The Energon Pub

I for one thought the movie was amazing. But, I have seen quite a few folks bashing Bay and his style and bashing the movie also.

It comes down to this, this is a movie about giant robots taking over the planet. This is not "Schindlers List" or "The Pianist". Its about robots taking over the world. Most movies are not "Big Screen" movies, meaning you can get the same effect watching it at home. This movie is the high bar of big screen movies. Just a massive visual assault, everything it should be! its supposed to be loud and things are supposed to blow up.

As far as writing goes, there is no way they could stuff a decade of TF into 2 1/2 hours. If it would have had everything in it that everybody would have wanted it would have been at least 5 hours long (which would have been fine for me). Im sure there was alot of stuff left on the floor just to get it down to 2.5 hours.

We should all just be happy that we got to see a TF movie that did not turn out like "He-Man" and is so corny you cant sit through 10 mins of.

I have seen it twice now and it was just as cool the second time. Im chomping at the bit for the second one. But if your one of the ones that were dissapointed by the movie then there was probably no way to make you happy with it to begin with. And its a hell of alot better than a cartoon.

Just my .02 though

uh oh .... intelligent free thought detected!

SoooooooooTrypticon isn't going to like you much.

Burn wrote:uh oh .... intelligent free thought detected!

SoooooooooTrypticon isn't going to like you much.

LOL, seriously... look up Trypticons posts... cool guy, hates the movie.. You'll have a hell of a back and forth with him... Have at it. If the discussion really interests you theres a fellow by the moniker "hedgehog" on the Don Murphy board that would love to hear from you as well.

I thought the movie was excellent, my only complaint is all the slow mo' and shaky cameras, but it doesnt ruin it. I actually like most of Bay's movies, and he was a good choice for this movie as well. Just because its different doesnt make it bad by default...

I loved the slo-mo's, when ironhide vaulted over the screaming lady in the street, man that was just a stunning visual.

Well, recalling the director thread, I'm not sure anyone taking on this movie would've been a universally hailed choice.

That said, it became popular to bash on Michael Bay long before he signed on for Transformers. A lot of people don't care for his style, and he's taken a lot of flak for Pearl Harbor being more of an action movie than a real deep look at events. He also gets a lot of flak for the writing in his films, despite the fact he's not been the sole screenwriter on any of them.

My take on Bay... he's got a tremendous visual style. He picks great cinematographers, and sets up shots very well. I do think sometimes he lacks in discipline as a filmmaker. He's still learning the art of "killing your babies", as one writing instructor I knew put it, taking out the scenes that might look or read great, but don't serve the story well. The fact that he's talking about doing a low budget flick is exciting, because I think he'll benefit tremendously.

For me, I come down to this. When I saw Armageddon with my fiancee's family, I was about to stop watching after the opening sequence because it was so over the top. But the film ultimately, for all of its flaws, pulled me in. And Transformers shows a lot more discipline than his other movies. There are still a few shots that are in there just for "cool factor", but he seems to be benefiting from his work with Speilberg. Who, by the way, finds him to be a tremendous talent as well. I'm not going to presume to know more about films than Speilberg.

The shaky cam stuff? Well... I think it's hit and miss. I could go into huge amounts of detail about the style, but I'd probably bore everyone on the forum to tears. =p I'll just say that I think it works tremendously well sometimes, particularly with more realistic moments, and poorly others. I felt like it worked to great effect in the Scorpinok battle, but not so much later in the movie.

As for the movie itself, there were a lot of challenges. A lot of people I know, folks who weren't Transformers fans but liked the movie, admitted to having a hard time at first accepting the Transformers as characters. For that reason, I think they made some good choices this time around. Bear in mind, this is almost a new sub-genre of film. I can't think of anything close to a giant robot/mecha film that's ever been in American theatres. And the last "based on a toyline" movie, the aforementioned He-Man, was a terrible failure. Given all the constraints, they made a tremendous introduction to Transformers for the general audience. And it certainly gives them the opening to do more with a sequel. And I hope they do.

It's not a popular opinion, but I liked the "shaky-cam". To me it felt like another character. Like there was a newsreporter or something running around during the chaos of the battles. It pulled me into the scenes, rather than leave me disconnected from the grittiness. On top of that, does anyone realie how much harder it is to line up CG characters with a moving shot? I was so tremendously impressed with the scenes because the TFs looked like they were actually there, rather than pasted into somewhat static footage.

Cuz Bay raped our childhoods, duh! Get with the program.

I have a feeling any director would be ripped to shreds for taking on Transformers. It's the nature of any fandom to do that, ours is no exception. Not everyone is gonna agree on anybody. I think Bay did a great job, personally.

Mike Bay did a fantastic job! If anyone else directed this movie, It would have bombed. This is mike bays movie. He is the real deal and all of the Transformers fans who are bashing him should chill out and be happy that Transformers is on the big screen. I hear people bashing the look of bumble bee since the first images of him came out. I am the biggest bumblebee fan in the world and i love his new look and i hope the new cartoon keeps him as a camero instead of a VW. Chill out and enjoy because this is OUR TIME!

Don't worry Bay fans, sooner or later, someone will find "evidence" that the movie has something to do with President Bush and blame it on him.

KoH4711 wrote:Well, recalling the director thread, I'm not sure anyone taking on this movie would've been a universally hailed choice.

That said, it became popular to bash on Michael Bay long before he signed on for Transformers. A lot of people don't care for his style, and he's taken a lot of flak for Pearl Harbor being more of an action movie than a real deep look at events. He also gets a lot of flak for the writing in his films, despite the fact he's not been the sole screenwriter on any of them.

My take on Bay... he's got a tremendous visual style. He picks great cinematographers, and sets up shots very well. I do think sometimes he lacks in discipline as a filmmaker. He's still learning the art of "killing your babies", as one writing instructor I knew put it, taking out the scenes that might look or read great, but don't serve the story well. The fact that he's talking about doing a low budget flick is exciting, because I think he'll benefit tremendously.

For me, I come down to this. When I saw Armageddon with my fiancee's family, I was about to stop watching after the opening sequence because it was so over the top. But the film ultimately, for all of its flaws, pulled me in. And Transformers shows a lot more discipline than his other movies. There are still a few shots that are in there just for "cool factor", but he seems to be benefiting from his work with Speilberg. Who, by the way, finds him to be a tremendous talent as well. I'm not going to presume to know more about films than Speilberg.

The shaky cam stuff? Well... I think it's hit and miss. I could go into huge amounts of detail about the style, but I'd probably bore everyone on the forum to tears. =p I'll just say that I think it works tremendously well sometimes, particularly with more realistic moments, and poorly others. I felt like it worked to great effect in the Scorpinok battle, but not so much later in the movie.

As for the movie itself, there were a lot of challenges. A lot of people I know, folks who weren't Transformers fans but liked the movie, admitted to having a hard time at first accepting the Transformers as characters. For that reason, I think they made some good choices this time around. Bear in mind, this is almost a new sub-genre of film. I can't think of anything close to a giant robot/mecha film that's ever been in American theatres. And the last "based on a toyline" movie, the aforementioned He-Man, was a terrible failure. Given all the constraints, they made a tremendous introduction to Transformers for the general audience. And it certainly gives them the opening to do more with a sequel. And I hope they do.

I see your point of veiw but you have to remember the context of the film. I loved Armagedon, why? Because it was so over the top, it was big and bold. Pearl Harbor had no reason to be bashed because if somebody want more story then they should be at home watching the history channel as they have great specials and documenteries on all kinds of historical events.

I think what most people who are displeased by this type of film fail to recognize is that the "Action Film" or "Big Screen Movie" is a real genre of its own. That deserves its own merits but rarely ever recievs them.
Armgedon, Independence Day, Die Hards, X-men, Superman, Batman,Terminators and many many more are all great films with little to do with reality. But many of the so called critics and "higher educated" (as far as film goes) love to bash these kinds of movies. But the numbers dont lie, look at TF and all the aforementioned flix. They drew in numbers and $ like few others have.

As far as teachers go I feel the old saying holds true "Those who can...DO, Those who cant ...teach" this type of movie is supposed to be big, bold and brash. Would you rather see it as a screen play? Im not being an ass just kinda goin over the top with it a little bit.

*Elita_One* wrote:People on the internet can't accept the fact that everyone has their own opinion. Everyone has their own tastes so they have to bitch about it.

"You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time".

Dildobot wrote:I see your point of veiw but you have to remember the context of the film. I loved Armagedon, why? Because it was so over the top, it was big and bold. Pearl Harbor had no reason to be bashed because if somebody want more story then they should be at home watching the history channel as they have great specials and documenteries on all kinds of historical events.

I think what most people who are displeased by this type of film fail to recognize is that the "Action Film" or "Big Screen Movie" is a real genre of its own. That deserves its own merits but rarely ever recievs them.
Armgedon, Independence Day, Die Hards, X-men, Superman, Batman,Terminators and many many more are all great films with little to do with reality. But many of the so called critics and "higher educated" (as far as film goes) love to bash these kinds of movies. But the numbers dont lie, look at TF and all the aforementioned flix. They drew in numbers and $ like few others have.

As far as teachers go I feel the old saying holds true "Those who can...DO, Those who cant ...teach" this type of movie is supposed to be big, bold and brash. Would you rather see it as a screen play? Im not being an ass just kinda goin over the top with it a little bit.

I actually had this conversation with a "hater" at one point, and we both agreed that the majority of film school teachers we've come across were bitter and hated anything but extremely artsy films. I think there's absolutely room for both... after all, Steven Spielberg directed both Schindler's List and War of the Worlds. That's why I switched to Biology... four years of all that, and I'd probably have gone insane. Well, moreso than I already am.

I think Transformers turned out really well, especially if you consider all the variables involved... while most people have a sort of romanticized notion of the director as absolute ruler, there are a ton of factors at work that limit them. If the movie's successful(and I think it was), Bay alone doesn't deserve all the credit. If you think it failed, Bay's not the only one to blame. But I think the film clicked for a lot of people.

And therein lies the truth about Bay. I've seen a few people say his movies just appeal to base instincts, and are nothing special. If that were the case, though, why isn't everyone else copying his formula and having his success? Clearly, there's more to it than that.

I understand people have there own opinion, But why cant all the haters keep it to themselfs and be happy that transformers has a live movie. The movie was fantastic and there are more to come.