The Energon Pub

OMG.

I can't believe this is still going on.

Here's where I think a lot of people are coming from who are defending Ebert.

In an era where kid-oriented franchises are being handled by strong directors and talented writers, Transformers comes up lacking.

While the Robots and Action are certainly there- the movies just aren't as well made as the latest Batman, Ironman, Lord of the Rings, Pixar Films, etc...

This isn't subjective- it's true. It's validated by the repeated jabs like, "It doesn't have to be Shakespear," "Or what were you expecting, Casablanca?" By saying that it isn't a high quality film, it's admitted that Transformers is of a poor standard.

The first problem at hand is that a lot of people don't expect a Transformers movie to be well made.

The second problem is that there are fans (and regular people) who wonder why no one bothered to try harder.

That's what's left hanging in the air.

If you had 200 million to throw around, why not try to make the best movie possible, instead of just settling?

Fans of the Transformers films settle for a mediocre film because they don't expect it to be any better.

And that's frustrating for those of us who want these characters and stories to be treated with the same level of dignity as "that whiney orphan who dresses up as a bat and does ninja tricks while fighting a scary clown."

When you say it that way, it doesn't really sound any worse than "an alien robot who turns into a truck."

I'm not digging any deeper into this, but I'll leave with this parting analogy.

In 1989 fans of Batman were worried. There was a film coming out from the director of Beetlejuice, and he had cast a comedian as Batman. The last Batman property widely seen by non-comicbook fans was a campy TV series with bad plots and terrible acting. There was an even worse cartoon running on Saturday mornings for the sole reason to sell cheaply made toys.

For the last 30 some odd years, Batman had been a campy colorful guy in comics who fought villains on top of giant typewriters. Bad dialogue, bad stories.

Only recently had a few comic artists begun to examine Batman in a more serious light with graphic novels like Batman Year One and the Dark Knight Returns. But the general public knew nothing of these.

When Batman came out, it was like no Batman fans or regular people had ever seen. It was serious, had a great cast, good action (for its time), and writing that took its characters seriously.

Did it change stuff up from the original stories. Yes. Were these changes for the better? Debatable.

Did audiences eat it up?

Of course they did- and then they asked for more.

So, a campy toy mongering franchise in 1989 was transformed into a semi-serious action film.

Was it too much to ask for that to happen again?

Ok, i haven't posted here in ages. in fact i dont even think i still know anyone on here. But i had to comment on this. I havent seen it yet, so i cant comment on the film itself. By as for Eberts responce, i am sad he even felt the need to respond. Why should he have to explain his opinion, just because a bunch of fanboys didnt like the fact that ebert didnt like the movie? Most of Bay's movies are crap. They are shiny fun crap at times, but still crap. But because Ebert said as much "officialy", he is crucified by a bunch of geeks. (and no offense intended on the geek thing, im one too). The fanboys need to get a grip on reality. If ya liked the movie.. great, im happy for you. i know i like stuff that others consider crap. But to get angry because someone else didn't like it? how immature is that? Sure Eberts review was pretty scathing. But why pressure him to explain himself? so he didnt like the big robot from space movie...? why did that become an issue. Ive heard it is because he in "snooty" and only likes art films. well if thats the case, why even bother reading his review of this sort of film at all? Even if this film is 5 times better than the first one (which i did see), i couldn't by any stretch call it a great movie. TF 1 was fun, exciting, full of Splosions and nonsense. From what i hear, 2 is more of the same. Why worry about some critic not liking it. if ya loved, it, go see it again and again, and leave the people who dont share you opinion alone...

rant over...

thank you...

Writenimage wrote:But why pressure him to explain himself?

No one pressured him. We called him out of touch with what the movie was and what it was supposed to be and he got up and out to defend his opinion.

(some of us were nicer than others and I think that the 4chan-ish response of some was the real instigator...)

@ SoooTrypticon - No it wasn’t too much, and that’s the problem…Bayformer lovers (and Bay himself) want you to treat it under a similar condition of camp, but Bay doesn’t even want a distinct camp atmosphere, because he doesn’t even have the chops to pull that off…The movie franchise had never been relayed to as camp, so to have so many campish elements in a movie not presented as camp, then to ask audiences and critics to understand that these are silly, fun movies (without the prerequisite for that being a clear tonal-element that the movie establishes), you get half-a$$ bull-$hit poppy-squat…

Caelus wrote:But my point is that I believe "good" should equal "I liked it", and you have no valid grounds for saying that I am wrong.

What I consider makes a movie "good" (its capacity to entertain me) is not the same as what you consider makes a movie "good" and neither you nor Ebert has the right to tell me I am 'mistaken' in that, or to tell me I'm "unevolved".

We have different priorities in what we want to see when we go to a movie. I'm not saying I don't appreciate good writing, but if that was my top priority, I could get that from a library, or do it myself. Special effects good enough to make transforming alien robots seem realistic I can't really come by anywhere else though.

Arguably my criterion for what makes a "good" movie is more useful to me anyway.

If I'm trying to decide whether I want to drop $6-8 for some entertainment, a decision contingent on the odds that I will like the movie, being told by someone similar to myself that they liked the movie is far more informative for the purposes of making my decision than being told that the movie met the critical academic standards for a positive evaluation, standards which frequently depend on qualities I don't care about, or which are even contrary to the aspects I value.

I'm willing to agree to disagree, which was my point to begin with, that Ebert and other creative critics should say that it was a "bad" movie for them but not assume it was a "bad" movie for everyone.

Again, being "entertained" does not make the movie "good" ....it just meant it was "entertaining" to you. For example, I am entertained by the movie "Mortal Kombat"........was it a universally accepted "good" movie? No. And I can understand the reasons why.

You come off as the infinitely "everything is everything" contrarian and you're treating this debate like some session with Deepak Chopra. Society can certainly establish standards that make films better than others, particularly when they fit certain genres.

When anybody says they liked this film then I can say without a doubt: that viewer is amused with excess levels of crude jokes & language, racial stereotyping, boobs, hot chicks, and a poorly developed story. What someone who wants to call somebody who likes those things is generally up to them.....but let's really look at that other list one more time:

1. excess crude jokes/language
2. excess racial stereotyping
3. an abundance of hot chicks
4. poorly developed story

What do those things strike you as? Is that the mark of a universally accepted "good" movie? No. It would be intellectually dishonest to even say that it is. Universally accepted "good" movies do no resort to the fart gags or poop gags (metaphorically speaking) for the entire film when it was intended to be a a sci-fi action movie and not a crude comedy. Judd Apatow or Todd Phillips movies can get away with it because they know what they are.

Bay and the writers forced their shallow agendas on this film because they cared absolutely nothing about development in any sense of the word. And that is not the sign of a universally accepted "good" movie.

SoooTrypticon wrote:
So, a campy toy mongering franchise in 1989 was transformed into a semi-serious action film.

Was it too much to ask for that to happen again?

Let's take its step further. The writers were paid $8 million for their screenplay. Bay was paid BIG bucks to direct. Add in the fact that the film cost $200+ million - would you expect the equivalent of a Saturday morning cartoon? We have every right to expect more than that. Anybody in this forum could've written this movie loaded after a night out at the bars with their buddies. That's pathetic if that's what all those millions of dollars goes to.

wingdarkness wrote:@ SoooTrypticon - No it wasn’t too much, and that’s the problem…Bayformer lovers (and Bay himself) want you to treat it under a similar condition of camp, but Bay doesn’t even want a distinct camp atmosphere, because he doesn’t even have the chops to pull that off…The movie franchise had never been relayed to as camp, so to have so many campish elements in a movie not presented as camp, then to ask audiences and critics to understand that these are silly, fun movies (without the prerequisite for that being a clear tonal-element that the movie establishes), you get half-a$$ bull-$hit poppy-squat…

Bingo.

Counterpunch wrote:

First Gen wrote:I think the fact some of us are overlooking is the fact that the story for the movie sucked Devastators wrecking balls and thats what Ebert is saying.

If you try to argue with me that the story was good I won't respond cause you obviously have no idea was a story is to begin with.

If you liked the film, good for you. I didn't. But as I've stated before, I'm a reader and I enjoy stories very much. If a book has to have pictures in it to hold your interest, I don't want it.

Wow.

This is pretty insulting right here.

I seriously don't appreciate this. You tell me that I don't know what a good story is and then you insult me by essentially calling me a child in need of picture books... You, as much as anyone else on the boards need to have a balanced argument. Backhanded insults are not going to fly around here.

I feel dirty for saying this, but I agree with Counterpunch, of course, I suppose I'm somewhat less shocked than he is because I don't see this as a significant deviation from your typical conduct.

First Gen wrote:No its not. No ones arguing that the story was good, even those who liked the film. The whole point of this argument is the bad story that was bashed together with the incredible action.

Actually, I would argue that the story was good, for me anyway. It was a great, nostalgic homage to the source material, complete with the campiness that makes the old comics and cartoon so much fun.

Jeysie wrote::Clearly missing my point, and failing to meet my demands:

What you 'know' to be "good" art was told to you by someone who 'knows' "good" art. Unfortunately, what they 'know' about "good" art was told to them by someone else who 'knows' good art and unlike in science, this chain proceeds backwards indefinitely, eventually terminating with someone's opinion derived from their subjective personal tastes.

Essentially, your 'objective' definition of "good" art vs. "bad" art is based on an arbitrary decision made by some long dead guy. It has no factual, empirical basis. It has no 'absolute'. You have no right to force long-dead-guy's opinions on other people. Artists and their critics haven't applied the rigorous methods of examination necessary to have earned that sort of self-confidence and certainty.

Your point that if you handed in your scribble to your teacher adds nothing to this discussion. Your teacher, as an art teacher, would be operating on the same flawed belief system you're espousing. And your implication that capitulating to the instructor's demands makes you a good artist by definition is kind of sad.

And of course we have the point brought up about paid professionals being 'better' than amateurs. The get paid because someone likes their work. Now, by my argument, for the people who like their work, who pay for it, it is "good", so you could certainly say that artists get paid for "good" work.

And that returns to another point I made earlier, that I would accept a classification of "good" or "bad" if it was based on democratic majority rule, with the portion of people who like a creative work vs. the number of people who don't serving as an adequate measure of the work's holistic quality. It's still an indirect measure, of course, meaning its error variance is probably outrageously high, but it would be the most objective (by virtue of aggregation) and probably the most useful (by virtue of the fact that you can use those numbers to estimate the odds ratio of any given person liking it, and therefore make an empirically informed decision about whether to recommend it).


Excellent, here's an example of the subjectivity involved in assessing the quality of a movie:

Rock Sexton wrote:When anybody says they liked this film then I can say without a doubt: that viewer is amused with excess levels of crude jokes & language, racial stereotyping, boobs, hot chicks, and a poorly developed story.

First, here again we have the absolutism of certainty, the complete disinclination to accept alternative points of view, especially with regards to how a piece of art should be evaluated, that makes art critics come off as elitist snobs.

But let's turn to the individual criterion mentioned, which I will observe omits any of the movie's good qualities:

1. excess crude jokes/language

Unless you have a score sheet somewhere that gives point values to different words and jokes, an establishes a grading system which identifies a quantitative thresh-hold for the term "excess", I have to reject this as a purely subjective evaluation. I would also say that the 'crude language' was far less crude and far less pervasive than would be realistic for a group of protagonists largely composed of soldiers and teenagers fighting for their lives.

2. excess racial stereotyping

Given the intense disagreement that emerged over whether or not there was racial stereotyping involved, I think it's fairly clear that this isn't an objective evaluation, but rather a subjective one. I for one still believe the only racism involved was when I, as a viewer, automatically identified racially ambiguous characters as 'black' on the basis of their behavior.

3. an abundance of hot chicks

Two.

There were two hot chicks.

The main female lead, who is typically attractive in an action-adventure story, and the seductive spy, who can't be seductive if she's not hot.

Also, neither Megan Fox and Isabel Lucas are very well endowed at their bust line, so your assumption that there is a correlation between a person liking this movie and liking "boobs" also holds little water, and illustrates your inclination to make unsupported leaps in your reasoning.

4. poorly developed story

And this is again a subjective evaluation. As far as I could tell, everything that was necessary to understand what was going on was made available to the audience. The details which were omitted, like Blackout's resurrection, were generally inconsequential to the main plot. Beyond that, any quantification of 'how developed' the story is is entirely subjective, and also needs to take into account 'how developed' the story needs to be.

Caelus wrote:I feel dirty for saying this, but I agree with Counterpunch,

I'm not so bad...once you get to know me.

Counterpunch wrote:

Caelus wrote:I feel dirty for saying this, but I agree with Counterpunch,

I'm not so bad...once you get to know me.

He was probably getting you confused with me.

Caelus wrote:I feel dirty for saying this, but I agree with Counterpunch, of course, I suppose I'm somewhat less shocked than he is because I don't see this as a significant deviation from your typical conduct.

And once again you go into a long rant with educated words still failing to make a point. Whats new.

Caelus wrote:

First Gen wrote:No its not. No ones arguing that the story was good, even those who liked the film. The whole point of this argument is the bad story that was bashed together with the incredible action.

Actually, I would argue that the story was good, for me anyway. It was a great, nostalgic homage to the source material, complete with the campiness that makes the old comics and cartoon so much fun.

Are you really being serious here? Comparing the 2009 live action film to the old comics and cartoons, I mean? Nostalgic homage I'm all for, but just throwing something in there to say "Hey we put this in there for you" is on its own level of patronization, which is pretty much what this entire movie did.

I hope your next essay doesn't have as many plotholes as ROTF and the other ones you posted do. Just make your point.

First Gen wrote:Nostalgic homage I'm all for, but just throwing something in there to say "Hey we put this in there for you" is on its own level of patronization, which is pretty much what this entire movie did

And yet Animated did the exact same thing constantly and no one had a problem with that.

While I think a lot of people don't want to agree with my argument, I think you, FG, are the only who is having trouble understanding what I'm saying.

But again, that hasn't surprised me for a long time.

Caelus wrote:First, here again we have the absolutism of certainty, the complete disinclination to accept alternative points of view, especially with regards to how a piece of art should be evaluated, that makes art critics come off as elitist snobs.

But let's turn to the individual criterion mentioned, which I will observe omits any of the movie's good qualities:

Right. You can't mention an aversion to "absolute certainties" and then turn around and call us elitist snobs. Apparently there are criterion for making a person such a thing. You're making my argument for me.

Unless you have a score sheet somewhere that gives point values to different words and jokes, an establishes a grading system which identifies a quantitative thresh-hold for the term "excess", I have to reject this as a purely subjective evaluation. I would also say that the 'crude language' was far less crude and far less pervasive than would be realistic for a group of protagonists largely composed of soldiers and teenagers fighting for their lives.

A score sheet? You get better with every counter. How do you identify a quantitative measurement for how pervasive a level of crudeness should be for teenagers and soldiers "fighting for their lives" then? I know you're trying to come off ever-scholarly with your habitual use of loaded words, but it's not flying and it re-emphasizes the "everything is everything" or it's all "subjective" defense. It's an empty, shallow angle.

Given the intense disagreement that emerged over whether or not there was racial stereotyping involved, I think it's fairly clear that this isn't an objective evaluation, but rather a subjective one. I for one still believe the only racism involved was when I, as a viewer, automatically identified racially ambiguous characters as 'black' on the basis of their behavior.

Ahhhh ..... more subjective talk. I'm noticing a trend here. You apparently have not lived in America for the past two decades.

Two.

There were two hot chicks.

The main female lead, who is typically attractive in an action-adventure story, and the seductive spy, who can't be seductive if she's not hot.

Also, neither Megan Fox and Isabel Lucas are very well endowed at their bust line, so your assumption that there is a correlation between a person liking this movie and liking "boobs" also holds little water, and illustrates your inclination to make unsupported leaps in your reasoning.

No there were more than those two. There was a whole campus chalk full of Maxim-magazine worthy hot chicks walking to their classes. A campus party with hot chicks. Hot chicks taking showers in the co-ed dorms. Hot chicks in the class room Sam had his mental break down. Hot chick calendars made by Leo. You're so intellectually dishonest it's not even funny.

And this is again a subjective evaluation. As far as I could tell, everything that was necessary to understand what was going on was made available to the audience. The details which were omitted, like Blackout's resurrection, were generally inconsequential to the main plot. Beyond that, any quantification of 'how developed' the story is is entirely subjective, and also needs to take into account 'how developed' the story needs to be.

You claim "subjectivity" and yet you follow it it with another hypocritical comment like "as far as I could tell" ........ your "subjectivity" claim is an endless, empty fence sitting style reason to disagree with all points made about this movie.

Fact is, while there were explanations - they were convenient, corny, laughable, and intellectually insulting at times.........there's a method call Deus Ex Machina which basically moves plots along thru the insertion of a person or thing. This movie over-dosed on the concept (although I'm sure you ask for a scorecard on how one overdoses).

Example: The Pretender ..........she just "shows up" on campus.
Example: Wheelie ......... all of the sudden he's on the lawn
Example: Simmons ......... Leo just so happens to know where he works

There was an abundance of these in this movie because the writers did not want to spend time developing. They wanted to spend time blowing things up and pandering to us with over the top crude humor.

Burn wrote:

First Gen wrote:Nostalgic homage I'm all for, but just throwing something in there to say "Hey we put this in there for you" is on its own level of patronization, which is pretty much what this entire movie did

And yet Animated did the exact same thing constantly and no one had a problem with that.

The animated cartoons were not $200+ million dollar, live-action, mega-hyped cinematic sequels. Plus we were children.

Caelus wrote:While I think a lot of people don't want to agree with my argument, I think you, FG, are the only who is having trouble understanding what I'm saying.

But again, that hasn't surprised me for a long time.

Even though that was a jab, thank you. It was short, concise, to the point and very clear. That's well appreciated my wordsmith foe.

Rock Sexton wrote:

Burn wrote:

First Gen wrote:Nostalgic homage I'm all for, but just throwing something in there to say "Hey we put this in there for you" is on its own level of patronization, which is pretty much what this entire movie did

And yet Animated did the exact same thing constantly and no one had a problem with that.

The animated cartoons were not $200+ million dollar, live-action, mega-hyped cinematic sequels. Plus we were children.

In Burns defense he meant Transformers Animated, the most recent of the TF Cartoonverse.

And his point is good. But I didn't really like Animated either.

Counterpunch wrote:

Writenimage wrote:But why pressure him to explain himself?

No one pressured him. We called him out of touch with what the movie was and what it was supposed to be and he got up and out to defend his opinion.

(some of us were nicer than others and I think that the 4chan-ish response of some was the real instigator...)

Agreed. Though he's justified in defending himself because ROTF has done so well at the box office. Any other movie isn't worth the effort.

Also Ebert is using ROTF as a vehicle to comment on how intelligence, education and prestige has become a mark of shame. It's something that hasn't been discussed at all on this thread, and probably deserves to be.

It Is Him wrote:Also Ebert is using ROTF as a vehicle to comment on how intelligence, education and prestige has become a mark of shame. It's something that hasn't been discussed at all on this thread, and probably deserves to be.

Two sides to a coin however considering he used his position as a critic to basically come out and say "anyone who liked this movie has yet to evolve intelligence".

Is it any wonder that some people look upon those with education, intelligence and prestige with shame considering SOME of those people look down upon others who lack education and intelligence?

I never went to College/University, I failed English and Maths in High School, yet I ended up doing tax and accounting for 12 and a half years (still doing it on weekends) before moving to a new job where I will become a Manager who will be responsible for the company's tax and accounting as well as being responsible for the telephone and computer network, and putting together all the advertising.

All of which draws heavily on maths and the english language. Both of which I failed!

Intelligence, education, race, body shape ... all the different things that make us human and unique, people are going to find something about you to dislike. Personally I feel Ebert shouldn't have responded to the wankers who called him "out of touch" and resorted to insulting the guy. He's entitled to his opinion, and he didn't need to justify himself, yet he did, and he sank to the level of his childish detractors by insulting them (and the broader public) in turn.

Rock Sexton wrote:Right. You can't mention an aversion to "absolute certainties" and then turn around and call us elitist snobs. Apparently there are criterion for making a person such a thing. You're making my argument for me.

I said it makes art critics come off as elitist snobs. There's an important distinction there.

A score sheet? You get better with every counter. How do you identify a quantitative measurement for how pervasive a level of crudeness should be for teenagers and soldiers "fighting for their lives" then?

Ah, so you do get my point then - it's not quantifiable. Quantitative analysis, necessary for any sort of objectivity, is not applicable to this. The notion is absurd, as is, by extension, the notion that any piece of art can be empirically defined as "good" or "bad".

I know you're trying to come off ever-scholarly with your habitual use of loaded words, but it's not flying and it re-emphasizes the "everything is everything" or it's all "subjective" defense. It's an empty, shallow angle.

First of all, I'm not going to apologize for my vocabulary going over your head. I've heard people bitch about the fact that I talk 'too smart' since I was in elementary school, but every time I've tried to dumb myself down to accommodate those people, I've just come off as patronizing.

Second, you still haven't really explained what you mean by "everything is everything". You keep using that term like it has some meaning beyond the obvious. And referencing Michael Jackson's friends? What's that about?

Everything regarding art is subjective. Saying that you know something in the realm of art is objectively "good" and forcing that opinion on someone else is wrong. That is my point.

I do not see it as 'empty' or 'shallow'. Of course, I don't see it as 'full' or 'deep' either. I don't really see how those parameters apply to my opinion at all.

Ahhhh ..... more subjective talk. I'm noticing a trend here. You apparently have not lived in America for the past two decades.

Two and a half decades I have lived here. And a lot of my research deals with racial inequity and discrimination. It is from that background that I reason that racism occurs when we see an idiot of unknown race and automatically assign an ethnic identity to them on the basis of their incompetency, or when we see an individual of a certain ethnic status and automatically assign an evaluation of competency on the basis of their ethnicity. Two nonracial individuals acting like yutzes is not an example of racism; the audience's reaction however was racist, in that it endorsed a particular set of stereotypes when a number of alternative interpretations were possible.

No there were more than those two. There was a whole campus chalk full of Maxim-magazine worthy hot chicks walking to their classes. A campus party with hot chicks. Hot chicks taking showers in the co-ed dorms. Hot chicks in the class room Sam had his mental break down.

That's arguably just realism. I basically live on a college campus, and the undergrads generally do look like that. They were background extras, either way. I didn't find them noticeable or memorable, and I don't see how they negatively impacted the movie, if they impacted it at all.

Hot chick calendars made by Leo.

Those were kittens...

You're so intellectually dishonest it's not even funny.

Calling me a liar is probably pushing the envelope of what the admins are likely to consider acceptable discourse in this thread.

You claim "subjectivity" and yet you follow it it with another hypocritical comment like "as far as I could tell"

When I say that all evaluations regarding movies are subjective to the individual, and then preface an evaluation with the caveat "as far as I could tell", that's me recognizing that my own observations of the movie are subjective; the opposite of hypocrisy.

your "subjectivity" claim is an endless, empty fence sitting style reason to disagree with all points made about this movie.

I'm not sitting on a fence. I've been very clear about my opinions and beliefs regarding the value of critical analysis of creative works.

But if you're primary complaint is that there is no solid, logical counterargument, then you need to be considering one of two possibilities:
1) You're wrong.
2) Irrefutable arguments (untestable hypotheses) are one of the things that differentiate artistic analysis from scientific analysis, and are part of the reason why artists and art critics can't claim objectivity. Which from your perspective is also sort of like admitting that you're wrong. But I prefer to think of it as 'agreeing to disagree'.

Fact is, while there were explanations - they were convenient, corny, laughable, and intellectually insulting at times.........there's a method call Deus Ex Machina which basically moves plots along thru the insertion of a person or thing.

Wow, you actually felt that you needed to explain what a deus ex machina is? I actually don't know whether to be offended, on the premise that you thought I wouldn't recognize the term, or laugh on the premise that you thought it wasn't a widely understood piece of common knowledge.

This movie over-dosed on the concept (although I'm sure you ask for a scorecard on how one overdoses).

You're catching on.

Example: The Pretender ..........she just "shows up" on campus.
Example: Wheelie ......... all of the sudden he's on the lawn

They were Decepticon spies. There jobs were to follow and monitor individuals who may have had access to the Allspark's remains. Did you want them to devote an extra half-hour to outlining what they did on Cybertron, how they got to Earth, where they got their alternate modes, etc.? Would that really have added something significant to your movie-going experience?

Also, Alice didn't really move the story/plot along. Events would likely have proceeded in much the same fashion without her, simply more boringly. She was basically just there to add some excitement and imminent peril, and I don't see any objective reason that would be considered a bad thing.

Example: Simmons ......... Leo just so happens to know where he works

Actually, the 'plot device' here was Sam getting a roommate who just happened to be a conspiracy nut. Everything else seemed to me to follow logically from there, except maybe Simmons having successfully absconded with the files. That seemed unlikely, but not impossible.

Also, in the classical sense, a deus ex machina was not 'any' piece of the story which moves the plot along, but rather something that resolves the plot at the end. In fact, the term originally stemmed from theater; when the show would run over-time, someone dressed as Zeus/Jupiter (deus) would be lowered onto the stage via a crane (ex machina) and sort everything out in short order. You probably already knew that, but I wanted to point out that by the original interpretation of the term (I'm sure it has been bastardized since then) the only real deus ex machina was Optimus's revival.

Burn wrote:

It Is Him wrote:Also Ebert is using ROTF as a vehicle to comment on how intelligence, education and prestige has become a mark of shame. It's something that hasn't been discussed at all on this thread, and probably deserves to be.

Two sides to a coin however considering he used his position as a critic to basically come out and say "anyone who liked this movie has yet to evolve intelligence".

Is it any wonder that some people look upon those with education, intelligence and prestige with shame considering SOME of those people look down upon others who lack education and intelligence?

You're twisting Ebert's words, but your point about the pot calling the kettle black is certainly valid. Ebert's point was that he hopes people who feel like ROTF stands up against classic films like The Godfather can develop better appreciation for cinema. The first graph explicitly says he has nothing against people who enjoyed ROTF for what it was, a shlocky summer blockbuster, he just wishes they can watch better movies and grow from them.

Caelus wrote:

Jeysie wrote::Clearly missing my point, and failing to meet my demands:

And you've failed to meet my demand of explaining why creative work is magically exempt from standards of good and bad quality compared to non-creative work.

Caelus wrote:Unfortunately, what they 'know' about "good" art was told to them by someone else who 'knows' good art and unlike in science, this chain proceeds backwards indefinitely, eventually terminating with someone's opinion derived from their subjective personal tastes.

Uh, no. What they (and the old people) know about good art was learned by studying art and seeing which techniques are effective in conveying the creative work's intents and which aren't. When I set out to write a certain story, there are objectively techniques which work better than others for effective storytelling. Same goes for art, music, anything creative. This understanding is achieved by watching/listening to many works in your field and analyzing their various aspects to see what works and what doesn't. Again, I don't see why creative works are somehow exempt from needing talent and technique.

Caelus wrote:And your implication that capitulating to the instructor's demands makes you a good artist by definition is kind of sad.

And I think that your implication that anyone can produce a bit of poorly-made trash with no effort, talent, or thought put into it, and it can somehow still qualify as "good" because it appealed to some crude need enough for someone to like it anyway, is equally sad.

I'm not sure why it's so hard for you to just accept that you can sometimes enjoy something that's bad quality. I accept it quite easily without needing to think I'm important enough for my personal individual tastes to dictate quality instead of merely dictating my own personal enjoyment.

Burn wrote:Is it any wonder that some people look upon those with education, intelligence and prestige with shame considering SOME of those people look down upon others who lack education and intelligence?

I never went to College/University, I failed English and Maths in High School, yet I ended up doing tax and accounting for 12 and a half years (still doing it on weekends) before moving to a new job where I will become a Manager who will be responsible for the company's tax and accounting as well as being responsible for the telephone and computer network, and putting together all the advertising.

Clearly you are not unintelligent. You simply lack the formal education (which, incidentally, seems to be the case for Ebert, too--at the very least, he says so in regard to his movie-critiquing credentials).

Honestly, I think lacking intelligence SHOULD be "looked down on." Or, at least, those with more intelligence should help those with less to GET more....

But lack of formal education is an altogether different thing.

I forgot how indestructible the defense walls are in these Transformer Movie forums. Essentially, this debate was over before it started. After reading this thread, it seems no one has swayed in their opinion of the film. Everyone is sitting at their computer ignoring the points they disagree with and championing their side's POV. Without acknowledging any valid point from the other side, this argument becomes cyclical and inane. It is kneejerk reactionary argumentative gobblegook at its finest.

TF2 Defenders:
ADMIT IT! This movie is severely flawed in several typical judging areas of the movies! Its fine, you can still love it, but to defend so vehemently as a structurally sound film, on par with say Godfather, shows somewhat of a skewed perspective. Also recognize that the people who hate this love Transformers as much as you do and are just unhappy with this interpretation.

TF2 Haters:
ADMIT IT! This movie despite its flaws, can be an enjoyable experience for a lot of people. The people that did love it are not morons or idiots...and are quite possibly smarter than you! It is okay for people to love this film and no matter how hard you wish it, this movie is a roaring success.

Most people know where I stand but ignoring the other side's valid points is just bad form.

Caelus wrote:

Rock Sexton wrote:Right. You can't mention an aversion to "absolute certainties" and then turn around and call us elitist snobs. Apparently there are criterion for making a person such a thing. You're making my argument for me.

I said it makes art critics come off as elitist snobs. There's an important distinction there.

A score sheet? You get better with every counter. How do you identify a quantitative measurement for how pervasive a level of crudeness should be for teenagers and soldiers "fighting for their lives" then?

Ah, so you do get my point then - it's not quantifiable. Quantitative analysis, necessary for any sort of objectivity, is not applicable to this. The notion is absurd, as is, by extension, the notion that any piece of art can be empirically defined as "good" or "bad".

I know you're trying to come off ever-scholarly with your habitual use of loaded words, but it's not flying and it re-emphasizes the "everything is everything" or it's all "subjective" defense. It's an empty, shallow angle.

First of all, I'm not going to apologize for my vocabulary going over your head. I've heard people bitch about the fact that I talk 'too smart' since I was in elementary school, but every time I've tried to dumb myself down to accommodate those people, I've just come off as patronizing.

Second, you still haven't really explained what you mean by "everything is everything". You keep using that term like it has some meaning beyond the obvious. And referencing Michael Jackson's friends? What's that about?

Everything regarding art is subjective. Saying that you know something in the realm of art is objectively "good" and forcing that opinion on someone else is wrong. That is my point.

I do not see it as 'empty' or 'shallow'. Of course, I don't see it as 'full' or 'deep' either. I don't really see how those parameters apply to my opinion at all.

Ahhhh ..... more subjective talk. I'm noticing a trend here. You apparently have not lived in America for the past two decades.

Two and a half decades I have lived here. And a lot of my research deals with racial inequity and discrimination. It is from that background that I reason that racism occurs when we see an idiot of unknown race and automatically assign an ethnic identity to them on the basis of their incompetency, or when we see an individual of a certain ethnic status and automatically assign an evaluation of competency on the basis of their ethnicity. Two nonracial individuals acting like yutzes is not an example of racism; the audience's reaction however was racist, in that it endorsed a particular set of stereotypes when a number of alternative interpretations were possible.

No there were more than those two. There was a whole campus chalk full of Maxim-magazine worthy hot chicks walking to their classes. A campus party with hot chicks. Hot chicks taking showers in the co-ed dorms. Hot chicks in the class room Sam had his mental break down.

That's arguably just realism. I basically live on a college campus, and the undergrads generally do look like that. They were background extras, either way. I didn't find them noticeable or memorable, and I don't see how they negatively impacted the movie, if they impacted it at all.

Hot chick calendars made by Leo.

Those were kittens...

You're so intellectually dishonest it's not even funny.

Calling me a liar is probably pushing the envelope of what the admins are likely to consider acceptable discourse in this thread.

You claim "subjectivity" and yet you follow it it with another hypocritical comment like "as far as I could tell"

When I say that all evaluations regarding movies are subjective to the individual, and then preface an evaluation with the caveat "as far as I could tell", that's me recognizing that my own observations of the movie are subjective; the opposite of hypocrisy.

your "subjectivity" claim is an endless, empty fence sitting style reason to disagree with all points made about this movie.

I'm not sitting on a fence. I've been very clear about my opinions and beliefs regarding the value of critical analysis of creative works.

But if you're primary complaint is that there is no solid, logical counterargument, then you need to be considering one of two possibilities:
1) You're wrong.
2) Irrefutable arguments (untestable hypotheses) are one of the things that differentiate artistic analysis from scientific analysis, and are part of the reason why artists and art critics can't claim objectivity. Which from your perspective is also sort of like admitting that you're wrong. But I prefer to think of it as 'agreeing to disagree'.

Fact is, while there were explanations - they were convenient, corny, laughable, and intellectually insulting at times.........there's a method call Deus Ex Machina which basically moves plots along thru the insertion of a person or thing.

Wow, you actually felt that you needed to explain what a deus ex machina is? I actually don't know whether to be offended, on the premise that you thought I wouldn't recognize the term, or laugh on the premise that you thought it wasn't a widely understood piece of common knowledge.

This movie over-dosed on the concept (although I'm sure you ask for a scorecard on how one overdoses).

You're catching on.

Example: The Pretender ..........she just "shows up" on campus.
Example: Wheelie ......... all of the sudden he's on the lawn

They were Decepticon spies. There jobs were to follow and monitor individuals who may have had access to the Allspark's remains. Did you want them to devote an extra half-hour to outlining what they did on Cybertron, how they got to Earth, where they got their alternate modes, etc.? Would that really have added something significant to your movie-going experience?

Also, Alice didn't really move the story/plot along. Events would likely have proceeded in much the same fashion without her, simply more boringly. She was basically just there to add some excitement and imminent peril, and I don't see any objective reason that would be considered a bad thing.

Example: Simmons ......... Leo just so happens to know where he works

Actually, the 'plot device' here was Sam getting a roommate who just happened to be a conspiracy nut. Everything else seemed to me to follow logically from there, except maybe Simmons having successfully absconded with the files. That seemed unlikely, but not impossible.

Also, in the classical sense, a deus ex machina was not 'any' piece of the story which moves the plot along, but rather something that resolves the plot at the end. In fact, the term originally stemmed from theater; when the show would run over-time, someone dressed as Zeus/Jupiter (deus) would be lowered onto the stage via a crane (ex machina) and sort everything out in short order. You probably already knew that, but I wanted to point out that by the original interpretation of the term (I'm sure it has been bastardized since then) the only real deus ex machina was Optimus's revival.

I'll settle this one gents. Caelus you're right. Rock, you're right too, because in reality, what is right and wrong? Is it what you feel it is? Well if thats the case, right in wrong is just electrons being interpeted by your brain.

Is that really mom baking cookies or did someone fart? Right and wrong is what you want it to be.