The Energon Pub

Welcome to Capt.Failure's Edumacation corner. I'm writing this in response to an old complaint about Michael Bay films, the Bayverse, specifically RotF:

"The film didn't have a plot!"

To that I give you the following:

Plot: noun - The main events of a play, novel, movie, or similar work, devised and presented by the writer as an interrelated sequence

So what can we gather from this, students? It's simple really. Revenge of the Fallen had a plot, whether you chose to see it or not. Accusations of "no plot" are a common tactic against films people don't like and are at best uneducated about what a plot actually is. If a film truely had no plot then it would be something more akin to an episode of Montey Python or Robot Chicken, where one scene has no storyline connection to another. It's especially worrying when supposedly educated critics use this accusation, since if anyone should know what a plot is it's them.

While it is true that plots can be simple or complex, simplicity does not indicate lack of plot. Simple plots are usually reserved for works that are primarly visual experiences or installments of a larger story. Complex plots can be the result of said installments coming together or a single work trying to keep the viewer guessing and thinking. There are of course more variations, but my ability to think is fueled by caffiene and I haven't had my coffee yet.

So in closing: any criticism that a novel or film didn't have a plot is either uneducated or a troll.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I didn't know the definition of "plot."

Yes, RotF had a plot, but it was terrible and didn't translate to film well.

Rodimus Prime wrote:Thanks for clearing that up.

I didn't know the definition of "plot."

Yes, RotF had a plot, but it was terrible and didn't translate to film well.

I disagree. I thought the plot of the first film was the weakest of the series so far, with RotF's being better. RotF's plot was easily the more coherent and to the point of the two films, since the first film followed two plot threads of which one had little relevance past the second half (the less than spectacular "signal analasys" plot). It created needless clutter in the story.

Capt.Failure wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:Thanks for clearing that up.

I didn't know the definition of "plot."

Yes, RotF had a plot, but it was terrible and didn't translate to film well.

I disagree. I thought the plot of the first film was the weakest of the series so far, with RotF's being better. RotF's plot was easily the more coherent and to the point of the two films, since the first film followed two plot threads of which one had little relevance past the second half (the less than spectacular "signal analasys" plot). It created needless clutter in the story.

Holy God. Finally, a person with some damn sense in this godforsaken world. Finally! The first movie just went in a completely different direction towards the end (which was for the better). Robots looking for glasses on ebay. I understood why people said the plot for the first movie sucked. I always understood. Then ROTF came out and they said the same thing, and left me just lost.

IMO, the question of which plot is better than the other is purely a matter of tastes. A person's age, experiences and personality all contribute to what he or she prefers in a story.

ROTF DOES have a plot, of that's there can be no argument.

If anything, I think there were more plot elements in the story than it needed. Now this is just my personal opinion, but from the way Orci and Kurtzman were talking in an interview that I watched, they were trying to inject a lot of homages [the Fallen, OP's death etc.] into the story to the point where some of it felt shoehorned.

IMO, I think ROTF had enough plot elements that would have allowed another separate movie to have been made. Firstly, Megatron's resurrection and his killing of Prime would have amply driven the whole movie, with a few tweaks. They could make it so that the overload from the Allspark had merely temporarily overwhelmed his spark. And during the two years, his spark and the Allspark slowly melded and Megs is brought back to life as sort of god [I know it's a lot of fantasy BS, but hey...] Give him the power to resurrect and/or create new Decepticons, and we have a crapload of ammo for mayhem and CG goodness. OP's death could still work in the movie, as it leads Sam and gang to search for a long-lost matrix of leadership to revive him and eventually use it to defeat Megs. Maybe the Autobots somehow discover the crashed Ark on the moon and travel the to retrieve the matrix from stasis-locked Sentinel Prime [yup, which conveniently leads us to DOTM like how the Iron Man 2 and Thor movie shoehorned Shield and the Avengers as a prelude to the inevitable Avengers movie.] As it is, it doesn't deviate too much from the ROTF we saw, but IMO [and I have emphasize this is just MY opinion] the elimination the Fallen and the solar harvester as plot points substantially streamline the story, giving it space to give more focus to everything else.

I know; not exactly Oscar-winning, but then I'm not a screenwriter.

However, I'm of the belief that as far as movies are concerned, keep the plot concise and focused, and expand on what you have. In other words, treat a movie plot like caviar, not a buffet.

In fact, when I first heard that the sequel was going to be titled "Revenge of the Fallen," I came to the conclusion that Megatron and the other fallen Decepticons would revive and seek revenge on the Autobots, or be avenged by another Decepticon warlord who takes leadership. I don't read the comics, so I had no idea there was a character named the Fallen.

The remaining plot elements of the Fallen and the solar harvester is enough to make yet another movie.

Now depending on what you expect from a movie, plot might make all the difference in the world, or none at all. Me? I wanted to watch Transformers beat each other up in awesome choreographed beauty and shoot things to smithereens. I got what I wanted.

DISCLAIMER: In no way do I intend to discredit ROTF or those involved in the making of it. The "alternate" plot I came up with was just to illustrate that a plot for a movie can be concise and still make a solid story.

And yes, I seriously thought ROTF's story was going to unfold as I imagined it when I first heard the title.

Phew, that was a long post...

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:IMO, the question of which plot is better than the other is purely a matter of tastes. A person's age, experiences and personality all contribute to what he or she prefers in a story.

ROTF DOES have a plot, of that's there can be no argument.

If anything, I think there were more plot elements in the story than it needed. Now this is just my personal opinion, but from the way Orci and Kurtzman were talking in an interview that I watched, they were trying to inject a lot of homages [the Fallen, OP's death etc.] into the story to the point where some of it felt shoehorned.

Agreed. I perfered RotF's plot over Transformer's. I'll probably perfer DotM's plot over RotF's. If the series has one uniform weakness plotwise it's the clutter you mention. My preference for RotF's plot comes from the fact that all those elements in the end contribute to the story, while the original film's either stagnate or go nowhere.

Again, just my two cents.

Capt.Failure wrote:

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:IMO, the question of which plot is better than the other is purely a matter of tastes. A person's age, experiences and personality all contribute to what he or she prefers in a story.

ROTF DOES have a plot, of that's there can be no argument.

If anything, I think there were more plot elements in the story than it needed. Now this is just my personal opinion, but from the way Orci and Kurtzman were talking in an interview that I watched, they were trying to inject a lot of homages [the Fallen, OP's death etc.] into the story to the point where some of it felt shoehorned.

Agreed. I perfered RotF's plot over Transformer's. I'll probably perfer DotM's plot over RotF's. If the series has one uniform weakness plotwise it's the clutter you mention. My preference for RotF's plot comes from the fact that all those elements in the end contribute to the story, while the original film's either stagnate or go nowhere.

Again, just my two cents.

I agree, regarding your mention of the first movie's lack of consistent direction. Also, I do wonder how the Autobots knew to check on Ebay for the glasses because they couldn't possibly have known about Megatron's burning the Allspark's coordinates into Archibald's glasses in the first place.

That said, the glassed DID fulfill their role as a plot accessory, as it enabled Optimus to find the whereabouts of the Allspark. It also served to give Sam a reason to be involved in the whole plot. Otherwise, the Autobots would have no reason to send Bumblebee to "infiltrate" Sam's life [in order to retrieve the glasses and protect him from the Decepticons] and his character would have no reason to exist.

Ultimately, I think it was the hacker plot point that failed to deliver. It worked well in the beginning, but once we cut to the Hoover Dam, the Aussie girl and Glen served no particular purpose. After all, the damage was already done, and neither of them contributed their hacking skills to fix the problem. While they did hot-wire the PC to send a Morse code to the USAF[?], IMO it's not a very satisfying resolution.

In other words, they discovered the problem [which rightfully gives them a reason to be in the film,] but did nothing to solve it directly [which should have been their responsibility in the film.] At least have them figure out how to counter the virus Frenzy placed in the system, or even use it against Frenzy himself. IMO, Frenzy accidentally smashing his own head with the shuriken was funny, but it felt tacked on because the humans didn't contribute directly in his demise, which makes it weak as a resolution. One of the fundamental rules of good writing is that the protagonist[s] must always be the one[s] to solve the problem by themselves in order to create a satisfying resolution. Deux ex Machina aka the last-minute cavalry, and convenient coincidences create passive protagonists, which is never a good thing especially for action movies.

Heheh, sorry for making another technical long rant.

All in all, I still love both the first TF and ROTF. It took over twenty years for a live action movie of my favorite childhood franchise to be made, and plot be damned, I'm just grateful to see Optimus, Megatron, Starscream and Bumblebee on screen.

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:IMO, the question of which plot is better than the other is purely a matter of tastes. A person's age, experiences and personality all contribute to what he or she prefers in a story.

ROTF DOES have a plot, of that's there can be no argument.

If anything, I think there were more plot elements in the story than it needed. Now this is just my personal opinion, but from the way Orci and Kurtzman were talking in an interview that I watched, they were trying to inject a lot of homages [the Fallen, OP's death etc.] into the story to the point where some of it felt shoehorned.

Agreed. I perfered RotF's plot over Transformer's. I'll probably perfer DotM's plot over RotF's. If the series has one uniform weakness plotwise it's the clutter you mention. My preference for RotF's plot comes from the fact that all those elements in the end contribute to the story, while the original film's either stagnate or go nowhere.

Again, just my two cents.

I agree, regarding your mention of the first movie's lack of consistent direction. Also, I do wonder how the Autobots knew to check on Ebay for the glasses because they couldn't possibly have known about Megatron's burning the Allspark's coordinates into Archibald's glasses in the first place.

That said, the glassed DID fulfill their role as a plot accessory, as it enabled Optimus to find the whereabouts of the Allspark. It also served to give Sam a reason to be involved in the whole plot. Otherwise, the Autobots would have no reason to send Bumblebee to "infiltrate" Sam's life [in order to retrieve the glasses and protect him from the Decepticons] and his character would have no reason to exist.

Ultimately, I think it was the hacker plot point that failed to deliver. It worked well in the beginning, but once we cut to the Hoover Dam, the Aussie girl and Glen served no particular purpose. After all, the damage was already done, and neither of them contributed their hacking skills to fix the problem. While they did hot-wire the PC to send a Morse code to the USAF[?], IMO it's not a very satisfying resolution.

In other words, they discovered the problem [which rightfully gives them a reason to be in the film,] but did nothing to solve it directly [which should have been their responsibility in the film.] At least have them figure out how to counter the virus Frenzy placed in the system, or even use it against Frenzy himself. IMO, Frenzy accidentally smashing his own head with the shuriken was funny, but it felt tacked on because the humans didn't contribute directly in his demise, which makes it weak as a resolution. One of the fundamental rules of good writing is that the protagonist[s] must always be the one[s] to solve the problem by themselves in order to create a satisfying resolution. Deux ex Machina aka the last-minute cavalry, and convenient coincidences create passive protagonists, which is never a good thing especially for action movies.

Heheh, sorry for making another technical long rant.

All in all, I still love both the first TF and ROTF. It took over twenty years for a live action movie of my favorite childhood franchise to be made, and plot be damned, I'm just grateful to see Optimus, Megatron, Starscream and Bumblebee on screen.

The Deus Ex Machina thing strikes a chord wtih me when it comes to storytelling since alot of the time it's position as a negative aspect is subjective. In films by Michael Bay, Roland Emmerich, or other directors who are the butt of jokes they're seen as something bad, but when something by Jame's Cameron or Steven Spielburg has them it's no big deal (remember the son surviving in War of the Worlds? I got two words for you: BULL SHITE!!!).

From a non-film perspective, let's compare Dan Brown and H.K. Rowling. Dan Brown's stories use Deus Ex Machina all the time and he usually get's flak for it (I've called him the Michael Bay of authors for a reason). But every Harry Potter book (and by extension the movies) ends with Harry or someone pulling some new ability/plot token/etc out of their behind in the last five pages of the finale to win the day. Then Dumbledore shows up to explain how it worked, even though it's never been present as a factor of the story up until that point. Nobody complains about it because Rowling is a more respected author than Brown.

Capt.Failure wrote:The Deus Ex Machina thing strikes a chord wtih me when it comes to storytelling since alot of the time it's position as a negative aspect is subjective. In films by Michael Bay, Roland Emmerich, or other directors who are the butt of jokes they're seen as something bad, but when something by Jame's Cameron or Steven Spielburg has them it's no big deal (remember the son surviving in War of the Worlds? I got two words for you: BULL SHITE!!!).

From a non-film perspective, let's compare Dan Brown and H.K. Rowling. Dan Brown's stories use Deus Ex Machina all the time and he usually get's flak for it (I've called him the Michael Bay of authors for a reason). But every Harry Potter book (and by extension the movies) ends with Harry or someone pulling some new ability/plot token/etc out of their behind in the last five pages of the finale to win the day. Then Dumbledore shows up to explain how it worked, even though it's never been present as a factor of the story up until that point. Nobody complains about it because Rowling is a more respected author than Brown.

I hope I'm not reading too much into this, but just in case, let me make one thing clear: I've got nothing against Micheal Bay or any other director for that matter. No matter who produces what film, if it's good it's good, and if it's bad, it's bad.

I'm not saying that Bay was the only one to use Deux Ex Machina as a plot device. I've seen it used in quite a few other movies, and I despair of all of them. It's nothing personal against him.

With that out of the way, I totally agree with what your view. Bay gets a lot of flak for his films because he doesn't deign to pretend he's making serious movies. He has fun with what he does and is at least more honest than some other directors when it comes to discussing his films. Some say that The Rock was garbage, but it was one of my favorite movies. It's not Oscar material, but it's good fun.

I don't remember much of anything about War of the Worlds [which probably indicates what I think of the film] so I can't really make a comparison.

As for Rowling and Brown, I haven't watched or read any of the former's work [NOT a Harry Potter fan], but I've watched Brown's Da Vinci Code, as well as Angels and Demons. I dunno if Rowling is more respected than Brown, but she certainly is richer.

But in any case, I know where you're coming from.

Honestly, I think it just comes down to how forgiving one is of a certain movie/novel/video game/anime where the good points just override the bad. Luc Besson's Nikita was critically panned, and personally, I thought it was an imperfect film--interesting premise and decent story foiled by an abrupt ending, among other things. Nonetheless, it spawned a cult following, an American remake, and two TV series.

If you ask me, a film or book has to stand on its own merits, regardless of who directs or writes it. Doesn't matter if it's Spielberg, Lucas, or John Woo. If it's good it's good, and if it's bad it's bad.

That said, a film or book can be technically "bad" [unpolished] but still be "good" [entertaining.] Examples of such novels would be those of Tom Clancy and David Gemmell. Among movies, there's of course Micheal Bay, Roland Emmerich, and if you've watched films from Hong Kong before, Tsui Hark. I'm not sure if I should include Luc Besson; personally speaking, I think he's more than redeemed himself with Leon the Professional.

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:I hope I'm not reading too much into this, but just in case, let me make one thing clear: I've got nothing against Micheal Bay or any other director for that matter.

No matter who produces what film, if it's good it's good, and if it's bad, it's bad.I'm not saying that Bay was the only one to use Deux Ex Machina as a plot device. I've seen it used in quite a few other movies, and I despair of all of them. It's nothing personal against him.

Relax, I know what you meant.

Capt.Failure wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:Thanks for clearing that up.

I didn't know the definition of "plot."

Yes, RotF had a plot, but it was terrible and didn't translate to film well.

I disagree. I thought the plot of the first film was the weakest of the series so far, with RotF's being better.

To each his own. I had a lot easier time following the story of the first film. For me the second was choppy and stalling. However, the eye candy, the action, was better in RotF. Hopefully DotM combines the 2 and we'll have a mind-blowing visual ride with an interesting story.

maybe you could make this a weekly series

try Troll next, it might benefit you as well as the rest of us if you found out that description, as it is not someone who disagrees with you !

shamone wrote:maybe you could make this a weekly series

try Troll next, it might benefit you as well as the rest of us if you found out that description, as it is not someone who disagrees with you !

Wow, you really are a negative nancy aren't you?

Capt.Failure wrote:The Deus Ex Machina thing strikes a chord with me when it comes to storytelling since alot of the time it's position as a negative aspect is subjective. In films by Michael Bay, Roland Emmerich, or other directors who are the butt of jokes they're seen as something bad, but when something by Jame's Cameron or Steven Spielburg has them it's no big deal (remember the son surviving in War of the Worlds? I got two words for you: BULL SHITE!!!).

From a non-film perspective, let's compare Dan Brown and H.K. Rowling. Dan Brown's stories use Deus Ex Machina all the time and he usually get's flak for it (I've called him the Michael Bay of authors for a reason). But every Harry Potter book (and by extension the movies) ends with Harry or someone pulling some new ability/plot token/etc out of their behind in the last five pages of the finale to win the day. Then Dumbledore shows up to explain how it worked, even though it's never been present as a factor of the story up until that point. Nobody complains about it because Rowling is a more respected author than Brown.

Heh I regularly referred to the Series as Harry plotter. It's so plot device heavy and they always work in some arbitrary way that only solves the exact situation at hand...never several other ones that easily could be applied to. (like if the phoenix could kick the basilisk's tail so badly...why didn't it just kill it altogether. Nope gotta cut the uber monster down to size...then return to plot device the damage away afterwards.)

I'm sorry, but I didn't read all the posts in this topic completely. (LOOOONG!)
But I agree on the point that a complex story doesn't make a good story and the other way around. In my opinion it's the storyteller. Take a movie like the Big Lebowski. Great and somewhat complex story, but I didn't notice untill watching it a few times over. It's the natural flow of the story and the great characters that make it so entertaining. ROTF also had a LOT of stuff going on, but the characters weren't that interesting. Plus it felt like all that stuff was unrelated. The matrix-thing? We could have gone without.

Funny comments about Harry Potter. I thought I was the only one that was annoyed by those.

-New schoolyear, status quo.
-Anomlay, only Harry knows.
-No ones believes him.
-Harry is misunderstood, exception: some obscure, yet important character.
-MAGIC STUFF
-Anomaly exposed
-NEW MAGIC STUFF
-Everyone believes Harry

Repeat.