to look over. But if the movie didn't explain certain tings, he'd want them to elaborate on it. Can't have it both ways.
3. He doesn't understand why someone would like teenage (college) girls? I get it, people are different, but hopefully he does the second one after he hits puberty or comes out. Everyone is different, why even bring this part up?

He did have some o.k. points, but I believe if he would have actually seen the movie more than 1 time prior to reviewing it, and did a little homework on it first, it could have been better.

I get it, he liked the movie, then changed his mind for some reason upon his second review. His choice. I'm not criticizing his hate of ROTF, I'm criticizing his poor review. could have been better if he watched the movie more. Like he was busy playing a board game while it was on in the background or something.

Capt.Failure wrote:

Starscream GaGa wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

dirk2243 wrote:I was in a heated debate in another thread that most of the plot holes boil down to poor observation on the viewer's part. Short of Wheelie's dissapearence and the bizzare geography of Egypt in the finale there's not much in the way of plot holes.

Which was in another thread which was locked because it went off topic, so don't bring it up here.

Capt.Failure wrote:Also Starscream GaGa, posting this won't change the minds of anyone on these forums who like RotF. Just saying.

Not my intention. This is a Transformers forum and this is a comedy video about the Transformers film. Learn to laugh at yourselves for once, kid.

And you should learn to avoid insulting remarks when addressing others. The mods may not like it. Just a warning, ya dig?

Starscream GaGa wrote:No, that's not why this thread was created...

It's just a fun video, we all know the (many) flaws of the movie, but the video just points them out for the sake of comedy, NOT to flame it.

Oh, I'm so certian of your honesty in this regard.

how do you handle the cognitive dissonance you exhibit, my head would explode.

Dont call people names, dont make me laugh, if i recall correctly you were given a public slap on the wrist for that very thing.

as for your this has been discussed and all the flaws exposed as not flaws, sorry what happened was you gave opinions, conjecture, inconclusive evidence, presumption and hypothesis as explanations, which as someone said are all unfalsifiable . You explained the wheelie in airport scene as it was a joke, come on !!

People would be more accepting if you admitted that there are flaws in the movie, rather than defending indefensible reasoning. And vice versa, if others saw some merit in the movies you might be more accepting too.

dirk2243 wrote:

Starscream GaGa wrote:

Blackstreak wrote:Yea, I only watched until he got to the part Sideways gets cut in half. This guy's an idiot and doesn't pay attention. I still beleive ROTF was a decent movie given the writer's strike. It's my opinion the 3.5 out of 5 was merited.

Please, explain to me what part he didn't pay attention to! this fad ROTF-fans dismissing all criticism as "not paying attention" is quite ridiculous.

I put this up on the first page here.
1. he didn't pay attention to how 6 robots came from the deep.
2. he didn't pay attention to his own questions. He asked why it was important to elaborate on things that "wern't important, but then wanted elaboration on things. So..... he only wanted things explained that he was too lazy to take 5 seconds to look over. But if the movie didn't explain certain tings, he'd want them to elaborate on it. Can't have it both ways.
3. He doesn't understand why someone would like teenage (college) girls? I get it, people are different, but hopefully he does the second one after he hits puberty or comes out. Everyone is different, why even bring this part up?

He did have some o.k. points, but I believe if he would have actually seen the movie more than 1 time prior to reviewing it, and did a little homework on it first, it could have been better.

I get it, he liked the movie, then changed his mind for some reason upon his second review. His choice. I'm not criticizing his hate of ROTF, I'm criticizing his poor review. could have been better if he watched the movie more. Like he was busy playing a board game while it was on in the background or something.

1. doctor to small to appear on sonar
2. he said why explain things that had just happened or happened in previous movie, but dont explain new developments, like pretenders
3. he said that ?? cant defend that now

and wahts with all the reporting going on. it seems every thread descends into call the mods in.

Surely we can all engage in debate without needing to tell the teacher when someone posts something we disagree with or is flamebaiting (the new buzz word here, after trolling got tired).

I have been called all kinds of names here, and never felt the need to report a thread, never. i understand others are more sensitive but come on, no one is realy being bullied here or shouted down are they

shamone wrote:

dirk2243 wrote:

Starscream GaGa wrote:

Blackstreak wrote:Yea, I only watched until he got to the part Sideways gets cut in half. This guy's an idiot and doesn't pay attention. I still beleive ROTF was a decent movie given the writer's strike. It's my opinion the 3.5 out of 5 was merited.

Please, explain to me what part he didn't pay attention to! this fad ROTF-fans dismissing all criticism as "not paying attention" is quite ridiculous.

I put this up on the first page here.
1. he didn't pay attention to how 6 robots came from the deep.
2. he didn't pay attention to his own questions. He asked why it was important to elaborate on things that "wern't important, but then wanted elaboration on things. So..... he only wanted things explained that he was too lazy to take 5 seconds to look over. But if the movie didn't explain certain tings, he'd want them to elaborate on it. Can't have it both ways.
3. He doesn't understand why someone would like teenage (college) girls? I get it, people are different, but hopefully he does the second one after he hits puberty or comes out. Everyone is different, why even bring this part up?

He did have some o.k. points, but I believe if he would have actually seen the movie more than 1 time prior to reviewing it, and did a little homework on it first, it could have been better.

I get it, he liked the movie, then changed his mind for some reason upon his second review. His choice. I'm not criticizing his hate of ROTF, I'm criticizing his poor review. could have been better if he watched the movie more. Like he was busy playing a board game while it was on in the background or something.

1. doctor to small to appear on sonar
2. he said why explain things that had just happened or happened in previous movie, but dont explain new developments, like pretenders
3. he said that ?? cant defend that now

1. I'm willing to accept the doctor showing up on sonar. If people are willing to accept sound in space, and even bigger technical/physics flaw I can accept that.
2. You don't need to explain Pretenders, I'm afraid. If you watch a movie about transforming robots and are honestly surprised when one of their deep cover operatives can disguise themselves as a human then there's no hope for you.
3. Agreed. Of course Film Brain's no looker so if he did come out he wouldn't have any extra luck.

Capt.Failure wrote:

shamone wrote:

dirk2243 wrote:

Starscream GaGa wrote:

Blackstreak wrote:Yea, I only watched until he got to the part Sideways gets cut in half. This guy's an idiot and doesn't pay attention. I still beleive ROTF was a decent movie given the writer's strike. It's my opinion the 3.5 out of 5 was merited.

Please, explain to me what part he didn't pay attention to! this fad ROTF-fans dismissing all criticism as "not paying attention" is quite ridiculous.

I put this up on the first page here.
1. he didn't pay attention to how 6 robots came from the deep.
2. he didn't pay attention to his own questions. He asked why it was important to elaborate on things that "wern't important, but then wanted elaboration on things. So..... he only wanted things explained that he was too lazy to take 5 seconds to look over. But if the movie didn't explain certain tings, he'd want them to elaborate on it. Can't have it both ways.
3. He doesn't understand why someone would like teenage (college) girls? I get it, people are different, but hopefully he does the second one after he hits puberty or comes out. Everyone is different, why even bring this part up?

He did have some o.k. points, but I believe if he would have actually seen the movie more than 1 time prior to reviewing it, and did a little homework on it first, it could have been better.

I get it, he liked the movie, then changed his mind for some reason upon his second review. His choice. I'm not criticizing his hate of ROTF, I'm criticizing his poor review. could have been better if he watched the movie more. Like he was busy playing a board game while it was on in the background or something.

1. doctor to small to appear on sonar
2. he said why explain things that had just happened or happened in previous movie, but dont explain new developments, like pretenders
3. he said that ?? cant defend that now

1. I'm willing to accept the doctor showing up on sonar. If people are willing to accept sound in space, and even bigger technical/physics flaw I can accept that.
2. You don't need to explain Pretenders, I'm afraid. If you watch a movie about transforming robots and are honestly surprised when one of their deep cover operatives can disguise themselves as a human then there's no hope for you.
3. Agreed. Of course Film Brain's no looker so if he did come out he wouldn't have any extra luck.

i cant buy the sonar

How could they monitor activity down there if it could detect a size that small. sure it would be triggered everytime a fish went by

yeah but its better to explain a new element rather than recap what just happened. its not pretenders that is the issue per se, but that it explains certain elements people are aware of and others which are not.

shamone wrote:

dirk2243 wrote:

Starscream GaGa wrote:

Blackstreak wrote:Yea, I only watched until he got to the part Sideways gets cut in half. This guy's an idiot and doesn't pay attention. I still beleive ROTF was a decent movie given the writer's strike. It's my opinion the 3.5 out of 5 was merited.

Please, explain to me what part he didn't pay attention to! this fad ROTF-fans dismissing all criticism as "not paying attention" is quite ridiculous.

I put this up on the first page here.
1. he didn't pay attention to how 6 robots came from the deep.
2. he didn't pay attention to his own questions. He asked why it was important to elaborate on things that "wern't important, but then wanted elaboration on things. So..... he only wanted things explained that he was too lazy to take 5 seconds to look over. But if the movie didn't explain certain tings, he'd want them to elaborate on it. Can't have it both ways.
3. He doesn't understand why someone would like teenage (college) girls? I get it, people are different, but hopefully he does the second one after he hits puberty or comes out. Everyone is different, why even bring this part up?

He did have some o.k. points, but I believe if he would have actually seen the movie more than 1 time prior to reviewing it, and did a little homework on it first, it could have been better.

I get it, he liked the movie, then changed his mind for some reason upon his second review. His choice. I'm not criticizing his hate of ROTF, I'm criticizing his poor review. could have been better if he watched the movie more. Like he was busy playing a board game while it was on in the background or something.

1. doctor to small to appear on sonar
2. he said why explain things that had just happened or happened in previous movie, but dont explain new developments, like pretenders
3. he said that ?? cant defend that now

1. Actually, we can pick up whales on Sonar and there not even metal. We can also hear Shrimp poping underwater. Submarines are more sophisticated then space shuttles, so yes, the doc could be picked up on sonar. Depending the range of the sub and the doc's velocity and aspect.
2. The shard's whereabouts's where never explained in the first movie. It was simply an updating the audience technique. I'm sure a few that saw ROTF hadn't seen the original in a while or at all.

shamone wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

shamone wrote:

dirk2243 wrote:

Starscream GaGa wrote:

Blackstreak wrote:Yea, I only watched until he got to the part Sideways gets cut in half. This guy's an idiot and doesn't pay attention. I still beleive ROTF was a decent movie given the writer's strike. It's my opinion the 3.5 out of 5 was merited.

Please, explain to me what part he didn't pay attention to! this fad ROTF-fans dismissing all criticism as "not paying attention" is quite ridiculous.

I put this up on the first page here.
1. he didn't pay attention to how 6 robots came from the deep.
2. he didn't pay attention to his own questions. He asked why it was important to elaborate on things that "wern't important, but then wanted elaboration on things. So..... he only wanted things explained that he was too lazy to take 5 seconds to look over. But if the movie didn't explain certain tings, he'd want them to elaborate on it. Can't have it both ways.
3. He doesn't understand why someone would like teenage (college) girls? I get it, people are different, but hopefully he does the second one after he hits puberty or comes out. Everyone is different, why even bring this part up?

He did have some o.k. points, but I believe if he would have actually seen the movie more than 1 time prior to reviewing it, and did a little homework on it first, it could have been better.

I get it, he liked the movie, then changed his mind for some reason upon his second review. His choice. I'm not criticizing his hate of ROTF, I'm criticizing his poor review. could have been better if he watched the movie more. Like he was busy playing a board game while it was on in the background or something.

1. doctor to small to appear on sonar
2. he said why explain things that had just happened or happened in previous movie, but dont explain new developments, like pretenders
3. he said that ?? cant defend that now

1. I'm willing to accept the doctor showing up on sonar. If people are willing to accept sound in space, and even bigger technical/physics flaw I can accept that.
2. You don't need to explain Pretenders, I'm afraid. If you watch a movie about transforming robots and are honestly surprised when one of their deep cover operatives can disguise themselves as a human then there's no hope for you.
3. Agreed. Of course Film Brain's no looker so if he did come out he wouldn't have any extra luck.

i cant buy the sonar

How could they monitor activity down there if it could detect a size that small. sure it would be triggered everytime a fish went by

yeah but its better to explain a new element rather than recap what just happened. its not pretenders that is the issue per se, but that it explains certain elements people are aware of and others which are not.

I'm pretty sure the sonar picked up their energy signatures...not their simple presence.

dirk2243 wrote:

shamone wrote:

dirk2243 wrote:

Starscream GaGa wrote:

Blackstreak wrote:Yea, I only watched until he got to the part Sideways gets cut in half. This guy's an idiot and doesn't pay attention. I still beleive ROTF was a decent movie given the writer's strike. It's my opinion the 3.5 out of 5 was merited.

Please, explain to me what part he didn't pay attention to! this fad ROTF-fans dismissing all criticism as "not paying attention" is quite ridiculous.

I put this up on the first page here.
1. he didn't pay attention to how 6 robots came from the deep.
2. he didn't pay attention to his own questions. He asked why it was important to elaborate on things that "wern't important, but then wanted elaboration on things. So..... he only wanted things explained that he was too lazy to take 5 seconds to look over. But if the movie didn't explain certain tings, he'd want them to elaborate on it. Can't have it both ways.
3. He doesn't understand why someone would like teenage (college) girls? I get it, people are different, but hopefully he does the second one after he hits puberty or comes out. Everyone is different, why even bring this part up?

He did have some o.k. points, but I believe if he would have actually seen the movie more than 1 time prior to reviewing it, and did a little homework on it first, it could have been better.

I get it, he liked the movie, then changed his mind for some reason upon his second review. His choice. I'm not criticizing his hate of ROTF, I'm criticizing his poor review. could have been better if he watched the movie more. Like he was busy playing a board game while it was on in the background or something.

1. doctor to small to appear on sonar
2. he said why explain things that had just happened or happened in previous movie, but dont explain new developments, like pretenders
3. he said that ?? cant defend that now

1. Actually, we can pick up whales on Sonar and there not even metal. Submarines are more sophisticated then space shuttles, so yes, the doc could be picked up on sonar. Depending the range of the sub and the doc's velocity and aspect.
2. The shard's whereabouts's where never explained in the first movie. It was simply an updating the audience technique. I'm sure a few that saw ROTF hadn't seen the original in a while or at all.

sonar works by bouncing a signal out and then reading the pattern bounced back. metal nothing to do with it. but a whale aint the size of the doctor

they can pick up shoals of fish, but individual fish hmmmm !

i see that they were updating, but for a movie heavy on exposition then it could have explained a bit more. that his argument, me im not a fan of exposition heavy movies

dirk2243 wrote:

shamone wrote:

dirk2243 wrote:

Starscream GaGa wrote:

Blackstreak wrote:Yea, I only watched until he got to the part Sideways gets cut in half. This guy's an idiot and doesn't pay attention. I still beleive ROTF was a decent movie given the writer's strike. It's my opinion the 3.5 out of 5 was merited.

Please, explain to me what part he didn't pay attention to! this fad ROTF-fans dismissing all criticism as "not paying attention" is quite ridiculous.

I put this up on the first page here.
1. he didn't pay attention to how 6 robots came from the deep.
2. he didn't pay attention to his own questions. He asked why it was important to elaborate on things that "wern't important, but then wanted elaboration on things. So..... he only wanted things explained that he was too lazy to take 5 seconds to look over. But if the movie didn't explain certain tings, he'd want them to elaborate on it. Can't have it both ways.
3. He doesn't understand why someone would like teenage (college) girls? I get it, people are different, but hopefully he does the second one after he hits puberty or comes out. Everyone is different, why even bring this part up?

He did have some o.k. points, but I believe if he would have actually seen the movie more than 1 time prior to reviewing it, and did a little homework on it first, it could have been better.

I get it, he liked the movie, then changed his mind for some reason upon his second review. His choice. I'm not criticizing his hate of ROTF, I'm criticizing his poor review. could have been better if he watched the movie more. Like he was busy playing a board game while it was on in the background or something.

1. doctor to small to appear on sonar
2. he said why explain things that had just happened or happened in previous movie, but dont explain new developments, like pretenders
3. he said that ?? cant defend that now

1. Actually, we can pick up whales on Sonar and there not even metal. Submarines are more sophisticated then space shuttles, so yes, the doc could be picked up on sonar. Depending the range of the sub and the doc's velocity and aspect.
2. The shard's whereabouts's where never explained in the first movie. It was simply an updating the audience technique. I'm sure a few that saw ROTF hadn't seen the original in a while or at all.

This indeed on point #2. Since RotF did not have a Star Wars Tex Crawl to catch the audience up on things they went with Galloway being an idiot and blabbering classified info on a secure line. It's clear that the NEST team understand how sensetive info is on these lines, since their enemies are known for hacking military networks. Hell they wouldn't even allow the general to see Optimus due to this. He could only listen in on him.

SlyTF1 wrote:

shamone wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

shamone wrote:

dirk2243 wrote:

Starscream GaGa wrote:

Blackstreak wrote:Yea, I only watched until he got to the part Sideways gets cut in half. This guy's an idiot and doesn't pay attention. I still beleive ROTF was a decent movie given the writer's strike. It's my opinion the 3.5 out of 5 was merited.

Please, explain to me what part he didn't pay attention to! this fad ROTF-fans dismissing all criticism as "not paying attention" is quite ridiculous.

I put this up on the first page here.
1. he didn't pay attention to how 6 robots came from the deep.
2. he didn't pay attention to his own questions. He asked why it was important to elaborate on things that "wern't important, but then wanted elaboration on things. So..... he only wanted things explained that he was too lazy to take 5 seconds to look over. But if the movie didn't explain certain tings, he'd want them to elaborate on it. Can't have it both ways.
3. He doesn't understand why someone would like teenage (college) girls? I get it, people are different, but hopefully he does the second one after he hits puberty or comes out. Everyone is different, why even bring this part up?

He did have some o.k. points, but I believe if he would have actually seen the movie more than 1 time prior to reviewing it, and did a little homework on it first, it could have been better.

I get it, he liked the movie, then changed his mind for some reason upon his second review. His choice. I'm not criticizing his hate of ROTF, I'm criticizing his poor review. could have been better if he watched the movie more. Like he was busy playing a board game while it was on in the background or something.

1. doctor to small to appear on sonar
2. he said why explain things that had just happened or happened in previous movie, but dont explain new developments, like pretenders
3. he said that ?? cant defend that now

1. I'm willing to accept the doctor showing up on sonar. If people are willing to accept sound in space, and even bigger technical/physics flaw I can accept that.
2. You don't need to explain Pretenders, I'm afraid. If you watch a movie about transforming robots and are honestly surprised when one of their deep cover operatives can disguise themselves as a human then there's no hope for you.
3. Agreed. Of course Film Brain's no looker so if he did come out he wouldn't have any extra luck.

i cant buy the sonar

How could they monitor activity down there if it could detect a size that small. sure it would be triggered everytime a fish went by

yeah but its better to explain a new element rather than recap what just happened. its not pretenders that is the issue per se, but that it explains certain elements people are aware of and others which are not.

I'm pretty sure the sonar picked up their energy signatures...not their simple presence.

dont know if sonar works that way, unless the navy had new kind of underwater detection, and thats just conjecture.

I think it can be argued both ways that it was accurate or inaccurate

shamone wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

shamone wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

shamone wrote:

dirk2243 wrote:

Starscream GaGa wrote:

Blackstreak wrote:Yea, I only watched until he got to the part Sideways gets cut in half. This guy's an idiot and doesn't pay attention. I still beleive ROTF was a decent movie given the writer's strike. It's my opinion the 3.5 out of 5 was merited.

Please, explain to me what part he didn't pay attention to! this fad ROTF-fans dismissing all criticism as "not paying attention" is quite ridiculous.

I put this up on the first page here.
1. he didn't pay attention to how 6 robots came from the deep.
2. he didn't pay attention to his own questions. He asked why it was important to elaborate on things that "wern't important, but then wanted elaboration on things. So..... he only wanted things explained that he was too lazy to take 5 seconds to look over. But if the movie didn't explain certain tings, he'd want them to elaborate on it. Can't have it both ways.
3. He doesn't understand why someone would like teenage (college) girls? I get it, people are different, but hopefully he does the second one after he hits puberty or comes out. Everyone is different, why even bring this part up?

He did have some o.k. points, but I believe if he would have actually seen the movie more than 1 time prior to reviewing it, and did a little homework on it first, it could have been better.

I get it, he liked the movie, then changed his mind for some reason upon his second review. His choice. I'm not criticizing his hate of ROTF, I'm criticizing his poor review. could have been better if he watched the movie more. Like he was busy playing a board game while it was on in the background or something.

1. doctor to small to appear on sonar
2. he said why explain things that had just happened or happened in previous movie, but dont explain new developments, like pretenders
3. he said that ?? cant defend that now

1. I'm willing to accept the doctor showing up on sonar. If people are willing to accept sound in space, and even bigger technical/physics flaw I can accept that.
2. You don't need to explain Pretenders, I'm afraid. If you watch a movie about transforming robots and are honestly surprised when one of their deep cover operatives can disguise themselves as a human then there's no hope for you.
3. Agreed. Of course Film Brain's no looker so if he did come out he wouldn't have any extra luck.

i cant buy the sonar

How could they monitor activity down there if it could detect a size that small. sure it would be triggered everytime a fish went by

yeah but its better to explain a new element rather than recap what just happened. its not pretenders that is the issue per se, but that it explains certain elements people are aware of and others which are not.

I'm pretty sure the sonar picked up their energy signatures...not their simple presence.

dont know if sonar works that way, unless the navy had new kind of underwater detection, and thats just conjecture.

I think it can be argued both ways that it was accurate or inaccurate

Sonar on a submarine is beyond accurate, pending the aspect. We can hear shrimp popping. It's not foolproof, but it's really good. They may not have been able to identify the range of the 6 underwater, but the frequencies emitted (if it has velocity and machinery it will emit a frequency) and that most were talking / beating down the little one could easily have been identified. But it would have shown up as 6 different "Tags" on sonar.

dirk2243 wrote:

shamone wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

shamone wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

shamone wrote:

dirk2243 wrote:

Starscream GaGa wrote:

Blackstreak wrote:Yea, I only watched until he got to the part Sideways gets cut in half. This guy's an idiot and doesn't pay attention. I still beleive ROTF was a decent movie given the writer's strike. It's my opinion the 3.5 out of 5 was merited.

Please, explain to me what part he didn't pay attention to! this fad ROTF-fans dismissing all criticism as "not paying attention" is quite ridiculous.

I put this up on the first page here.
1. he didn't pay attention to how 6 robots came from the deep.
2. he didn't pay attention to his own questions. He asked why it was important to elaborate on things that "wern't important, but then wanted elaboration on things. So..... he only wanted things explained that he was too lazy to take 5 seconds to look over. But if the movie didn't explain certain tings, he'd want them to elaborate on it. Can't have it both ways.
3. He doesn't understand why someone would like teenage (college) girls? I get it, people are different, but hopefully he does the second one after he hits puberty or comes out. Everyone is different, why even bring this part up?

He did have some o.k. points, but I believe if he would have actually seen the movie more than 1 time prior to reviewing it, and did a little homework on it first, it could have been better.

I get it, he liked the movie, then changed his mind for some reason upon his second review. His choice. I'm not criticizing his hate of ROTF, I'm criticizing his poor review. could have been better if he watched the movie more. Like he was busy playing a board game while it was on in the background or something.

1. doctor to small to appear on sonar
2. he said why explain things that had just happened or happened in previous movie, but dont explain new developments, like pretenders
3. he said that ?? cant defend that now

1. I'm willing to accept the doctor showing up on sonar. If people are willing to accept sound in space, and even bigger technical/physics flaw I can accept that.
2. You don't need to explain Pretenders, I'm afraid. If you watch a movie about transforming robots and are honestly surprised when one of their deep cover operatives can disguise themselves as a human then there's no hope for you.
3. Agreed. Of course Film Brain's no looker so if he did come out he wouldn't have any extra luck.

i cant buy the sonar

How could they monitor activity down there if it could detect a size that small. sure it would be triggered everytime a fish went by

yeah but its better to explain a new element rather than recap what just happened. its not pretenders that is the issue per se, but that it explains certain elements people are aware of and others which are not.

I'm pretty sure the sonar picked up their energy signatures...not their simple presence.

dont know if sonar works that way, unless the navy had new kind of underwater detection, and thats just conjecture.

I think it can be argued both ways that it was accurate or inaccurate

Sonar on a submarine is beyond accurate, pending the aspect. We can hear shrimp popping. It's not foolproof, but it's really good. They may not have been able to identify the range of the 6 underwater, but the frequencies emitted (if it has velocity and machinery it will emit a frequency) and that most were talking / beating down the little one could easily have been identified. But it would have shown up as 6 different "Tags" on sonar.

So what I gather is that this ranks up there with people saying the Transformers, who are weak against the cold, couldn't fly through space because space is cold even though in all truth in space it's hard to stay cool because the only way to do away with heat is radiation. In other words: non-experts passing judgement on things they don't understand completely.

There's never going to be a definitive answer to the question of the doctor being detectable by active or passive sonar. In this case it's best to give the movie the benefit of the doubt. We simply don't have enough information to establish the truth.

Also... "energy signatures"... That's not how sonar works. Don't make me hurt you!

Tekka wrote:There's never going to be a definitive answer to the question of the doctor being detectable by active or passive sonar. In this case it's best to give the movie the benefit of the doubt. We simply don't have enough information to establish the truth.

Also... "energy signatures"... That's not how sonar works. Don't make me hurt you!

I agree as it's "for the movies" but I never once said Energy signatures and how sonar works. I said machinery.

I would be willing to put a pay check up that if we can pick up shrimp popping, bottom contour, whales, noises....etc, etc, that we could pick them up moving that fast through the water. There gigantic robots. not jellyfish floating through the water