The Energon Pub

Hi, my name's Burn, and i'm a sub-human yet to evolve and receive an education, I went and saw Transformers 2 and this is my opinion of it.



See, I don't need people telling me what's good and bad, what's right and wrong, i'm more than capable of deciding that on my own.

I honestly don't know whether to give him credit for taking the time to research the reaction to the film and his review, or to just write him off as an attention seeker.

meh, i've spent enough time thinking about it ... ooooo shiney object with pretty colours!

JesWal wrote:Does anyone else find it funny that Orson Welles' last roll was TFTM? Coincidental?

Like it was funny that Elvis became a fat, bloated blob that was no shim of the heart-conquering entertainer he was before he died?

It's sad to see someone like that "degraded" to a role in a feature length commercial.

Wow! Now that's a lot of words! A lot of reading. A lot of long boring posts. And in the end, a complete waste of your time! Guess what! Nothing has changed one tiny little bit! I STILL love ROTF as much as I did on the 24th. So do other people that love it.

Ebert, other critics, all you people saying it was a terrible movie? You've ALL completely wasted your time & energy. Your excessively long, boring & pointless rants & arguments have had absolutely no effect on anybody. So you just keep on typing your pointless BS! Type type type away! You obviously have nothing better to do. Meanwhile, on Wed. I'm going to see ROTF for the 4th time. I'm going to have a blast! I'm going to love every second of it. I'm going to laugh, I'm going be blown away, I'm going to be pissed off when Bumblebee kills my favorite character Ravage, I'm going to be totally unaffected by your insignificant little words.

So you just go ahead & type type type all your pointless little words. Keep trying to change the minds of people that loved the movie. Go ahead & waste your useless/pointless little lives away on here typing. Nobody cares what you have to say! But keep on typing anyway! Keep on thinking you're making a difference! keep on telling yourself you have something important to say. I'll keep on loving Michael Bay & ROTF.

Best part of that article wasn't even the article, it was the clip of Robot Chicken and Bay-splosions. Ha ha ha, classic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRS90V8B ... r_embedded

BA-BAY-BA-SPLOSION!!!!


He he he.

I got bored really when he went into his own cerebral mind trip about the cultural development of society and the witch hunting done by the average socialite to those of the educated and blah blah blah blah.

ENOUGH!

I don't want to hear your would be college film thesis nor do I want to read your over would be educated counter offensive of angry T-Fans spamming your inbox. I don't care. Review the film, and if you felt you missed something related to "The FILM" and not the outlook of your credentials by the younger unevolved then post it....

And, is it an oxymoron for a so called "Evolved" to feel threatened by an "Underevolved"? Shouldn't this "Evolved" have evolved past the bickering of the under-evolved as to where he shouldn't have to address them?

Yeah, you see that above sentence right there, thats how I felt about this whole article. Pointless. And so full of redundant counterpoints and analyzations it makes the Revenge of The Fallen story line look like HEAT or Ben-Hur.

So I'm going to reply to something else mentioned on this thread, DINOBOTS!!!!




I love Dinobots, and I can see them being effectively worked into the film mythos just as Scorponoc or Ravage or the Insecticons where. They're more like the primitive organic forms of Cybertron, Cybertronian wild life if you will. And Grimlock would strike me as the Tarzan, a sentient Cybertronian form raised in the wild and therefore his transformations form is more organic. It's because he's wild, he's the Transformers Conan or Barbarian in which he chooses an organic form on earth, but an organic form as savage as he and fits his stature. That being one of the worlds largest land carnivores to have thrived on earth, T-Rex. Hes not so concerned with blending in as he is choosing a transformation he finds suitable fighting in.

As for on earth and working it into a valid plot. Perhaps he's a last minute warrior. As in he's not called on for your normal Robot melee. But when you just need muscle and a bot with a Transformation mode made to destroy. So the Transformation doesn't work in terms of being hidden, but offensive. A Beserker. He wants the enemy to notice him, because he wants the fight. Which is kind of the same mindset as Megatron or The Fallen.

Or maybe, he and other dinobots are called on to take on missions after other organic Decepticons in areas vehicles simply aren't useful. The Rainforest for one. Or the snow covered hills of the Himalayans. Or the Redwood forests of the midwest. Seeking out others like Laserbeak or the Sharkticons or other more organic forms. Maybe another Gorilla looking Devastator or oh...no wait, I got it. The Predaking!

There you go, Dinobots verses the Predaking. That alone will make me pay all my money to watch this in IMAX till my eyes bleed energon. As long as they don't frak it up and make Grimlock or Snarl look like cyclopes-bots or robot tendril squids or dinosaur robots that look like apes and suck up dirt. God I hated that Ravage design.

As far as Unicron. You can have him making his way to earth....just simply because he's looking for the Cube as well or maybe he devours suns also. I though that was cool and don't see why Unicron can't follow in suit. He needs energon and needs to feed, but when energon isn't around I don't see why he can't convert solar energy into energon and follwing the trail of the cube and finding it destroyed....maybe he turns to the sun as a last resort to fuel up before continuing his search for food?

Or perhaps we do go to Cybertron, then I would love to see Tripticon transform and go against Omega Supreme or Fortess Maximus only to unite against the common threat of Unicron. And being the world would be CGI, Bay could blow up anything he would want and save money on Pyrotechnics.

But I see both being more then workable. On earth or cybertron.
Thoughts?

Josh

I applaud your rebuttal, Skywarp-2.

Thanx, Skywarp-2!

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.). In some cases, a movie being crappy actually helps me enjoy it more. I think Transformers 2 is one of those movies.

It's a good movie--for a summer action no-brain-required flick. But if we want to start griping about movies with shallow characterizations, plot holes you could land Astrotrain in, etc, well, then the Transporter movies suck, too. And the Die Hard movies (all of them).

Is it a great movie like Casablanca, Sahara, etc? No. This is not a paradigm shifting movie. In fact, I'm kind of cheezed that Orci et alia seemed to have given all they got for _Star Trek_ and were pretty much running on fumes when they sat down to write this one.

I am not only one of those "Eastern Elites" he derides, unlike him, I have a good background in film and film theory, *and* I've taught film classes. So his notion that I am somehow 'unevolved' or at some protozoan level of intellectual development because I feel I got my money's worth out of that movie only shows me what a pretentious pseudo-intellectual he is. (And if I needed confirmation, he just *had* to reference Pauline Kael!)

Look, I can appreciate all that indy flick art film 'cinema', but it hasn't cost me the ability to enjoy a fluffy summer action flick. Are there big problems with ROTF? Oh yeah, and I'm not blind to them--nor are any of you. And that's the point I think he misses. None of *us* are saying it's seamless and flawless. We love it despite its errors.

And, as always, I think anything that brings new fans to the Transformers can't be all bad.

HK, film-lover, not film *critic*.

Tyrannotaur wrote:Well said. Well said indeed. I honestly hope he reads this. That whole "Unevolved" comment pissed me off as well. I love movies, I try to give every movie and fair chance. I usually make it a point to see the "Oscar Nominated" films during the fall/winter months and try to see which one I liked the best. I loved many films that many would consider "Cinematic masterpieces" The Godfather, ET, Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, The Graduate, Psycho, Pulp Fiction. Need I go on? To call me "Unevolved" is very insulting. What, because every now and then I like to sit back and just enjoy something? That's why I go to the movies. It is a form of escapism. Thinking someone is less intelligent than yourself, due to their interests is in a word, Prejudice. Roger Ebert is no better than anyone else in this small little planet we inhabit, to think otherwise is pure foolishness.

Transformers 2 isn't going to win any awards (Well except maybe for visuals/sound). But it isn't the sack of crap that every critic is making it out to be. I like for once that movie goers aren't being blinded by the critics word.

I have respect for Roger Ebert. But I don't have to agree with him. After that comment I may just lose all respect I have for him. I like Roper better anyway.

well put.. I also believe the movies you cited are cinematic masterpieces.. and I defy anyone to point to Milk or Slum Dog millionaire as a better flick then the ones you cited..

this guy Ebert is a real piece of work, I mean the man defends his position on the movie as Opinion.. okay I get that.. but then he belittles those who do not share his view as being uninformed and because of his professionalism, his opinion is now fact.. which negates what the nature of what an "opinion" is in the first place..

some one's own point of view.

So he puts down everyone who disagrees with him and touts himself as superior due to his experience, uses victim-hood as a shield, says he is all for people having an opinion, and all the while in the same article attacks those who criticize his critique! The man is a walking/Talking contradiction!

I have no respect for him. I did before I read this article of his, and saw how he tries to justify his original review, play a victim, and put those who disagree in a "box" labeled idiot..

Raymond101 wrote:I applaud your rebuttal, Skywarp-2.

thank you very much sir. I loved Transformers 2, not because I wanted some emotional roller coaster.. Life is full of those, I loved it because it set my imagination on fire, and entertained me. Which is what I thought movies were supposed to be about anyways..

KingEmperor wrote:Thanx, Skywarp-2!

you are welcome!

this guy Ebert, or any other "critic" for that matter, take themselves way too seriously. Truth is I don't need anyone to tell me if a movie is good or Bad. I am an independent thinking human being, I decide that for myself, and so should others. He's just mad that his review and most other critics reviews were out of step with the box office take, and in that case makes him and his profession seem irrelevant.

And when someone who is moderately famous or well known, suddenly perceives that they have become irrelevant, they tend to be pretty crass and lash out.

I am really, really confused as to why he felt the need to justify his position on the film.

Is this a clever move to get visitors to his column's website? Did the blowback actually have some amount of resonance with him? Did he potentially reconsider his stance on the film after all the staunch rebuttal (I personally apologize to the man on behalf of the no-doubt countless morons and e-thugs who mailed him over it.)?

Or did the ego get bruised in a manner that typically only 4chan can accommodate?

I almost feel it is the latter there.

Now, as a critic, I think Ebert is probably one of the best. He knows film. He knows cinema. There is no denying this. I'm not looking to set him up and attack from that vantage point. The man really is the premier film critic out there.

But his review of RotF was almost as tacky and thoughtless as the bad humor in the film. You can read his review and see that he has a grand old time ripping on the thing. It's excessive. It isn't helpful. It's not a review.

You or he may disagree with that last part. Hear me out though. A review should really address the good and bad. His review essentially calls it all bad, even unwatchable. But the people out there disagree. Hundreds of millions of dollars disagree. You can dismiss all of that to clever marketing, fanboys, ad time...whatever. It should factor in though, somewhere, without being dismissed as ‘those people’. It should be commented on. It should be evaluated.

There is the conflict. His opinion is regarded by many. His opinion of the film is negative. The people are the final judge on the matter. Their reception is positive.

Is he wrong about the film and right that the people are simpletons? No, that's too simple.

I said before that Ebert is out of touch with the ability to review this kind of film. I stand by that now because he is showing a kind of Ivory Tower shock. Why are the peasnats revolting? Why are so many people enjoying the film?

Mr. Ebert, very respectfully I ask, "If you're so correct in the matter, if there really is no other way to look at RotF other than 'miserable', why is there a need to respond to all of the people out there who are saying, "hold up a second...I don't think you're right this time"?

Since when does Roger Ebert need to defend a review he has written?

Why try to defend or rebut something when the other side already has closed his mind? Anyway, you are just feeding the guy's ego, giving him some sense of self importance. Like we care what he says, sure TF ain't such a highbrow movie (aw gawd a lot of script loop holes).....so does that mean all those who plunked in $ 400,000,000+ are stupid?

Counterpunch wrote:I am really, really confused as to why he felt the need to justify his position on the film.

Is this a clever move to get visitors to his column's website? Did the blowback actually have some amount of resonance with him? Did he potentially reconsider his stance on the film after all the staunch rebuttal (I personally apologize to the man on behalf of the no-doubt countless morons and e-thugs who mailed him over it.)?

Or did the ego get bruised in a manner that typically only 4chan can accommodate?

I almost feel it is the latter there.

Now, as a critic, I think Ebert is probably one of the best. He knows film. He knows cinema. There is no denying this. I'm not looking to set him up and attack from that vantage point. The man really is the premier film critic out there.

But his review of RotF was almost as tacky and thoughtless as the bad humor in the film. You can read his review and see that he has a grand old time ripping on the thing. It's excessive. It isn't helpful. It's not a review.

You or he may disagree with that last part. Hear me out though. A review should really address the good and bad. His review essentially calls it all bad, even unwatchable. But the people out there disagree. Hundreds of millions of dollars disagree. You can dismiss all of that to clever marketing, fanboys, ad time...whatever. It should factor in though, somewhere, without being dismissed as ‘those people’. It should be commented on. It should be evaluated.

There is the conflict. His opinion is regarded by many. His opinion of the film is negative. The people are the final judge on the matter. Their reception is positive.

Is he wrong about the film and right that the people are simpletons? No, that's too simple.

I said before that Ebert is out of touch with the ability to review this kind of film. I stand by that now because he is showing a kind of Ivory Tower shock. Why are the peasnats revolting? Why are so many people enjoying the film?

Mr. Ebert, very respectfully I ask, "If you're so correct in the matter, if there really is no other way to look at RotF other than 'miserable', why is there a need to respond to all of the people out there who are saying, "hold up a second...I don't think you're right this time"?

Since when does Roger Ebert need to defend a review he has written?

Since when did you need to defend your own? Roger Ebert has a blog about movies and the comments he makes on movie-culture…Just like you have a moderater role on seibertron…He’s got the right to make any defense he wants just like you do…I think it’s funny how by trying to dismiss him you’ve guys have actually put him on a pedestal…Ebert’s no idiot…He bashed the movie then went online to see if all the fanboys were hating him and he was validated by the fact that even on a kool-aid sipping site like seibertron a good deal of people agreed with him…Which furthers his point about the movie doing well not absolving the critique…

Which leads me into my final point, don’t fully correlate the fact that the movie did exceptional with the fact that many of the people that hate it PAID TO SEE THE MOVIE…Everywhere you go in the online TF-verse where this movie is getting scorched there are presumably people who still saw and paid to see the movie…My buddy paid for me this time just like he did 2 years ago as he has far more tolerance for Bay-raping than I do, but ostensibly we all paid to see this crap, and quite honestly we had to…This movie was so BIG it had to be seen…


Eventhough many on my side knew it would be the EPIC FAIL it turned out to be, yet it was sooo EPIC and sooo FAIL it HAD TO BE SEEN…Blogs like Topless Robot and others had reviews so bad that bloggers felt compelled to go see it just to see how bad it was…I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest if a 3rd of the movies’ revenue were made by people of my ilk…And for the rest, I’ll say it for the millionth time that TF sells itself, so fringers were gonna go regardless….But Ebert’s “out of touch.”? .The same man who actually gave the first indigestible slab 3 outta 4 stars and said he would have given “4” had the last hr been less confusing…Yeah he’s lost it this time around ... The fact that, I, a hardcore TF fan agree 100% if not more with him, simply validates his right to make the opinion he made…

wingdarkness wrote:I think it’s funny how by trying to dismiss him you’ve guys have actually put him on a pedestal…

Next time, read my post more carefully.

Scoo Trypticon, no offense here, but how old are you? Your posts just make no sense and are stating biased opinions rather than facts.

a) The movie wasn't broken. It had a clear story line with a very clear plot. If you didn't get it, don't blame the movie. You can decide you didn't like the plot, but that's your opinion.
b) The movie BROKE blockbuster records. Now read that carefully. That means it's already done better than the original movie. So your theory is wrong already. It even beat out The Dark Knight, which many people thought couldn't be done. What does that say about how people feel about the movie?
c) Cigarrette companies make tons of money every year but does little to keep you alive? What does that have to do with ANYTHING? Esp in relation to the movie. Nothing. You stated the movie will not make a lot of money. Then you reverse your position by stating it will make tons of money by using that cigarette analogy. If you're trying to say it will make tons of money, but no one will like it, again, that was a poor analogy, because people buy cigarettes because they do like, often are addicted to them. So again, you more proved my point than not. And you're right, movies do little to keep people alive. Same with many many other things (damn I feel stupid having to state that point)

Again, have your opinion and just state "I think the movie sucked". Fine, no prob. But don't try using comparisons that don't make any sense. Or try to back your opinion up with incorrect facts. I'm done explaining this to you. Post your defense (I know you will), but make sure it's based on real facts next time. Or just state you hated the movie and be done with it.

Counterpunch wrote:

wingdarkness wrote:I think it’s funny how by trying to dismiss him you’ve guys have actually put him on a pedestal…

Next time, read my post more carefully.

I said "You guys", meaning the posters in the thread at-large, but saying he's "out of touch" falls into that set on some level aswell...

When you say he shouldn’t defend his review because he’s a critic instead of just some guy like you and me who happens to be a respected critic (i.e. he has a blog), you separate him from the masses… When you suggest he only defended his review for post counts or something, or you’re uber confused by why he would do such a thing…You make the act bigger than what it was, “A post of validation”….As for the rest, nice cherrypick of 1 quote from me man…

The movie wasn't broken.

Yes it is. Anyone (and many, many have) pointed out a confusing and boring storyline that's secondary to the action. A working movie needs a working story that doesn't get explained at the two thirds mark by a parachute farting robot in one of the longest and most inane "info-dumps" I've seen a good long time. Fans on this board, who have admitted to liking the film, has come out and said that the characters are weak and even some of the action was hard to follow.

The movie BROKE blockbuster records.

Dark Knight beat this film by 3 million in the first five opening days- factoring tickets prices and inflation, Transformers 2 made even less.

Besides, breaking records is different than doing better. It may be making money faster than the first Transformers movie- but that also means it will make less in the long run as fewer and fewer go to see it due to poor word of mouth.

The film lacks stamina.

Cigarette companies make tons of money every year but does little to keep you alive? What does that have to do with ANYTHING?... (damn I feel stupid having to state that point)

It means that people will pay for just about anything, and monetary gain doesn't equal quality.

Pay for cigarettes, pay for Transformers 2- neither is good for you (and that family friendly racism sure isn't good for the little kids).

The film fails as a film, and that's the truth. It has lousy writing, terrible acting, and bad editing. Those are things that break a film. They make it a bad film.

And I think this is the point Ebert's trying to make:


You, anyone, can still like Transformers 2. That's your right.

People like American Idol after all. Millions do.

But there is a difference between liking something for personal reasons (or disliking it for that matter), and the actual quality of the thing itself.

The quality of Transformers is poor, very poor.

Your experience could be good. It could be wonderful.

The two don't have to negate each other.

I hope we can see eye to more than meets the eye on this.

(ooh, that was bad).

fenrir72 wrote:Why try to defend or rebut something when the other side already has closed his mind? Anyway, you are just feeding the guy's ego, giving him some sense of self importance. Like we care what he says, sure TF ain't such a highbrow movie (aw gawd a lot of script loop holes).....so does that mean all those who plunked in $ 400,000,000+ are stupid?

yeah I see your point, but I just felt like someone has to stand up to this guy, and tell it like it is..I don't want to feed his ego, but too many times we let people get away with their attitude, thinking that taking the higher road is the way..I think that rising to his level, and showing his arrogance for all to see is a great way to unmask his cloaked words and at the same time marginalize him..

I still think he is lashing out at people in his article and is just upset because the film's success shows how irrelevant he is to the medium..

SoooTrypticon wrote:
Transformers 2 is a movie, and wants to be a movie, and as a movie it fails on almost every level. The only good quality I hear repeated ad-nauseum is that it has "action and robots."

Problem is that the structure around that is broken. It's a broken movie. So the Robot part only works if you just look at the Robots. And a lot of people are only looking at the Robots.

That's fine- look at the Robots all you want.

But you can't say that it's a good movie- because it just isn't. It's not even a mediocre movie. It's a broken movie. It doesn't work. Characters disappear. Villains don't do anything. Motives are unclear. Stuff just happens.

You can still enjoy a broken movie.


Even if it does make more money than the first (which I doubt it will) that doesn't make it a good movie.

I agree completely.

I think the thing that many critics can't understand: "Why do people like this peice of crap?". Well in my honest opinion it's what the orginal King Kong was back in the 1930s: pure escapism.

Back in the early 30s two filmmakers made a film about a gaint gorilla being captured on a South Seas island and being brought to NYC, escaping and running amok, before being shot off the top of the Empire State Building.

Now does that sound like a movie that would be one day hailed as a classic?

If I didn't know it was king Kong I would say "Proably not", but it did happen. Did people back in the early 30s care that the idea was, by itself, stupid beyond belief or the numberous plot holes and mistakes in the movie? No, they didn't. That is why the orginal King Kong was a blockbuster in it's day. The reason was simple: people wanted an escape.

Fast forward to year 2009: The USA is currently in 2 wars, a terrible recession, we have the highest unemployment rate in over 20 years, we have North Korea and Iran giving us grief, and so on and so forth. Now I'm not saying it's as bad it was back in the early 30's but if it isn't then pretty damn close. I think that is what Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is for most of the casual movie going public an escape into a another world where for 2.5 hours they forget the world outside. Now I ask: what is wrong with that?

I still don't like the movie. I went in with an open mind and the story overall was just plain dumb and not very well thought out. That overshadowed everything else for me. To me, the movie could have just been better. But even though I didn't like it, I also don't like Roger Ebert and I'm offended by what Roger Ebert said. I'm not going lie and say that some people aren't missing brain cells, and that if you put a complex story in front of them they will be dumfounded. They would rather see something shiny, pretty, and not all that complex. That is true... but to call out the whole entire movie audience and to pretty much call them retarded is wrong.

I still stand by my thinking that ROTF is a bad movie. It's fun to look at, but still bad. The fact that I think that and think that it could have been better does not make me better than anyone on here who loved it. Hell, I like Evil Dead and that is a sure fire bad movie. Does that mean I'm some unevolved movie watcher for liking it? What Roger Ebert is implying is that everyone who liked ROTF is simple minded and that they need to grow up.

syphonn wrote:

SoooTrypticon wrote:
Transformers 2 is a movie, and wants to be a movie, and as a movie it fails on almost every level. The only good quality I hear repeated ad-nauseum is that it has "action and robots."

Problem is that the structure around that is broken. It's a broken movie. So the Robot part only works if you just look at the Robots. And a lot of people are only looking at the Robots.

That's fine- look at the Robots all you want.

But you can't say that it's a good movie- because it just isn't. It's not even a mediocre movie. It's a broken movie. It doesn't work. Characters disappear. Villains don't do anything. Motives are unclear. Stuff just happens.

You can still enjoy a broken movie.


Even if it does make more money than the first (which I doubt it will) that doesn't make it a good movie.

I agree completely.

I'll co-sign that thought too.

SoooTrypticon wrote:Transformers 2 is a sad movie.

And, adjusted for inflation- it's not breaking any ground. It's just skimming. It's taking in fewer tickets than the last, and will peter out by next week. It will limp to 400 million here, maybe. The international audience has had it, and will abandon it in the coming weeks.

Even if it does make more money than the first (which I doubt it will) that doesn't make it a good movie.

I respect the opinion that you have given and others have echoed, even if I don't agree with every facet of it. However, there are 2 things you are just aboslutely wrong about. The first thing is your assertion that it somehow won't make more money than the first. Above you mentioned how it might "limp" to 400 million here, maybe. Do you even have any idea how much money the 2007 Transformers movie made? By your comments, I'm guessing you don't. And if it "limps" to 400 million, let's see where it would rank all-time, shall we?

SoooTrypticon wrote:Dark Knight beat this film by 3 million in the first five opening days- factoring tickets prices and inflation, Transformers 2 made even less.

True there is some inflation to consider, but you're speaking of only a year ago so that would be minimal. Are you completely ignoring the death of Heath Ledger and the effect that had on the movie sales? Shia may have had an accident last year but he is alive and well, thank you.

If you want to say that as a "work of theatrical art" you think this movie doesn't belong in the top 20 of all-time, then maybe you have a point. But as far as dollars and cents, you completely miss the boat, my friend (and didn't do much research, unfortunately)

After watching and experiencing TF 2 myself, my opinion is on the same lenghwave with SoooTrypticon and Ebert comment about the movie ... this movie is a bad movie, event ought i don't consider this as a good point at least it push a new line up of TF toys (not just movie based one) to market.

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

and does criteria of a good movie is always equivalent with how much money it can make, blockbuster concept and profit it can make...i wonder

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

I can accept reasoning coming from people who both liked and didn't like the movie.

I do get bothered when people just resort to calling Roger Ebert a fat idiot or conversely when people try making up phony figures (or ignoring legitimate ones) about just how well this movie is doing financially.

If you like it, fine. If you don't, fine.

But let's stay grounded in reality and out of the gutter.

Magnus_Rex wrote:

syphonn wrote:

SoooTrypticon wrote:
Transformers 2 is a movie, and wants to be a movie, and as a movie it fails on almost every level. The only good quality I hear repeated ad-nauseum is that it has "action and robots."

Problem is that the structure around that is broken. It's a broken movie. So the Robot part only works if you just look at the Robots. And a lot of people are only looking at the Robots.

That's fine- look at the Robots all you want.

But you can't say that it's a good movie- because it just isn't. It's not even a mediocre movie. It's a broken movie. It doesn't work. Characters disappear. Villains don't do anything. Motives are unclear. Stuff just happens.

You can still enjoy a broken movie.


Even if it does make more money than the first (which I doubt it will) that doesn't make it a good movie.

I agree completely.

I'll co-sign that thought too.

Holy crap! SoooTrypticon put it the best way you can. Thats an agreement bigtime.