Note: since the other thread on Ebert is mostly people who agree with him, I am taking my stance here, and making this topic for those who feel that they loved the movie, and disagree with Mr. Ebert's assessment. My rebuttal to his weak explanation is as follows.
Feel free to add anything Intelligent to this thread, as I hope he reads it and sees how many "Un-Evolved" people exist outside of his large cranium's reach.
Roger Ebert is a moron! Transformers 2 is the best action movie ever. Don't listem to that moron! He is only into slow boring romantic movies. That is his type of movies. Michael Bay did a great good. Roger... your an old fart! John C
Having now absorbed all or parts of 750 responses to my complaints about "Transformers," I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that most of those writing agree with me that it is a horrible movie. After all, look where they've chosen to comment. There have, however been some disagreements that I thought were reasonable. These writers mostly said they had a thing about the Transformers toys of their childhoods, or liked the animation on TV, or like to see stuff blowed up real good. In that case. Michael Bay is your man. If you enjoyed the movie, there is no way I can say you're wrong. About yourself, anyway.
I appreciate that you can acknowledge that people have a right to their own opinions. While subtly masking and protecting your initial Position. It is a quality that certain Politicians posses. They are able to make us smile, and compliment us. While at the same time protecting their own agenda in a cloak of words.
the funny and jib jabbed shot against a fan's grammar, as to insinuate lack of intelligence by the use of the phrase "blowed up real good". That is a stroke of pure genius. I marvel at how you can politely attack your critics, and yet give no quarter. This is the mark of a true performance writer. next I suppose you'll turn to an old trick and play the victim, Oh wait, yep you do that later.
Another common line of attack was disturbing. It came from people who said I was out of touch with the tastes of the audience. That the movie's detractors (lumped together as "the critics") like only obscure movies that nobody else does--art films, documentaries, foreign films, indies, movies made 50 years ago--even, God forbid, "classics." One poster argued that "Transformers" was better than that boring old movie "Casablanca."
I suppose there are people who have not relished in the classics. I for one love movies from the 1940's and 1950's era..especially those of Danny Kaye.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_KayeA great and thoughtful actor, with movies that touched the soul and made me happy.
However, I am only 32 years old. I also have a fascination with science fiction, and giant alien robots fits that bill quite nicely. To suggest that your apparent defense of people saying that "the critics") like only obscure movies that nobody else does--art films, documentaries, foreign films, indies, movies made 50 years ago--even, God forbid, "classics." is false, then you truly are out of touch.
let us take a few academy award winning movies, that truly are horrible and meaningless wastes of time and money spent, shall we?
Slum Dog Millionaire?
Milk?
Vicky Cristina Barcelona?
The Reader?
Frost/Nixon? ( a liberal rehashing of Nixon, where are the critical Bill Clinton flicks?)
are you kidding me?? those movies were absolutely horrible, and yet the reviews by "critics" and the peers who voted for them to win awards, were the same. The box office takes were rather poor and utterly not worth the money it took to produce. So to imply in a sly way that being a movie critic means being stereotyped into caring about movies that only wrap around a certain genre, the only advice I have for you is to stop being a statistic then!
Stop giving people the ability to stereotype you! But wait, as I read further I found out that you don't care what people think. so why choose to use stereotyping as a defense? again here we go with the self victimization, and all without giving ground to the validity of the argument, or admitting that you may be wrong. it is tiresome, and made me want to paraphrase your article, as I tired of the self protectionism and self victimization.
I was informed I didn't "get" Michael Bay. I was too old, "of the wrong generation," or an elitist or a liberal--although not, I was relieved to find, a "liberal elitist." It seems to me "Transformers" also qualifies for conservative scorn. It is obliviously nonpartisan. Yet one commented said I hated the movie because it was an attack on President Obama. I was afraid to say I hadn't noticed that, because then I would be told I hadn't even seen the movie. It is possible to miss many of the plot points, strange in a movie with so few of them. Veiled in-jokes about politicians and famous people, popular in animation and mass market movies, come with the territory. I enjoy them. The apparent reference to Obama was no big deal, although a reader from Germany told me the actual name "Obama" was used in the German dub. That possibly didn't happen without Bay hearing about it.
Actually in a portion of the movie, it states on a television within the movie that President Obama is on his Plane and leaving the area.
that
was in English.
the other thing you failed to see was the apparent jabs at the policies of Obama and his lack of support in the military as emphasized by the newly instated secretary of Defense representing the White House. So add that into the whole mix, and the mention of the current President, and there you have the negative portrayal of the current President.
and as seeing how Michael Bay works closely with the military, this point of view is common amongst many in the service. Making this a conservative witch hunt, all while pretending to be ignorant to the charges of Liberalism and the jabs at Obama doesn't make you seem that much more a victim to me. I see through this shady attempt again to play yourself some kind of now "political" victim.
now if I can put these few obvious clues together, and you apparently are an expert. Then what does that say about your skills as a critic?
"Brainiac:" Must be a critic. Thinks he know it all, and never likes anything. (Click to enlarge.) Copyright © DC Comics.
But am I out of touch? It's not a critic's job to reflect box office taste. The job is to describe my reaction to a film, to account for it, and evoke it for others. The job of the reader is not to find his opinion applauded or seconded, but to evaluate another opinion against his own. But you know that. We've been over that ground many times. What disturbs me is when I'm specifically told that I know too much about movies, have "studied" them, go into them "too deep," am always looking for things the average person doesn't care about, am always mentioning things like editing or cinematography, and am forever comparing films to other films.
nope you watch movies your own way, and pick at what you like and dislike. which is what everyone else does. Here we see that you consider what you do as it is to "
things the average person doesn't care about"...
I take issue with this statement. I assume that someone with your own personal experiences and achievements can appreciate that not just a select few "critics" are able to do such things and look deeply into a movie. Am I wrong? Is this superhuman ability only given to a select few such as yourself? I mean let us all be honest, studying movies and being paid to recite your insight is nothing compared to a person who works 50 hours daily and tries to support a family on his own back.
here we see that you value your own opinion and feel as many do in a job they know well, that you do something that no one else does. but your statement implies that the rest of the "common man" does not or is incapable of deeper thought when watching a movie at the theater. Do you honestly not see the elitism in this statement? No I suppose you wouldn't, and I suppose that my pointing that out will be used for yet another self defense victimization example.
I've "forgotten what it's like to be a kid," another poster told me. One of the most-admired contributors to this blog, who signs herself "A Kid.," is 12 years old. She hasn't forgotten. Neither have many other readers of middle school age. Their posts give me hope for the future. For them, to be a kid is not to be uncritical or thoughtlessly accepting. They seek magic, and don't find it in the brutal hammering of "Transformers."
A reader named Jared Diamond, a senior at Syracuse, sports editor of The Daily Orange, put my disturbance eloquently in a post asking: "Why in this society are the intelligent vilified? Why is education so undervalued and those who preach it considered arrogant or pretentious?" Why, indeed? If sports fans were like certain movie fans, they would hate sports writers, commentators and sports talk hosts for always discussing fine points, quoting statistics and bringing up games and players of the past. If all you want to do is drink beer in the sunshine and watch a ball game, why should some elitist play-by-play announcer bore you with his knowledge? Yet sports fans are proud of their baseball knowledge, and respect commentators who know their stuff.
So here you go finding others to support your opinion, and using their statements as again a shield and veil of victim-hood. Trying to draw a contrast between what the Sports commentator receives versus those of the Movie critic. In truth, Mr. Ebert, they are both different things entirely. That is why one is called "Baseball" and the other a "Movie". one is a "commentator" providing facts and stats, the other is a "Critic" sighting opinions and awards thus given by opinions...
As far as someone not finding their childhood in Transformers. that may be true, and simply to say because one woman has not found her childhood in it is not to say another person does. We are all different Mr. Ebert, and we all like different things. If a movie grosses a high take at a Box office, then it must mean that a majority like something. Does it make that movie more appealing because of that fact? no. But it does say something about how most people felt about it.
But if you go to movies to find your childhood, or seek to find a movie and judge it's worth based on how well it moved your heart, then you are missing out on life itself outside the theater. Some movies are just for entertainment, and not to provide some level of spiritual enlightenment. Transformers means more then just a "blowed up real good" flick to me. It is a delving into the science fiction of the impossible. An Alien Race of Robots, living robots. A back story deep in history, with rich special effects that make me feel these creatures are alive.
there was humor in the movie, and I like humor. There was death, and the lesson learned that being true and showing courage was the mark of a leader. A lesson Shia Lebeouf proved to achieve in the movie. Did you miss the point of what it means to have courage? What it means to not play a "victim"? With all the things I see happening to this society now a days, with all the "Me, I deserve, and I have the right to, I am a victim of, it is not my fault"..
you seem to be more in step with today's modern mood then you realize. This is emphasized by your victim riddled article I am now refuting.
"Transformers" fanboy, somewhat atypical
It's true that many Americans have an active suspicion and dislike of the "educated." They ask, "what makes you an expert?" when they're really asking, "what gives you the right to disagree with me?"
okay here we go again, more victimization, this time based on your perception of how smart you are. I think you mistake, as most with this affliction of Education Supremacy do, that people are offended by a disagreement. When it is not such a case. It is more of your own perception that that is why they do not follow and hang on your every opinion. you see you think simply because of your education, that if a person who is of a lesser education does not agree with you, that they instantly resent you because of your schooling background..
it is you who fabricate this perception, and it is those who choose their own beliefs that are contrary to yours that make you upset.. How can they be right? They didn't have a degree in this subject? I know better because I have studied this, or that?
it is not the degree we abhor, it is the arrogance associated with the notion that because of said degree, that makes one infallible or superior.. When it does nothing of the sort. I know professors who know more about quantum Mechanics then they know or realize about life itself. Do I consider them smarter then most? No, because they are only focused in one direction, and my definition of Smart is what you know of the world as a whole. A fact that can only be determined by actual physical contact and hanging out with that person.
Truth is Mr. Ebert, we all have a definition of what we think is a smart person, and a degree or lack there of is nothing more then a piece of paper..much to dismay of those who have spent time and effort to obtain one.
The term "college graduate" has become in some circles a negative. Hostility is especially focused on the "Eastern Elite," to the chagrin of we Midwestern Elitists. To describe someone as a "Harvard student" is to dismiss them as beneath consideration. You can often hear the words "so-called" in front of words like scientist, educator, philosopher. I don't believe this is intended to imply that the person involved is not a scientist, etc., but to suggest that no one calling himself such a thing is to be trusted--because he is no doubt many other undesirable things.
again, you miss the point of what it is that makes these people shunned.. in certain instances it is not their Eastern Liberal Elitist status, Stop watching MSNBC news and looking for witch hunts from FOX news..
these people with these degrees as I said who feel like the rest of the world hates them.. is no more then an arrogance on their part that they are somehow above it all, and now garner a hatred because of their enlightened status..it is their own perception that causes such fear.. and makes them react to the "common man" as defensive. I see it all the time. not that there hasn't been a case of commoners resenting the elites. That does happen too. But those "elites" in certain circles are afraid to look at themselves first before condemning the "common man".
So here again an attempt has been made by you to enact a victimized status based on class warfare. I hate to say it but we saw with the election from the last 2 years, that class warfare is a signature liberal move. If you say you are not such a person, then why do you employ their tactic in this article, though subtle as it is?
While I am eager, in the words of my alma mater's song "Illinois Loyalty," to back you to stand, against the best in the land, I envy the hell out of anyone who has gotten himself into Harvard, especially with his mind and not his parents' clout. Some people believe it is the best university in America. Why must that be a mark of shame?
I think Harvard is great, but I wonder at all the crazy pro global warming, and socialist activism, the absence of Constitutional critical thinking, and adherence to the rules of Individualism. Not liking a movie is being an individual. but citing nothing but reasons for being a "victim" is being a typical socialist. Blame everyone else. personal responsibility is not yours. they are wrong, to disagree with you..
you think it is because of your age, your back ground in education, and your political affiliation.. truth is Mr. Ebert.. they liked the movie! I liked the movie! For all its flaws, I still liked it! For a creation of Man, and man is not without mistakes. I still loved it.
I never took a film class. I will not bore you with yet another recitation of my rags-to-riches saga, my hard-won film education, and blah, blah, blah. Let's just say I started out with a lot to learn, and am still trying to learn as much of it as I can. There are people who know so much more about film than I do, it makes me all but weep with gratitude when they deign to speak with me. Two words: David Bordwell. That he speaks to everyone in clear and eloquent prose speaks for itself. It isn't that he "thinks he knows more than anybody else." It's that he does. It's like he happens to know a lot of interesting stuff, and is happy to share it with you.
in trying to site someone whom you can elevate to a high status of mental prowess, you thereby try to justify yourself as a "know it all" in your field. I see how this can make you feel more secure in your beliefs. A psychiatrist and psychologist would have a field day with your writings.
Now about those who sincerely believe "Transformers" is a good, even a great, film. I sincerely believe they are wrong. I don't consider them stupid--at least, not (most of) the ones who write to me. Some of the posters at certain popular web forums are nine blooms short of a bouquet. 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.
this is true.. and I finally find an honest reference from you on what fans think of this movie, and in which case I could almost commend you on. However, you have spent the better part of this article defending yourself, and victimizing yourself from attackers and those critics of your movie critique. It is hard for me to imagine this as a proper citing of legitimacy, when you could be also using this to justify yourself and your dislike of the film. A shame that you couldn't have just left all that victimization stuff out of your article and actually talked about your real reasons for not liking the movie, and maybe took a step back and looked at those who did, and tried to see what it is they are looking at. To me the fact that most "critics" disliked the movie is an indication that I would like it.
Most of those self professed genius critics are all in the same lake, not necessarily in the same boat. They just have lost touch with what a real good movie is these days. In grasping for some kind of emotional fix, they instinctively vote in favor of movies that bore the audiences and speak to a small core group of emotionally deprived people who only get their life time highs in the movies.
shall I again give an example?
Mr. Ebert, if you must find a way to evoke emotion in your life, then might I suggest reading a good book? The theater is a medium more focused on entertainment then emotional evocation. Hence the term the "Entertainment industry"
Hollywood studio executive: What, me worry?
So let's focus on those who seriously believe "Transformers" is one of the year's best films. Are these people wrong? Yes. They are wrong. I am fond of the story I tell about Gene Siskel. When a so-called film critic defended a questionable review by saying, "after all, it's opinion," Gene told him: "There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say 'The Valachi Papers' is a better film than 'The Godfather,' you are wrong." Quite true. We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle. Sir, not only do I differ with what you say, but I would certainly not fight to the death for your right to say it. Not me. You have to pick your fights.
Wow...
Do you honestly believe what you just wrote? I am stunned. So basically, it is now a matter of fact that transformers 2 is not a good movie. Opinions aside, and why is that you say? Because you are the Expert? you state that opinion matters, but then it becomes fact, so the only fact I see is that if a movie is taking in lots of money as this one has, and is liked by many people world wide..
then how in the hell in "your" Logic, is it a fact that this movie is horrible?
you would think that if a movie bombs, it would have no box office take. Or are we just all mindless idiots? as this is what I think you are implying..
What I believe is that all clear-minded people should remain two things throughout their lifetimes: Curious and teachable. If someone I respect tells me I must take a closer look at the films of Abbas Kiarostami, I will take that seriously. If someone says the kung-fu movies of the 1970s, which I used for our old Dog of the Week segments, deserve serious consideration, I will listen. I will try to do what Pauline Kael said she did: Take everything you are, and all the films you've seen, into the theater. See the film, and decide if anything has changed. The older you are and the more films you've seen, the more you take into the theater. When I had been a film critic for ten minutes, I treated Doris Day as a target for cheap shots. I have learned enough to say today that the woman was rarely gifted.
you can't make a generalization like this about people and their opinions! what may have taken you a lifetime to achieve in movie perception, may only take 1 person 2 trips to the same movie to notice details they initially missed. Though this thought I am sure terrifies one of such self importance.
Those who think "Transformers" is a great or even a good film are, may I tactfully suggest, not sufficiently evolved. Film by film, I hope they climb a personal ladder into the realm of better films, until their standards improve. Those people contain multitudes. They deserve films that refresh the parts others do not reach. They don't need to spend a lifetime with the water only up to their toes.
So now we come to it, the reason you tried so unsuccessfully to hide. The victim defenses you laid like a trap to give yourself the one thing you wanted.
Cover, and cover to basically tout your (now Obvious) Elitist remarks. Again, I live life, and do not seek emotional satisfaction through movies. To suggest that we as those who loved this movie are somehow "not sufficiently evolved".. is exactly the reason people think you are what you try to defend by playing the victim.
I sir, am a fan of this movie. I am not a toe dripping idiot with a beer gut and pizza stained shirt. I am not an elitist, and I am of the working class. I own my own business, and live my life to the fullest extent in everything from lawn work, to paper work. I take offense at someone's remarks such as yours, which suggest that I am somehow not as evolved in a sense enough to know what I am watching in a movie.
You sir, Mr. Ebert, do not know me, and do not presume that you have any idea of what I consider great cinema. For what I consider is a great movie, you would consider trash. The only difference is, that I do not make my living based on my own opinion and credibility. I think this movie has severely made a dent in that credibility, and tarnished your own ego in the process.
Director Michael Bay, preparing "Transformers 3."
Do I ever have one of those days when, the hell with it, all I want to do is eat popcorn and watch explosions? I haven't had one of those days for a long time. There are too many other films to see. I've had experiences at the movies so rich, so deep--and yes, so funny and exciting--that I don't want to water the soup. I went to "Transformers" with an open mind (I gave a passing grade to the first one). But if I despised the film and it goes on to break box office records, will I care? No. I'll hope however that everyone who paid for a ticket thought they had a good time, because it was their time and their money.
you are right, it was our time, our money, and we had a blast! I never figured for a minute after reading this article, that you would care if a movie breaks box office records, and you hated it. You are a man who is incapable of admitting that your assessment is not of the main stream, rather that the main stream of America is wrong..
it's like that old saying: "I am not crazy, it is everyone else who is crazy!"
The opening grosses are a tribute to a marketing campaign, not to a movie no one had seen. If two studios spend a ton of money on a film, scare away the competition, and open in 4,234 theaters before the Fourth of July, of course they do blockbuster business. The test is: Does the film have legs?
Ah the typical argument..money and Hype bought the movie..ummm there are allot of movies that fit the money conspiracy theory Mr. Ebert. there are also allot fo movies that were hyped and did not make any money. so I fail to see how this justifies your critique as being the correct assessment.
Major league Hollywood seems completely dominated by the belief that money can buy anything and justify anything. When a reader wrote to inform me that Michel Bay paid $8 million to the writers of the screenplay, I very much doubted it. Turns out that figure is correct. With numbers like that representative of big time Hollywood, I observe with Yeats that the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. No wonder. It pays better.
since when did making good money off a movie or any job you do a bad thing? Are you certain you are not liberal at heart? seriously, this argument that money made this movie great and succeed..
you are right, the special effects were costly, and so were some of the salaries, but as for the box office. I saw like 3 or 4 trailers on TV that was it. The rest of the hype came because I saw the 1st movie, and couldn't wait to see how they would top it in this next installment.
this movie had a science fiction fans dream. The robots had more in depth history revealed. Megatron and Starscream's (bad Guy robots) dichotomy came to the forefront. A great tribal aspect was introduced into the storyline. The Military scenes were action filled and exciting. I felt for Optimus (a robot leader of the good guys) When he fell in Battle. Sam's (Shia LaBeouf's) family was hilarious, and his relationship with Mikaela Banes (Megan Fox) took on a more complex role. believe it or not some relationships are similar to theirs. Pretending to not be interested in one another, but all the while being totally in love. If you did not catch that aspect, and felt as if the acting was dull, then you missed that point. Which is only so obvious to a toe wet kinda person such as myself.
Overall Mr. Ebert, you can justify it to yourself, and to your fans who frequent your blog. You can convince those who worship your every word that you are a master at interpreting film and acting.
But here is the cold hard truth of it all.
I don't need
you to tell me if what I see is good. I could care less what you or anyone else thinks is Bad. You and your fellow critics are
immaterial, as proven by this Movies Box office records and take. That is the one thing above all else that makes you mad, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
this rebuttal was brought to you today by the high priest of the church of the painful truth.
Also known as Skywarp-2
[ Click to attempt signal recovery... ]
