The Energon Pub

wingdarkness wrote:

Burn wrote:

Darkclyde wrote:now the question is can ppl who love the movie will accept the reasoning coming from ppl who doesn't like or even hate the movie and vice versa? so far everybody keeps bashing others opinion.

Why do I need to accept the reasoning?

I like the movie, that's all that matters. If others don't like it, good luck to them. Don't see why either side needs to really need to keep saying they either liked it or hated it.

Not that you care or will listen to anything I have to say, but by liking this movie, you are in essence accepting it…And by accepting it, you are rightly//wrongly giving validation to what was created…So let’s say Mike Bay does a random google search and pulls up Burn’s words of encouragement saying he really liked this movie…maybe that’s the comment that lets him poke his chest out even more (as if that’s possible) and gives him that evil-genius smile that spurns him on yet again..... Not that any of this would ever happen, but our fear (A fear that is probably already reality) is that people like you will validate Bay, and he’ll just roll another gutterball down the lane, and you’ll be liking that too…It’s like the old saying goes if you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything…Unlike you some of our circuits aren’t the same, and to sit in neutral wihile still giving validation to this is an assault on, on, well,…something…sighs…

So it's a crusade you'll be having then! Good luck with that.

Sky Glory of Iacon wrote:

Burn wrote:I just wish some people would move on. They seem to go from thread to thread harping on about the same things, never really adding anything new, just reminding us of their opinion on the movie and doing jack poop to further the discussion.

Well can you be happy he at least commended how well moderated seibertron.com was? I am very happy this is small but it gets awareness out about the website.

Who said I wasn't happy?

To be honest i'd never heard of the guy until all this erupted. I didn't agree with what he said, but I certaintly didn't write him off as others did. I just chose not to listen to what he had to say because I don't need someone else telling me about a movie which I would like to form my own opinion of.

I will however, give him credit. Not for commending this site (considering I feel he was quite sarcastic throughout his article i'm a little hesitant to accept he's genuine in that regard) but for taking the time to "research" by have a squiz at these forums and not simply writing his article based on a couple of irrate fan e-mails.

So no feedback on those Dinbots huh? Oh well. I should really be sleeping being I have a ton of building to do tomorrow....but I found one nugget I'd like to touch up on....

Black Eyes wrote:

I like ROTF and I completely agree with you....but what really confuses me is all the people who love the first one and hate the second one, Ebert inculded.

I enjoy them both and can look at them objectively and both of them are broken movies. But why do Ebert and others give the first one praise and the second one scorn?

I hate to say it but I think the main reason is Shia/Sam. In the first one he was far more like-able and carried the first half of the movie. In ROTF he's a jerk...if poeple don't like/can't relate to the main character their not going to like the movie.

It's really easy to understand why people would enjoy the first film of any trilogy or franchise and not so much the following films.

I'm one of them. Luved the first film....slightly amused by the second. And what it comes down to in an effect driven movie is showing people something new.

The first movie allowed you to get to know these new character, get your first glimpse of a giant robot transforming, and being told this whole new (And not so new for others) story and journey. You had great characters being developed and a fun story for them to flow through and alot of then new special effects and visuals to keep you just gawking and watching it over and over and over again.

For me, in the second film, it just seemed like a rehashing of the above elements but with a few more visual tricks which sadly, weren't enough to cover up the ugliness of other characters and designs. Even the story outline is the same roughly. Open scene, voice over by Optimus. Next scene, Transformer Transforming and a military scuffle. Next scene, Sam again in a class room being hounded for yet another artifact or rather the same artifact, now in his brain, leading to another artifact. The formula goes on and on till your left with another ending speech by Optimus and music by Linkin Park. So frankly for me I just felt like I saw the same film, just retooled in such a way it felt as if the writers just grabbed the previous script, added a few tid bits, and let if fly while Bay seemed to just use the same storyboards and screenplay, and let it fly while blowing things up. BAYSPLOSION! Sorry, had to do it once.

On top of that, the one scene where the movie feels as if it could go somewhere, Optimus dying and the military seemingly turning on the autobots....and what did I get? The twins and sooooooooooooo much layered comedy relief the moment just lost all it's momentum. And those damn twins where featured so much it felt as if the director was trying desperately to make me like them by forcing me to see more and yet more and yet more of them while each time they appeared, a little more seemed to be taken away from the crucial point of where this film could have been aces. A leader just died....and you seriously feel that having a badly designed character geared towards children reffer to another character as a Pu$$y is needed? Seriously? Thats going to enrich your story? Thats going to make me like them more?

As for visuals, the effects where pretty much the same. And so where a average film would feature "MORE" of "ALL" the "NEW" designs....this film seemed to feature only two. And thats bad really, when the worse of the designs sticks to an artist head then all the cooler designs I would have preferred to see.

So we are left with pretty much the same story,

No substantial character development on our established cast,

And not enough newer effects to outshine the original,

This is how I can love the first movie and not love this sequel. Because it just feels like a .5 upgrade of the first film, but all the newer upgrades I don't like, or they don't optimize the medium, hence I just want my original.

Again, I don't HATE "Revenge", but I'm in no rush to buy the uber five disc collector edition with a face mask of bumblebee or the disk holder transforming into Megatron or some other gimmick. I can wait for this one to hit the bargain bin.

SoooTrypticon wrote:I feel like we left that in a pretty good huggy kinda place- we even met in the middle and had an Animated Batman Fanboy geek out for a second there (I'll do it again if i have to).

So, I'm prepared to be done...

Ha ha ha, I read some of it, too funny. Im curious mostly on how well or unwell "Doctor Parnassus" will do. Which might in turn shed light on if DK was a fan-girl/tragedy driven film or if Heaths performance (Which was steller....I for one initally thought he was going to do horrible, and was happily proven wrong) as the Joker is what kept it going strong.

No I'm not trying to rekindle this conversation mind you, just speculating on what devices were at work which compelled me to see this film 5 times and have it gross nearly close to a billion. Perhaps Paramount could learn that character driven movies in the workings of a good story can pay off.

Josh

Rock Sexton wrote:People like you and I expect more from a film with a $200+ million dollar budget, 2.5 hours of screen time, and an intense hype behind it. But instead we got a shallow cash grab.

You're not supposed to expect for a movie to be the greatest, especially with summer blockbusters. Setting your standards too high only leads to disappointment.

Burn wrote:To be honest i'd never heard of the guy until all this erupted.

You haven't heard of Roger Ebert? He's been one of the most prolific film critics for over 40 years. You know the term "I give it two thumbs up" or "Two thumbs down"? That was him.

i really dont like this dude, he grades by opinion, you cant be a genius by stating your opinion. IMO this guy is an ass hole.
i saw this movie 5 times not because i needed to pass the time with any movie, it was because IT WAS THE BEST MOVIE THIS YEAR! and i plan on seeing it again.

Decepticon_25 wrote:i really dont like this dude, he grades by opinion, you cant be a genius by stating your opinion. IMO this guy is an ass hole.

He's a film critic. It's his job to state his opinion on movies.

Decepticon_25 wrote:i saw this movie 5 times not because i needed to pass the time with any movie, it was because IT WAS THE BEST MOVIE THIS YEAR!...

Um......no.

First Gen wrote:

Decepticon_25 wrote:i saw this movie 5 times not because i needed to pass the time with any movie, it was because IT WAS THE BEST MOVIE THIS YEAR!...

Um......no.

Yeah, it was great, but then Watchmen and Star Trek came out this year, so we're kind of at an impasse.

GetterDragun wrote:"But on the other hand look at the spirited discussions on the movie forums of the all-Transformers-all-the time seibertron.com, where a Paramount exit poll showing "90% of those polled thought the second film was as good or better than the first one" has been received with ridicule. Significantly, those are moderated forums."

I feel complimented.

Funny. I don't. There's something about the last five words of that comment that makes me feel he's being more than a little condesending towards us, saying that the only reason those 90% of people said they liked the movie was because it's a TF site, and that if people say otherwise, the mods go after them.

Rock Sexton wrote:He liked the first one didn't he?

Yes, he did.

5150 Cruiser wrote:

wingdarkness wrote:^Hey he's the one who says he understood everything clearly, 100%...For the perplexed such as myself, if you can't explain something that you call not a "big deal" then only The Prime Gods know what will happen when I ask about the REAL plotholes...

It was for visual effect and it didn't take away from the movie. Whatmore explanation do you need? Did you honestly feel this that paticular scene to away from the movie?

Ever heard of the word “microcosm”…That’s what this scene is it’s a microcosm for all the inadequacies of this movie…I’m not getting bent over it (Trust me there’s far more to get bent over, I just threw it out there since we have a member from the matrix of heavenship that understands everything about this movie 100%...I was just having a little fun asking him to explain the unexplainable…

Burn pretty much said everything I had to say, so I won't elaborate any further.

the film was entertaining but as well put together as a boat built by a crack head, i did enjoy the film there were some moments were i was really caring for the characters which the first film lacked, however i feel that the people who made it didnt really capture what the fans wanted, not with regards to the action but i felt that they changed alot of things that didnt need to be changed, however saying that they also changed alot of things for the better, ie optimus prime not being a little girl and starscream now is a little girl. giving that they couldnt cater for every fan, compromises had to be made. if i thought that the film was aimed at children then i would call it a success as there is so much action i feel they would be in awe for the majority of the film, however due to the language and themes throughout you can tell that it isnt and unfortunately it comes accross that they just havent taken that much care when making it. there are rumors that orci and kurtzman may not return for the third film i personally dont think this would be that much of a bad thing unless they step there game up a couple of notches that is

Darth Bombshell wrote:

GetterDragun wrote:"But on the other hand look at the spirited discussions on the movie forums of the all-Transformers-all-the time seibertron.com, where a Paramount exit poll showing "90% of those polled thought the second film was as good or better than the first one" has been received with ridicule. Significantly, those are moderated forums."

I feel complimented.

Funny. I don't. There's something about the last five words of that comment that makes me feel he's being more than a little condesending towards us, saying that the only reason those 90% of people said they liked the movie was because it's a TF site, and that if people say otherwise, the mods go after them.

Um.....uh.....what?

"...exit poll showing "90% of those polled thought the second film was as good or better than the first one" has been received with ridicule. Significantly, those are moderated forums."

He said that our discussions here on the exit polls have been laughable and that we are a moderated site making that a significant thing. In other words, the exact opposite of what you just said.

First Gen wrote:

Darth Bombshell wrote:Funny. I don't. There's something about the last five words of that comment that makes me feel he's being more than a little condesending towards us, saying that the only reason those 90% of people said they liked the movie was because it's a TF site, and that if people say otherwise, the mods go after them.

Um.....uh.....what?

"...exit poll showing "90% of those polled thought the second film was as good or better than the first one" has been received with ridicule. Significantly, those are moderated forums."

He said that our discussions here on the exit polls have been laughable and that we are a moderated site making that a significant thing. In other words, the exact opposite of what you just said.

I 100% agree with First Gen's interpretation. It was a compliment to Seibertron.com.

Shadowman wrote:

Rock Sexton wrote:People like you and I expect more from a film with a $200+ million dollar budget, 2.5 hours of screen time, and an intense hype behind it. But instead we got a shallow cash grab.

You're not supposed to expect for a movie to be the greatest, especially with summer blockbusters. Setting your standards too high only leads to disappointment.

There's a world of difference between "I expect more" and "(I) expect (the) movie to be the greatest."

It's unfair to accuse a person of the latter for saying the former.

You know what I reckon. To hell with the critics! Terminator 3, Underworld; Rise of the Lycans, Indiana Jones 4-all got a hard time from the critics, but I enjoyed all of them. I loved Revenge of the Fallen and I'm gonna see it again next week. If you listen to what the critics say, you'll never watch any movies that you enjoy. Different people, different tastes. It's Mr. Ebert's right to his opinion, but it doesn't mean that you have to take his opinion seriously! Go see what you like, I do!!!

G.B. Blackrock wrote:There's a world of difference between "I expect more" and "(I) expect (the) movie to be the greatest."

It's unfair to accuse a person of the latter for saying the former.

.............exactly, but this seems to be a common theme in twisting what we are saying when it comes to criticisms of this film.

After reading this long on going topic, here's my 2 cents:

Ebert is right. Bay just wanted a action special effects movie with humans vs giant alien robots at war on earth. Bay didn't put any kind of care to research to origins or characters on the story of Transformers. The movie felt rushed with little care to the story telling.

I think Bay didn't understood how important a character was. I understand changing their appearance to today's time or what not, but there's more to a character than just their name. The origin of the wide universe of Transformers, even more so important.

Was it a dream come true to watch Transformers on the big screen? No, it wasn't even close, it wasn't them. Sadly I don't think anyone will make a true Transformer movie.

So I enjoyed watching what Bay called Transformers on screen, for what it was, but sadly I couldn't help being disenchanted at the same time.


That's it, my ramble, my opinion. Peace out.

LOL! Love the new banner on the main page Seibs, hilariously awesome idea. XD

I liked the movie, and thought it was pretty okay despite it's numerous flaws. I saw no racism in the fuglybros, wished that Jolt spoke, lamented some corny parts, found some explosions excessive. I love it despite seeing many errors stare me in the face, and overall it was an awesome 2 hours with so many more scenes I enjoyed far more than scenes I cringed at.

And because I enjoyed it and considered it fairly good, that makes me a subhuman according to your world-famous, knowledgable and experienced opinions? Eh, Erbert?

You know, I used to respect the guy a few years back, until that I heard that he gave endless praise on the shoddy mess that was Waterworld.

Decepticon_25 wrote:i really dont like this dude, he grades by opinion, you cant be a genius by stating your opinion. IMO this guy is an ass hole.

Exactly.

Decepticon_25 wrote:i saw this movie 5 times not because i needed to pass the time with any movie, it was because IT WAS THE BEST MOVIE THIS YEAR! and i plan on seeing it again.

I've seen it twice, but I wouldn't mind seeing it for the 3rd (and last) time. Believe this: there's a guy who was featured on my local newspaper for watching the movie 9 times because he found it so awesome! He only watched TF1 5 times.

100th post happens to be a flaming one... Hmmm...

Rock Sexton wrote:

G.B. Blackrock wrote:There's a world of difference between "I expect more" and "(I) expect (the) movie to be the greatest."

It's unfair to accuse a person of the latter for saying the former.

.............exactly, but this seems to be a common theme in twisting what we are saying when it comes to criticisms of this film.

Yep. G.B. got some words there. Thirded.

wingdarkness wrote:

Magnus_Rex wrote:
I'm not trying to argue here who liked the movie and who didn't. You can look around the board and see how I felt about it. The movie did have a clear story. I was fully able to follow it. I got the story and the reasoning behind everything 100%.

Then you sir, you just won the internets...A bag of tropical skittles will be emailed to your hard-drive pronto...Oh what the hell, since you understood clearly why there's a range of endless mountainous plains 5 steps outside of a Washington D.C. museum where they found Jetfire, you'll get sent a pack of wildberry flavor skittles aswell...

Hey wingdarkness, what's up with the writing in red? Are you being a smart ass or something? Did I say I liked the movie? Maybe you should read a few of my other posts first. Or maybe you're just slow and didn't get what I was trying to say. Or maybe you just stopped short at when I said, "I got the story and the reasoning behind it 100%" and got pissed off because I said I understood the movie. Did you even read the rest of what I said before you cherry picked my comment?

Magnus_Rex wrote:Did you even read the rest of what I said before you cherry picked my comment?

No, he didn't. Join the club.

Shadowman wrote:You haven't heard of Roger Ebert? He's been one of the most prolific film critics for over 40 years. You know the term "I give it two thumbs up" or "Two thumbs down"? That was him.

You seem to forget, I don't live in America and as such don't get exposed to American critics.

That and oh, as i've said, I rarely read what critics write!

You know, the film classes I took in college covered all of the various academic qualities of a "good" movie, obviously, but I never got shut down by a professor or called under-evolved for disagreeing with the general critical assessment of a given movie (which I usually did).

I suppose specifically my issue is the presumption that Ebert or any of the other critics know what a "good" movie is, as if there is some universal criterion that applies to all genres of film, and some objective empirical truth proven by science and endorsed by God himself.

I understand loosely the criterion that film critics use from having to review movies in college, but I disagree with the assumption that that defines a "good" movie.

To me, a movie is "good" if a viewer likes it. In other words, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, ergo the whole concept of declaring a movie "good" or "bad" by any process other than democratic majority rule is ridiculous.

I for one enjoyed the movie. It had some drawbacks, but they were far outweighed by the pluses, resulting in net-enjoyment for me personally. Ergo, for me, it was a good movie. Heck, in spite of all the complaints other people have had about the movie being too long, I was ready to turn around and walk back in the theater and watch it again, or, preferably, watch TF3 if it had been possible.

I am quite agitated that Ebert suggests that people who consider the movie as having been good are "unevolved". I've heard the same crap with regards to food as well, and it simply makes no sense to me. I don't see why something that's an 'acquired taste' is objectively better than something a midwestern hick would like.

Additionally, I find his abuse of scientific language to be repugnant. Evolution, as the process of natural selection for contextually-adaptive heritable traits via differential reproduction really doesn't apply here in even a metaphorical sense. I think the impact an individual's assessment of this movie has on their odds of successful procreation are small enough that they can be considered negligible.

Unless he's implying that one's assessment of this movie is a side-effect of some other adaptation, such that there is a noncausal negative correlation between one's reproduction and one's liking this movie.

Unless of course he's referring to a sort of macro-evolutionary model, wherein an individual's adaptations improve the success of the species as a whole if not the individual's own genes.

In which case I think I can say, from my own self-righteous, holier-than-thou seat that I'll probably do more for our species than he ever has, and would by that definition be more highly evolved.

Caelus wrote:You know, the film classes I took in college covered all of the various academic qualities of a "good" movie, obviously, but I never got shut down by a professor or called under-evolved for disagreeing with the general critical assessment of a given movie (which I usually did).

I suppose specifically my issue is the presumption that Ebert or any of the other critics know what a "good" movie is, as if there is some universal criterion that applies to all genres of film, and some objective empirical truth proven by science and endorsed by God himself.

I understand loosely the criterion that film critics use from having to review movies in college, but I disagree with the assumption that that defines a "good" movie.

To me, a movie is "good" if a viewer likes it. In other words, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, ergo the whole concept of declaring a movie "good" or "bad" by any process other than democratic majority rule is ridiculous.

I for one enjoyed the movie. It had some drawbacks, but they were far outweighed by the pluses, resulting in net-enjoyment for me personally. Ergo, for me, it was a good movie. Heck, in spite of all the complaints other people have had about the movie being too long, I was ready to turn around and walk back in the theater and watch it again, or, preferably, watch TF3 if it had been possible.

I am quite agitated that Ebert suggests that people who consider the movie as having been good are "unevolved". I've heard the same crap with regards to food as well, and it simply makes no sense to me. I don't see why something that's an 'acquired taste' is objectively better than something a midwestern hick would like.

Additionally, I find his abuse of scientific language to be repugnant. Evolution, as the process of natural selection for contextually-adaptive heritable traits via differential reproduction really doesn't apply here in even a metaphorical sense. I think the impact an individual's assessment of this movie has on their odds of successful procreation are small enough that they can be considered negligible.

Unless he's implying that one's assessment of this movie is a side-effect of some other adaptation, such that there is a noncausal negative correlation between one's reproduction and one's liking this movie.

Unless of course he's referring to a sort of macro-evolutionary model, wherein an individual's adaptations improve the success of the species as a whole if not the individual's own genes.

In which case I think I can say, from my own self-righteous, holier-than-thou seat that I'll probably do more for our species than he ever has, and would by that definition be more highly evolved.

Heh, I actually read all of that, understood it and still don't see what point you're trying to make.

If you had an inbox full of "Ur reviews are teh suck", I think you'd think the same way he did.