The Energon Pub

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

Why do I need to accept the reasoning?

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

What it comes down to is passion, passion for TF's is controlling the emotions of a lot of people. Those who like it defend it with a passion while those who dislike it do the same, at the end of the day both sides are doing what they do because of their love of TF's.

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

First Gen wrote:

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.

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

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

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

skywarp-2 wrote: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..

I think you nailed it right there. A film critic's entire job is to have an opinion, and it clear nobody cares about their opinions. I honestly don't know why they're still around, I can look on yahoo and get a few thousand reviews from everyday movie goers like myself. I don't need some pompous jackass telling me I'm unevolved because I liked a movie.

Is it too late to point out that Ebert wasn't insulting people who liked the movie? He just said he thought people who thought the movie was good were mistaken.

Quality in terms of good/bad and enjoyment in terms of like/hate are two different things that may or may not coincide.

Burn wrote:

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

Why do I need to accept the reasoning?

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

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

Black Eyes wrote:if poeple don't like/can't relate to the main character their not going to like the movie.

How about the Godfather movies? Or Dirty Harry? Or any other movies where the main character isn't a likable person?

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

Really? I thought he was one of the shining parts of the film. The scenes where he was freaking out were great and especially when he went into that super fast rant about energon in class, that was great.

If you viewed him as a jerk you can thank the direction and script for that.

Me:

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.

Delicon:

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.

I meant internationally, and should have been more clear on that. Sorry. It will certainly make more money in the US than the first given the hype and familiarity it brings with it. If it breaks the 700 million world wide (it'll need to scrap together another 100 million, entirely possible, but I do doubt it...) it'll outpace the first.


Delicon:

And if it "limps" to 400 million, let's see where it would rank all-time, shall we?

Somewhere before the last Star Wars film? Is that a record? I suppose so- but hardly a revolution. Wait until Pirates 4 or something knocks it down...

Try the adjusted one where money is treated sensibly- I think you'll be surprised by who the real crowd pleasers are. Transformers (the first one) doesn't even make the top 100.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm


Delicon:

But as far as dollars and cents, you completely miss the boat, my friend (and didn't do much research, unfortunately)

(EDIT, think I figured it out)

There we go. If it is 1 to 1 for 2009, then it would tie with Lady and the Tramp. The closest contemporary movie is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

SoooTrypticon wrote:Me:

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.

Delicon:

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.

I meant internationally, and should have been more clear on that. Sorry. It will certainly make more money in the US than the first given the hype and familiarity it brings with it. If it breaks the 700 million world wide (it'll need to scrap together another 100 million, entirely possible, but I do doubt it...) it'll outpace the first.


Delicon:

And if it "limps" to 400 million, let's see where it would rank all-time, shall we?

Somewhere before the last Star Wars film? Is that a record? I suppose so- but hardly a revolution. Wait until Pirates 4 or something knocks it down...

Try the adjusted one where money is treated sensibly- I think you'll be surprised by who the real crowd pleasers are. Transformers (the first one) doesn't even make the top 100.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm


Delicon:

But as far as dollars and cents, you completely miss the boat, my friend (and didn't do much research, unfortunately)

(Edit, sorry, wrong movies)

Not really. If you adjust the gross and imagine it makes 400 million here, that puts it somewhere between Around the World in 80 Days and The Bells of St. Mary's. Makes the top 50 though, maybe.

While I still feel that this movie is going to in fact finish ahead of where you think it will, thank you for your clarifications. I didn't give you as much credit on the "numbers side" as you deserved.

I'll go out on a limb and say 430 million domestically, which honestly I think would have been more than the Dark Knight would have done (adjusted or not) if Ledger hadn't died.

It very well could do better- keep in mind I don't like the movie, and would prefer it flopped, we got a reboot with a good director, and just put this all behind us.

Since that'll happen in a world where student loans are a manageable burden- then I best look elsewhere.

Thanks for bearing with my edits on that one- indeed I was a bit confused there for a moment and did MORE math than was necessary.

Ledger is a factor- but I'm not sure how much (aside from delivering an amazing performance with a fully realized character who's aided by excellent plotting and dialogue).

A test will be whether he adds to the box-office for his last film coming out this year, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus.

SoooTrypticon wrote:Ledger is a factor- but I'm not sure how much

A lot. Remember, it's a comic book movie. If a major actor hadn't died, most people wouldn't have bothered.

SoooTrypticon wrote:(aside from delivering an amazing performance with a fully realized character who's aided by excellent plotting and dialogue).

Everyone remember what they thought when we first saw the pics of Joker in TDK? It was the opposite of this. We probably wouldn't be saying this if he didn't die. And I'm probably going to be the odd man out on this, but while Heath Ledger was a damn good Joker, I still prefer Mark Hamill.

And I'm probably going to be the odd man out on this, but while Heath Ledger was a damn good Joker, I still prefer Mark Hamill.

I'm in your camp. I still love the animated series and think Mask of the Phantasm is highly underrated.

But the Joker in Dark Knight was well written, had some great jokes ("magic trick") and the plot carried him to a nice place.

Fans always freak when the familiar gets changed. What matters is if the change ends up being for the better.

I personally like the Burton ones for their more bizarre aspects, like Catwoman trying to get into her costume while driving, or the Joker making random fog-horn noises after shooting someone.

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.

Time warp? What happened there?

Envisaged0ne, did you mean to post that again, or were you typing something new?

Somehow I either see this thread getting up to 300+ replies or Cyber Bishop shutting it down in a few hours

SoooTrypticon wrote:Time warp? What happened there?

Envisaged0ne, did you mean to post that again, or were you typing something new?

Trying something new. I meant to paste something else and submitted it before realizing it pasted the wrong thing. You had a reasonable argument that last time! You didn't use analogies. I still disagree with you stating Dark Knight beat out Transformers 2 and that it's going to do worse in the long run than the 1st movie did. But, you stated your opinion and it made sense. I still, of course disagree with your opinion, but that's fine.

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

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

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

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

Envisaged0ne wrote: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?

I'm not trying to argue here who liked the movie and who didn't. You can look around the board and see how I felt about it. The movie did have a clear story. I was fully able to follow it. I got the story and the reasoning behind everything 100%. It still had plenty of plot holes, and a movie that cost $200 million, and where the writers were paid $8 million shouldn't have plot holes. Sure, you had the movie prequel comics. You shouldn't have to read the comic book before hand to fill in the holes in the movie. The movie itself should be self contained. I'm not trying to take away no ones reasoning for liking ROTF. To be honest I can't say **** because I still defend Daredevil. Daredevil was flawed and it took the directors cut to put things in place the way they should have been in the theatrical cut.

And what does it breaking records have to say about how people feel about the movie? It says that they enjoy a bad movie. That's what it says to me. You don't normally go to a Michael Bay movie because you want a deep coherent story. You go because you want action and ROTF provided that action and it was very well marketed. It was still a bad movie...

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

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

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

And If he,or others liked the movie, whats wrong with us stating so. Yes we accept it,cause we liked it! People that enjoyed it aren't going to severely put it down just so we can hope to get a better one made in the future. If its what we want in a TF movie, then why shouldn't we say otherwise? I'm sorry you didn't like the movie. I really am. At This point i really don't know what you expect from a TF movie that will be so ground breaking. I understand you have standards, as do I, and I'm sure everyone else here does. I'll ask again,...
What is it that makes you think that just because a movie has a TF name behind it that it will be ground breaking cinema with some master full plot and story line? And i still don't get why people say the plot and story lacked. While i admit it wasn't without its faults, i had no problem following either.

wingdarkness wrote: Oh what the hell, since you understood clearly why there's a range of endless mountainous plains 5 steps outside of a Washington D.C. museum where they found Jetfire, you'll get sent a pack of wildberry flavor skittles aswell...

This argument aggravates me. Was this really that big a deal? That he walked outside in a field of airplanes? I mean seriously. In the scene before a small piece of rock awakens a giant shape shifting robot, but people have a problem with the scenery change in the next scene?

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

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

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

SoooTrypticon wrote:"You're comparing apples to oranges."

Not so. Quality is still quantitative. That's how something gets judged, by the criteria set up by its peers and evidence of its own intent.

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.

I love them... To laugh at. Not with. At.

When they're short and don't cost upwards of 200 million it's fun because you can point out what a film-maker was trying to do and failed at.

When they're huge summer blockbusters it's just sad.

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.

Cigarette Companies make tons of money every year- but they won't keep you alive.

All of this doesn't matter to the hardcore apologists. They overlook these things because they simply don't expect much.....the whole "summer blockbuster" excuse.

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

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

He liked the first one didn't he?