The Energon Pub

wingdarkness wrote:Now step up...Let us have our first REAL WORDS...

Knock off the provocation.

I'm a little late in the game, but here goes.

I skimmed the article, but I tend to agree: TF2 sucked. Yes, explosions. Yes, special effects. But letting SFX carry a movie for me ran out a little after T2. There were too many robots to share the screen time equally. I found if you weren't named Bumblebee, Optimus Prime, Megatron, or Skids/Mudflap, people missed you if they blinked. (That's a bit of an exaggeration, but true for most characters.) There were good points: we finally got to see Optimus Prime and Megatron have a fight (the end of the first one was more of a chase). But I think Ironhide had one line, Ratchet was in it for a second, and I missed most of the robots they said were in it. I still don't see the hoopla around Arcee. So there was zero characterization except for Skids and Mudflap, who might as well have been called Jar Jar and Binks. The mother was overbearing in the campus scene. And Megatron was a sniveling Igor in this one. Ugh.

The first few minutes of the movie were great, and I thought it would be better than #1. But ater there was no characterization (except for the humans) and after it got hard to keep track of everyone, I just kind of got bored. But, again, the knockdown, drag-em-out Megatron vs. Optimus that was lacking in the first was awesome. And we got more Starscream. And I didn't mind the Jetfire character as much as some did. Or Wheelie. I didn't particularly LIKE Wheelie, but he didn't ruin any scenes for me.

karellan wrote:Ebert is just one of those people who can't enjoy a movie that isn't good. I like lots of movies that I know are crap (Evil Dead 2, Cabin Boy, Duel to the Death, etc.).

Did you do any research for your statement? Honestly, have you looked at his reviews? Or do you just lump him with other reviewers? I don't want to defend Ebert's likes and dislikes, but he gave a thumbs-up to Beavis and Butt-head Do America, both Wayne's Worlds, Mortal Kombat, Back to the Future (I think 1 and 3), Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, Evil Dead 2, which you mentioned above as crap, and a number of other movies that most critics write off as pure nonsense. I tend to agree with him moreso than most other critics, since he actually seems to give movies a fair chance. No, I haven't agreed with everything he said (Ghostbusters 2 and Army of Darkness come to mind), but he doesn't like only artsy dramas. Check his reviews out at At the Movies (this link is for Mortal Kombat, but you can do a search for most other movies). You'll find reviews on all the movies I cited above except Evil Dead 2, but you can see his comparison of this movie with Army of Darkness on the latter's review. Oh, and try searching for "Bill & Ted", not "Bill and Ted," because the search engine is a bit literal. And he wasn't really scathing on AOD; he just didn't like it TOO much.

So, before we shuffle him into the "hates everything" category, let's please see what he actually thinks of as a good movie. Don't get him wrong: he DOES like common man movies.

Burn wrote:If you're depressed over a movie, you might wanna take a step back and re-analyse your priorities in life.

More like depressed over the mentality of people who prefer to shut their brains off and accept the lowest common denominator because expecting more gets you labelled as an elitist snob.

I enjoy watching creative works. So if it gets hard to find creative works that are thoughtful and well-crafted because no one cares about quality (and thus creative types have no incentive to do better), then yes, it can get depressing.

Caelus wrote:Breaking art down quantitatively reduces it to meaningless data, so really, quantitative research regarding art at anything other than the neurological level is absurd.

But, that said, with out quantitative, controlled, experimental research to support our conclusion, nothing we "know" about art is actually certain, and no one can be considered more correct in their opinions than anyone else.

There, that's the sort of explanation I was looking for. Now why you feel the way you do makes much more sense.

I disagree, of course. There are lots of things that are all or mostly qualitive that still have standards of good/bad. The softer sciences come to mind off-hand (psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc.)

Or how about say, love, which is probably the least quantative thing there is? Let's say we have a guy who gets into his first relationship. And let's say the woman is terrible to him: verbally abuses him, talks about him behind his back, stingy with her affections, spends all his money, etc. But he's genuinely happy with her, because he's in a relationship and she loves him, and he's no longer lonely!

Now, most people would consider that to be bad love and try to intervene and get him away from her. But someone with your attitude would probably argue that since he's happy, it's good love for him, and therefore they have no right to force their personal quality judgements on him.

Now, let's further say that he ends up leaving her anyway for whatever reason. He dates more people down the road, but these girls are actually nice to him and treat him well. And one day he finally ends up with a girl who's kind, affectionate, respects him, all the things we usually associate with "good" love. And he'll probably look back and realize how horrible that first relationship was because of the way she treated him; it's just that at the time he didn't have enough experience to know there was better.

Now, that's obviously a much more serious subject matter than what we have here, but the underlying principle is the same. Someone may think ROTF is a good movie based on their limited understanding of movies. But eventually they study filmmaking, and watch many more movies to analyze them, and see movies that are much better than ROTF. Then, armed with more experience they look back and realize that ROTF actually wasn't a good movie, it's just that they didn't have enough knowledge to draw from at the time.

They may still enjoy the movie, of course, as cool cars, explosions, and hot women will always have a certain appeal. But as we learn more over time, we realize that earlier quality judgments based on incomplete knowledge/experience were wrong.

And that is what Ebert was getting at in his article.

Caelus wrote:Yeah... scientific research that yields purely observational, correlational, and qualitative results is bad science. You can't draw hard conclusions from it. Good enough for Cosmo maybe, but it doesn't get the space shuttle in orbit.

Thanks for pointing out that the rigor applied by members of your field is at its best on par with that applied in my field at its worst.

Uh... what kind of science are you studying then? I mean, the scientific method consists of observing things (...observational, obviously), coming up with a hypothesis that is a possible explanation for why the things you observed are the way they are (correlational), doing more tests to see if the results match the ones your hypothesis predicts you'll get (more observational), and then judging your hypothesis' quality based on how well it does or doesn't fit (qualitive). And then later on someone may find out that there's a theory that seems to fit the (observational) data better than your theory did (qualitive & correlational).

Caelus wrote:By your definition of quality, a definition which is contingent on an inflated estimation of that definition's validity.

Is this really that hard to understand?

Well, yes, seeing as how it's not "my" definition of quality. Plus, you still haven't addressed my example by explaining how a well-crafted movie suddenly becomes bad in quality merely because the subject matter isn't my cup of tea, something that comes down entirely to personal tastes.

Caelus wrote:Furthermore, you still haven't provided me with any evidence of solid conclusions, hard facts which define or describe artistic quality based on methodologically sound research. Nothing that establishes that the grounds for analysis, the basis for distinguishing between good and bad can be definitively tied to real properties of the art.

Because it's not like I can provide a handful of links that provide a comprehensive list of all criteria for good/bad creative work. Since you claim to have studied creative craft, you are therefore aware that there are thousands of books, essays, analyses, classes, etc. on the many different aspects of the many different creative arts. Just go to your library, go to the creative arts section, and dig in.

If you absolutely need a namedrop, I suggest "How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy" by Orson Scott Card as something related to Transformers (in the sense that TF is scifi, though it's not specifically mentioned, plus it gives good analyses for writing in general) as merely a good place to start out of thousands of possibilities.

Caelus wrote:First, agreeing that there were a lot of mistakes doesn't equate to agreeing to a holistic judgment of the movie's quality.

It at the very least equates to the fact that even people who liked the movie recognize that there are standards outside of personal tastes/enjoyment that compared to which certain things can even be considered mistakes.

Caelus wrote:Second, individuals who like a movie, but seem compelled to deem it "bad" in spite of this are likely using the same fractured definition of artistic quality you are, the same definition I reject.

And there are lots of people who reject that the Earth is round or that we landed on the moon... point? Just because you personally reject a definition doesn't mean that the definition is actually incorrect.

Caelus wrote:All that tells you is everyone in a similar group of people was measuring the same thing. It does not tell you what they were measuring, or how valid their measurement is.

Most critics whose reviews I read are very thorough in explaining what they're measuring in terms of quality and why those measurements are valid in terms of standards for good quality creativity.

Caelus wrote:Also, you aren't using a random sample, so obviously your results are going to be wildly skewed.

That's like saying that if I want to know about the effectiveness of something like angioplasty surgery, my sample and results are flawed because I only asked people educated in the procedure instead of also asking people who know little to nothing about it.

Caelus wrote:Just because you are making two separate judgments and calling one "quality" doesn't make you objective.

It makes the quality judgment objective. If quality were subjective, then my definition of good/bad would always match up with my personal tastes and biases, because there would be no gauge beyond those personal preferences to look at.

In contrast, you're the one who can't divorce his personal tastes from quality, implying things like "Because I enjoy cool cars, hot women, and explosions, anything that contains only those must therefore be good quality creativity."

Caelus wrote:Not necessarily. You are making subjective evaluations, but you refuse to acknowledge it, and so continue to endorse faulty definitions of quality even when logic refutes the validity of those definitions.

You haven't given me any logic that refutes the validity of those definitions, merely that you personally reject any evidence of their validity.

Plus... let me put it this way. Rotten Tomatoes lists 213 reviews. On top of that there's however many TF fans on this board and elsewhere. Even the ones who've liked it have identified many of the same flaws and problems. Doesn't it kind of make more sense to realize there's standards for good/bad quality, rather than thinking that a few hundred people from all different countries, states, and cultures have somehow all managed to have similar personal tastes on what makes for good quality? And that's just looking at ROTF, let alone creative work in general.

Caelus wrote:1) There are no objective criteria for creative work, as evidenced by your failure to cite research which logically and quantitatively defines and validates the criteria used.

*points again to the creative arts of any library or bookstore*

There's thousands of books that talk about various techniques, including, yes, some hard data on what visual or narrative effects they produce. Go pick any one whose cover tickles your fancy.

Not to mention, for instance, the whole point of something like test screenings, for instance, is to check and see if people laugh in the right places, cry in the right places, etc. Or advertisers who put out different kinds of ads on the web and then gather data on which ones draw the most mouse clicks and purchases. Etc. Etc.

Basically, if you can't deal with liking something that's poor quality without feeling insulted or ego-bruised, I'm afraid that's entirely your own problem. Trying to claim there's no such thing as quality in entertainment to justify the matter is just eye-twitching to those of us who have studied the creative arts. It also makes me hope that people like you who refuse to educate themselves on creativity and/or be critical and thoughtful about quality are in the minority.

First Gen wrote:Why do I have to enjoy it? Why must I settle for this? Don't I, don't YOU, deserve better?

You don't have to enjoy it - don't watch it.

You don't have to settle for it - don't watch the film, or buy the toys.

Neither you, or I, or anyone else *deserve* better - I for one am getting sick and tired of the attitude that we as Transformers fans 'deserve' anything. Hasbro is a corporation, that makes Transformers to make a profit. Nothing more, nothing less. The moment Transformers becomes unprofitable, they'll pull the plug and move onto the next toyline. They owe us as fans absolutely nothing at all.

As far as Ebert's dislike of the movie goes, who cares? It's up to people whether they like the movie or not, just because one man who gets paid to have opinions doesn't like it makes no difference to me one way or the other.

Jeysie wrote:

Burn wrote:If you're depressed over a movie, you might wanna take a step back and re-analyse your priorities in life.

More like depressed over the mentality of people who prefer to shut their brains off and accept the lowest common denominator because expecting more gets you labelled as an elitist snob.

If you're upset that you or other people who share your opinion are being labelled elitist snobs then please cite an example for the Mods and Admins to deal with.

In fact, if you or ANYONE for that matter, whether you're pro or anti-movie take offense to something someone has posted on these forums, then use the "Report this Post" button.

Counterpunch wrote:

wingdarkness wrote:Now step up...Let us have our first REAL WORDS...

Knock off the provocation.

Sorry for provoking good, passionate debate...

@Burn - So disappointing...

Jeysie wrote:

Burn wrote:If you're depressed over a movie, you might wanna take a step back and re-analyse your priorities in life.

More like depressed over the mentality of people who prefer to shut their brains off and accept the lowest common denominator because expecting more gets you labelled as an elitist snob.

Hold up.

As much as anyone who is going to pretend the film has no flaws is at fault, so are you for allowing essentially small problems with the film to destroy all enjoyment of it and site it as 'a lowest common denominator'.

Could it be a better film? Yes. Are the people who have hang-ups with the film acting pretty much in the same exact manner that fans did when Beast Wars, Beast Machines, Armada, Energon, Cybertron, and then Animated first came out? Absolutely.

Any single complaint about the film can be tied as closely to those shows.

All of which have later become loved portions of the franchise over time. It's not that the criticisms of those shows/films are invalid but rather that the sense of calamity for 'Transformers' as a whole, whenever a new media is introduced, should be noted as entirely unjustified.

DreadwindsGhost wrote:You don't have to enjoy it - don't watch it.

You don't have to settle for it - don't watch the film, or buy the toys.

A little hard to do when you see it THEN find out how much it lacked. In order to have an informed opinion on anything, you must know the subject matter at hand.

DreadwindsGhost wrote:Neither you, or I, or anyone else *deserve* better - I for one am getting sick and tired of the attitude that we as Transformers fans 'deserve' anything. Hasbro is a corporation, that makes Transformers to make a profit. Nothing more, nothing less. The moment Transformers becomes unprofitable, they'll pull the plug and move onto the next toyline. They owe us as fans absolutely nothing at all.

25 Years, Multiple lines of figures, numerous OTFCC/ Botcon panels by HASBRO and most of this site are in complete disagreement with what you said. But hey if that's how you feel, good for you.

DreadwindsGhost wrote:As far as Ebert's dislike of the movie goes, who cares? It's up to people whether they like the movie or not, just because one man who gets paid to have opinions doesn't like it makes no difference to me one way or the other.

Apparently so many people care about Ebert's review that he felt it necessary to post a response to the masses. This is just evident fact. Try reading posts before you reply to them, eh.

Delicon wrote:

Counterpunch wrote:Slightly off-topic...

Good to see you here GB.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, actually.

Thanks. Glad to be here.

I enjoyed this movie more than the first. Sure it was crude at points, but it had a better balance between robot and human interactions.

My husband can point all the geographic errors. "you don't fall off the pyramidof Giza and end up in Karnak."

The first movie: I enjoyed parts of it, I thought it was okay, but I did not like it. I would never say I loved it. The Decepticons were far too late in showing up. But adding the first to the second, it seems to be more of an intro-pilot.

if I want to get my movie tingles, I will pop in return of the king. Still my favourite movie.

DreadwindsGhost wrote:You don't have to enjoy it - don't watch it.

You don't have to settle for it - don't watch the film, or buy the toys.

Except that there's some of us who very much enjoy the thought of a TF film and would like to get to watch a good one. So it's either miss out on something we might otherwise enjoy if it was done well, or settle for a crappy story just to get to have a TF movie.

Burn wrote:If you're upset that you or other people who share your opinion are being labelled elitist snobs then please cite an example for the Mods and Admins to deal with.

I'm not upset at the act of being called an elitist snob, it's the mentality some people have that thinking there are standards of quality to aspire to outside of personal tastes means you're an elitist snob that makes me shake my head.

Counterpunch wrote:As much as anyone who is going to pretend the film has no flaws is at fault, so are you for allowing essentially small problems with the film to destroy all enjoyment of it and site it as 'a lowest common denominator'.

No, I'm dealing with the fact that there are a lot of not-small problems with the film that overshadowed the parts of the film that were good.

Counterpunch wrote:It's not that the criticisms of those shows/films are invalid but rather that the sense of calamity for 'Transformers' as a whole, whenever a new media is introduced, should be noted as entirely unjustified.

Er... I'm not claiming that the film being bad is somehow a calamity for TF as a whole. Especially since I actually like the movieverse as a general thing, I like the idea of TF movies, and I liked the first movie. What I am worried about is that if this newest film does well, and more importantly there are people who think it's good quality, there won't be any impetus to make future TF films that are good as opposed to just fancy spectacle. Seeing as how the first movie was decent, and the Movieverse comics were good, I hate seeing what's been an interesting verse when it's done well be squandered on, well, nothing but spectacle. There's definite potential here, and I'm sad that ROTF dropped the ball on continuing to use it.

First Gen wrote:

DreadwindsGhost wrote:Neither you, or I, or anyone else *deserve* better - I for one am getting sick and tired of the attitude that we as Transformers fans 'deserve' anything. Hasbro is a corporation, that makes Transformers to make a profit. Nothing more, nothing less. The moment Transformers becomes unprofitable, they'll pull the plug and move onto the next toyline. They owe us as fans absolutely nothing at all.

25 Years, Multiple lines of figures, numerous OTFCC/ Botcon panels by HASBRO and most of this site are in complete disagreement with what you said. But hey if that's how you feel, good for you.

Actually, you don't. You paid for a toy, you are compensated with a toy. Hasbro owes you nothing after that. Unless you paid for something and you didn't get anything in return, which, unless you one day decided to just donate money to Hasbro, I sincerely doubt.

Jeysie wrote:You don't have to settle for it - don't watch the film, or buy the toys.

Except that there's some of us who very much enjoy the thought of a TF film and would like to get to watch a good one. So it's either miss out on something we might otherwise enjoy if it was done well, or settle for a crappy story just to get to have a TF movie.[/quote]

Quoted for emphasis.

G.B. Blackrock wrote:

Jeysie wrote:Except that there's some of us who very much enjoy the thought of a TF film and would like to get to watch a good one. So it's either miss out on something we might otherwise enjoy if it was done well, or settle for a crappy story just to get to have a TF movie.

Quoted for emphasis.

To throw in a bit more on this line of thought, the writers, Bay, and Hasbro have all commented on how hard it was to have this idea 'get over' in Hollywood. While we look at the fiction in a serious manner, Hollywood (Michael Bay as well, at first), still saw the concept as a toy commercial pitch.

Imagine trying to show off G1 cartoon episodes or comics to your Grandfather and explaining emphatically that this will make for a great movie. Even if they take that idea seriously, they're going to have a hard time taking the established fiction seriously. I think this issue is quickly dismissed by a lot of fans, but that it has some serious merit when accounting for why the films are the way that they are.

I think in some ways, we ARE lucky to get any kind of live action TF film that even tilts towards seriousness.

Counterpunch wrote:

G.B. Blackrock wrote:

Jeysie wrote:Except that there's some of us who very much enjoy the thought of a TF film and would like to get to watch a good one. So it's either miss out on something we might otherwise enjoy if it was done well, or settle for a crappy story just to get to have a TF movie.

Quoted for emphasis.

To throw in a bit more on this line of thought, the writers, Bay, and Hasbro have all commented on how hard it was to have this idea 'get over' in Hollywood. While we look at the fiction in a serious manner, Hollywood (Michael Bay as well, at first), still saw the concept as a toy commercial pitch.

Imagine trying to show off G1 cartoon episodes or comics to your Grandfather and explaining emphatically that this will make for a great movie. Even if they take that idea seriously, they're going to have a hard time taking the established fiction seriously. I think this issue is quickly dismissed by a lot of fans, but that it has some serious merit when accounting for why the films are the way that they are.

I think in some ways, we ARE lucky to get any kind of live action TF film that even tilts towards seriousness.

C'mon CP, really?

Pluto Nash? Norbert? The Evil Dead Trilogy? All these are pretty ridiculous pitches but were made movies and liked by many.

Counterpunch wrote:

G.B. Blackrock wrote:

Jeysie wrote:Except that there's some of us who very much enjoy the thought of a TF film and would like to get to watch a good one. So it's either miss out on something we might otherwise enjoy if it was done well, or settle for a crappy story just to get to have a TF movie.

Quoted for emphasis.

To throw in a bit more on this line of thought, the writers, Bay, and Hasbro have all commented on how hard it was to have this idea 'get over' in Hollywood. While we look at the fiction in a serious manner, Hollywood (Michael Bay as well, at first), still saw the concept as a toy commercial pitch.

Imagine trying to show off G1 cartoon episodes or comics to your Grandfather and explaining emphatically that this will make for a great movie. Even if they take that idea seriously, they're going to have a hard time taking the established fiction seriously. I think this issue is quickly dismissed by a lot of fans, but that it has some serious merit when accounting for why the films are the way that they are.

I think in some ways, we ARE lucky to get any kind of live action TF film that even tilts towards seriousness.

You make a valid point.

Unfortunately, I have to say that I'm probably in that minority among TF fans that would very much have preferred to get no movie at all, if getting TF2 was the only alternative.

First Gen wrote:

Counterpunch wrote:

G.B. Blackrock wrote:

Jeysie wrote:Except that there's some of us who very much enjoy the thought of a TF film and would like to get to watch a good one. So it's either miss out on something we might otherwise enjoy if it was done well, or settle for a crappy story just to get to have a TF movie.

Quoted for emphasis.

To throw in a bit more on this line of thought, the writers, Bay, and Hasbro have all commented on how hard it was to have this idea 'get over' in Hollywood. While we look at the fiction in a serious manner, Hollywood (Michael Bay as well, at first), still saw the concept as a toy commercial pitch.

Imagine trying to show off G1 cartoon episodes or comics to your Grandfather and explaining emphatically that this will make for a great movie. Even if they take that idea seriously, they're going to have a hard time taking the established fiction seriously. I think this issue is quickly dismissed by a lot of fans, but that it has some serious merit when accounting for why the films are the way that they are.

I think in some ways, we ARE lucky to get any kind of live action TF film that even tilts towards seriousness.

C'mon CP, really?

Pluto Nash? Norbert? The Evil Dead Trilogy? All these are pretty ridiculous pitches but were made movies and liked by many.

Yo...Eddie Murphey has serious Hollywood clout. His contracts probably require that he is either in or is guaranteed so many films per year.

Evil Dead isn't in the mainstream Hollywood structure of commercial push.

When Hasbro talks about sending Michael Bay to 'Transformers School', what they essentially did was spend a week or two (whatever it was) saying, "Seriously. This is more than a toy-line sales pitch. This franchise has legs." Studios were like,...robots and emotion? no romantic angle? primary audience of 4-12 year old boys?...and you need how many millions to get started?

Kid related properties are either very, very hard to push or are Disney-esq in their creation. Just look for the Ender's Game movie and the absolute garbage that Orson Scott Card has had to go through in order to get it even close to creation. Even he had to settle on telling both Ender's story and Bean's story at the same time to make it relatable. Otherwise, we would have had a film about a 15 year old Ender and his love interest.

Counterpunch wrote:Yo...Eddie Murphey has serious Hollywood clout. His contracts probably require that he is either in or is guaranteed so many films per year.

Evil Dead isn't in the mainstream Hollywood structure of commercial push.

When Hasbro talks about sending Michael Bay to 'Transformers School', what they essentially did was spend a week or two (whatever it was) saying, "Seriously. This is more than a toy-line sales pitch. This franchise has legs." Studios were like,...robots and emotion? no romantic angle? primary audience of 4-12 year old boys?...and you need how many millions to get started?

Kid related properties are either very, very hard to push or are Disney-esq in their creation. Just look for the Ender's Game movie and the absolute garbage that Orson Scott Card has had to go through in order to get it even close to creation. Even he had to settle on telling both Ender's story and Bean's story at the same time to make it relatable. Otherwise, we would have had a film about a 15 year old Ender and his love interest.

Point taken.

what is really funny is this made the front page. Rodger isn't praising this site he is pointing out it is part of the problem he sees with the movie

nolaK-Kalon wrote:what is really funny is this made the front page. Rodger isn't praising this site he is pointing out it is part of the problem he sees with the movie

Mind showing us where you see that?

First Gen wrote:

nolaK-Kalon wrote:what is really funny is this made the front page. Rodger isn't praising this site he is pointing out it is part of the problem he sees with the movie

Mind showing us where you see that?

That is not what Roger Ebert is saying, but once again I guess everything is up to opinion.

Jeysie wrote:

Caelus wrote:I do not believe there is any empirically valid objective criterion for delineating a good movie from a bad movie.

Yes, there are. There are many, many criteria for telling good acting, good plot constructions, good characterization, good dialogue, good scene blocking, etc. Just like we can look at a random crayon scribble and call it not good art, there are many things you can look at to say whether a story or film is good or not.

Otherwise, there's no point in creative people trying to analyze their weaknesses, study technique, and try to improve their craft at all, because no matter what level you're at it's good as long as someone liked it, and anyone who tries to critique you means they're an elitist snob imposing their "subjective opinion" on you. Sorry, I don't buy it.

I have plenty of things I know are bad from a quality level that I think are fun anyway because they manage to get right some aspect I enjoy. Conversely, there are things I recognize as being well-crafted that I don't like just because the subject matter or type of plot isn't my cup of tea.

A mother may love her child's random scribble because it came from her child as a gesture of love, but that still doesn't make it good in terms of quality. If the kid ever wants to become an artist, they are probably going to learn to do better than random scribbling, because there is such a thing as objective quality.

Whether I like something or not says nothing about quality and everything about my own personal tastes. If people like something even though it's bad, that's fine. But we shouldn't be claiming that something poorly made is somehow "good" just because some people like it. I can accept that people enjoyed the movie. But you're just not going to sell me on the thought that the fact that people liked the movie somehow makes juvenile humor, gratuitous sexiness & swearing, non-existent characterization for many of the characters, deux ex machina plotting, etc. "good" writing from a quality perspective.

I'm tired of having to put up with so much poor writing because people don't care about the quality of writing so long as it's "fun", or make the mistake of equating "good" with "I had fun". You can have fun/enjoyment and good storytelling at the same time; the two are not mutually opposed.

QFT

First Gen wrote:

Counterpunch wrote:

G.B. Blackrock wrote:

Jeysie wrote:Except that there's some of us who very much enjoy the thought of a TF film and would like to get to watch a good one. So it's either miss out on something we might otherwise enjoy if it was done well, or settle for a crappy story just to get to have a TF movie.

Quoted for emphasis.

To throw in a bit more on this line of thought, the writers, Bay, and Hasbro have all commented on how hard it was to have this idea 'get over' in Hollywood. While we look at the fiction in a serious manner, Hollywood (Michael Bay as well, at first), still saw the concept as a toy commercial pitch.

Imagine trying to show off G1 cartoon episodes or comics to your Grandfather and explaining emphatically that this will make for a great movie. Even if they take that idea seriously, they're going to have a hard time taking the established fiction seriously. I think this issue is quickly dismissed by a lot of fans, but that it has some serious merit when accounting for why the films are the way that they are.

I think in some ways, we ARE lucky to get any kind of live action TF film that even tilts towards seriousness.

C'mon CP, really?

Pluto Nash? Norbert? The Evil Dead Trilogy? All these are pretty ridiculous pitches but were made movies and liked by many.

WHOA!!! hold on a second... There was someone who actually liked Pluto Nash? I didn't think it was in the theaters or on the $5 rack long enough to have a following.

Magnus_Rex wrote:

First Gen wrote:C'mon CP, really?

Pluto Nash? Norbert? The Evil Dead Trilogy? All these are pretty ridiculous pitches but were made movies and liked by many.

WHOA!!! hold on a second... There was someone who actually liked Pluto Nash? I didn't think it was in the theaters or on the $5 rack long enough to have a following.

Yeah, except for the Evil Dead movies, I don't think Pluto Nash and Norbit are liked by anyone ever.

First Gen wrote:

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.

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.

Wow here's an internet first! Two moderators getting into a flamewar...