The Energon Pub

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

Night Raid wrote:

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

Night Raid wrote:

Evil_the_Nub wrote:Here, this might help. People have been throwing the word plot hole around without knowing what it means. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotHole

Sam reviving Optimus with the Allspark sliver would have been a huge plot hole. He had no idea how to use it and he would have needed parts to fix him like Megatron did. A geographical difference is not a plot hole. Expecting a geography lesson from a movie about giant alien robots is like expecting a history lesson from 300. If you didn't like the movie that's fine, nobody is saying you have to. But saying that only dumb people like the movie is immature.

For one thing, Sam didn't use the Allspark sliver at all. He used the Matrix thingy. And the parts thing is why Jetfire stepped up.

I know, but people are saying Sam not using the sliver is a plot hole. I'm pointing out that if he had used it to revive Optimus that would have been a massive plot hole.

Sam used the sliver to wake Jetfire up.

I saw the movie, what's your point?

The point is that having your information straight makes for a better argument. Stating incorrect information doesn't usually go over well. If you're going to nitpick, at least get your facts straight.

Just Negare wrote:Anyone else amused at this thread and how some are trying to defend the "plot holes".

I for one am highly amused!

I'm greatly amused by irritated fanboys and fangirls going "It's only a summer action movie!!!!! What do you expect!?!?!?"

I expect it not to be awful and to not constantly contradict itself. I also expect it to follow it's own rules. Mass shifting isn't realistic enough for Bay, but Pretenders are. Especially since it was shown that she's made completely out of the same metal the Transformers are.

Fun Fact 1: Just a human skeleton completely made out of metal would weigh several hundred pounds.

Fun Fact 2: Even human sized Transformers shouldn't be destroyed beyond repair by being rammed into light poles by cars.

Fun Fact 3: This movie was worse then the first one and it wasn't that great to begin with.

Fun Fact 4: Some fanboy and/or fangirl is going to flip out on me and call me a troll.

I hate that people equate movies like this with it being excusable for being horrible just because it's "based on cartoons and toys." You want to know why it was an awful movie? Bottom line is they treated it as a poopy cash grab flick and didn't even attempt to make it good, or have a sense of continuity, or give a **** if it contradicted itself. You don't see comic book fans accept utter garbage like X-Men Origins: Sniktbub just because "it's a Summer action movie!!!! What do you expect?!?!?!" No. They accept good movies like Iron Man, Batman Begins/The Dark Knight, and The Watchmen. Why? Because they don't enjoy seeing something they like turned into mediocre garbage for the sake of a quick buck.

Night Raid wrote:The point is that having your information straight makes for a better argument. Stating incorrect information doesn't usually go over well. If you're going to nitpick, at least get your facts straight.

My facts are straight, I'm stating a hypothetical situation. People complain that Sam should have used the sliver to revive Optimus, I'm saying that doing so would have been an actual plot hole. It wouldn't have worked, Sam never had an opportunity to do it, and he didn't know how to use it.

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

Night Raid wrote:The point is that having your information straight makes for a better argument. Stating incorrect information doesn't usually go over well. If you're going to nitpick, at least get your facts straight.

My facts are straight, I'm stating a hypothetical situation. People complain that Sam should have used the sliver to revive Optimus, I'm saying that doing so would have been an actual plot hole. It wouldn't have worked, Sam never had an opportunity to do it, and he didn't know how to use it.

To be fair, I doubt the idea even crossed his mind. That, and I doubt the sliver had enough energy to revive the dead. It had enough energy to wake Jetfire up, but he was hardly dead.

Loki God Of Mischief wrote:Fun Fact 1: Just a human skeleton completely made out of metal would weigh several hundred pounds.

Fun Fact 2: Even human sized Transformers shouldn't be destroyed beyond repair by being rammed into light poles by cars.

You're making assumptions. We have no idea what type of metal "Alice" is made of, nor how much, nor how the metal parts are designed or arranged, nor how much abuse they can take.

Loki God Of Mischief wrote:

Just Negare wrote:Anyone else amused at this thread and how some are trying to defend the "plot holes".

I for one am highly amused!

I'm greatly amused by irritated fanboys and fangirls going "It's only a summer action movie!!!!! What do you expect!?!?!?"

I expect it not to be awful and to not constantly contradict itself. I also expect it to follow it's own rules. Mass shifting isn't realistic enough for Bay, but Pretenders are.

I hate that people equate movies like this with it being excusable for being horrible just because it's "based on cartoons and toys." You want to know why it was an awful movie? Bottom line is they treated it as a poopy cash grab flick and didn't even attempt to make it good, or have a sense of continuity, or give a **** if it contradicted itself. You don't see comic book fans accept utter garbage like X-Men Origins: Sniktbub just because "it's a Summer action movie!!!! What do you expect?!?!?!" No. They accept good movies like Iron Man, Batman Begins/The Dark Knight, and The Watchmen. Why? Because they don't enjoy seeing something they like turned into mediocre garbage for the sake of a quick buck.

Editted your original post, but despite the fact that it was just a summer action movie and it shouldn't be taken so seriously, as a Transformers fan I would appreciate seeing a Transformers movie that was a movie of quality. Darn right you're going to freaked out on, A)becuase you are correct in your summer action movie statement, and B) because it's only a summer movie when you're pointing out obvious problems. At all other times, if you don't treat it like Citizen Kane, then you're 'attacking' the movie's fans. I do agree with you though about the quality thing.

Loki God Of Mischief wrote:

Just Negare wrote:Anyone else amused at this thread and how some are trying to defend the "plot holes".

I for one am highly amused!

I'm greatly amused by irritated fanboys and fangirls going "It's only a summer action movie!!!!! What do you expect!?!?!?"

I expect it not to be awful and to not constantly contradict itself. I also expect it to follow it's own rules. Mass shifting isn't realistic enough for Bay, but Pretenders are. Especially since it was shown that she's made completely out of the same metal the Transformers are.

Fun Fact 1: Just a human skeleton completely made out of metal would weigh several hundred pounds.

Fun Fact 2: Even human sized Transformers shouldn't be destroyed beyond repair by being rammed into light poles by cars.

Fun Fact 3: This movie was worse then the first one and it wasn't that great to begin with.

Fun Fact 4: Some fanboy and/or fangirl is going to flip out on me and call me a troll.

I hate that people equate movies like this with it being excusable for being horrible just because it's "based on cartoons and toys." You want to know why it was an awful movie? Bottom line is they treated it as a poopy cash grab flick and didn't even attempt to make it good, or have a sense of continuity, or give a **** if it contradicted itself. You don't see comic book fans accept utter garbage like X-Men Origins: Sniktbub just because "it's a Summer action movie!!!! What do you expect?!?!?!" No. They accept good movies like Iron Man, Batman Begins/The Dark Knight, and The Watchmen. Why? Because they don't enjoy seeing something they like turned into mediocre garbage for the sake of a quick buck.

Who said I think this movie is mediocre garbage?

SlyTF1 wrote:

Loki God Of Mischief wrote:

Just Negare wrote:Anyone else amused at this thread and how some are trying to defend the "plot holes".

I for one am highly amused!

I'm greatly amused by irritated fanboys and fangirls going "It's only a summer action movie!!!!! What do you expect!?!?!?"

I expect it not to be awful and to not constantly contradict itself. I also expect it to follow it's own rules. Mass shifting isn't realistic enough for Bay, but Pretenders are. Especially since it was shown that she's made completely out of the same metal the Transformers are.

Fun Fact 1: Just a human skeleton completely made out of metal would weigh several hundred pounds.

Fun Fact 2: Even human sized Transformers shouldn't be destroyed beyond repair by being rammed into light poles by cars.

Fun Fact 3: This movie was worse then the first one and it wasn't that great to begin with.

Fun Fact 4: Some fanboy and/or fangirl is going to flip out on me and call me a troll.

I hate that people equate movies like this with it being excusable for being horrible just because it's "based on cartoons and toys." You want to know why it was an awful movie? Bottom line is they treated it as a poopy cash grab flick and didn't even attempt to make it good, or have a sense of continuity, or give a **** if it contradicted itself. You don't see comic book fans accept utter garbage like X-Men Origins: Sniktbub just because "it's a Summer action movie!!!! What do you expect?!?!?!" No. They accept good movies like Iron Man, Batman Begins/The Dark Knight, and The Watchmen. Why? Because they don't enjoy seeing something they like turned into mediocre garbage for the sake of a quick buck.

Who said I think this movie is mediocre garbage?

In all fairness, sometimes things are exactly what they look like. Sometimes things aren't supposed to be overintellectualized. Even the greatest movies, I've found, fall apart under the amount of nitpicking ROTF is being subjected to.

Would you, perhaps, have been happier had there never been any Transformers movies at all, if the Trasnformers series as a whole just stopped in its tracks after the 1986 movie, which was just as much of a cash grab in that it was done to get more money by throwing away old favorites to market new toys? Somewhat substandard is better than absolutely nothing at all.

Night Raid wrote: Somewhat substandard is better than absolutely nothing at all.

I think you'll find that's a matter of opinion.

My rather harsh motto has always been 'Do it right, or don't do it at all'.

Night Raid wrote:In all fairness, sometimes things are exactly what they look like. Sometimes things aren't supposed to be overintellectualized. Even the greatest movies, I've found, fall apart under the amount of nitpicking ROTF is being subjected to.

That's the problem. RotF isn't a great movie. It was written by a bunch of amaeteur writers during a writers strike and it shows. It was also directed by a hack who ignores what he doesn't like or just shits on it. He didn't like Jazz, so he gets maybe five lines of dialogue before being killed off. Bay didn't like Arcee or apparently the idea of female robots so he made them hideous and relegated them to bit characters in favor of his ORIGINAL CHARACTER DO NOT STEALs Hurp and Durp. He's like a spoiled child who was told that he can make the movie anyway he wants so long as it makes money.

Night Raid wrote:Would you, perhaps, have been happier had there never been any Transformers movies at all

Yes actually. Because the two live action movies aren't even Transformers movies. They're The Adventures of Sam Witwicky, Mikaela, and the US army with Transformers and The Adventures of Sam Witwicky, Mikaela, and the US army with Transformers 2: Revenge of the Plotholes.

Night Raid wrote:if the Trasnformers series as a whole just stopped in its tracks after the 1986 movie, which was just as much of a cash grab in that it was done to get more money by throwing away old favorites to market new toys? Somewhat substandard is better than absolutely nothing at all.

I couldn't disagree more. I think you have me pegged for a Geewunner, you've all but said it. That couldn't be further from the truth. I'm a Geetooer.

I'll take this one part at a time. You're partially right about the '86 movie. Except that it A) it was actually good, B) the Transformers were the stars of the movie, and C) the new characters that were introduced had large roles and weren't irritating (some say Blurr and Wheelie were, but they didn't get irritating until Season 3. I don't find Blurr irritating though).

And no. Somewhat substandard is not better then nothing at all. The first movie was enjoyable despite the fact that the Transformers pretty much camoed in their own damn movie. The second one was utter garbage, roughly half of it was human centric. The Devastator combination sequence should have been a jaw dropping action scene. But no. They wasted it by having him walk around, dig a trench, bitch slap the top of a pyramid and die in one shot from a Deus Ex Machina gun. Then The Fallen, who was built up to be an unstoppable juggernaut dies in about 5 seconds against Optimus Prime with parts of Jetfire's corpse tackwelded to him. Would it have killed Bay to have had an actual fight instead of an anti-climatic letdown?

Like Scatterlung said: "Do it right or don't do it at all." Personally I don't think they should have made Transformers movies until they had the technology and budget to make them the stars.

The only movie that had more plotholes than RotP, is Dragonball Evolution. That said, I agree with Loki 100%

Loki God Of Mischief wrote:Personally I don't think they should have made Transformers movies until they had the technology and budget to make them the stars.

They do have the ability to do so, it's just that they won't get anyone but the hardcore fans to see the movie. If I recall, the '86 movie flopped!

Not to mention it also had it's fair share of problems...

Noideaforaname wrote:

Loki God Of Mischief wrote:Personally I don't think they should have made Transformers movies until they had the technology and budget to make them the stars.

They do have the ability to do so, it's just that they won't get anyone but the hardcore fans to see the movie. If I recall, the '86 movie flopped!

Not to mention it also had it's fair share of problems...

It might have flopped at the box office but the vhs sales more then made up for it. Also talk to anyone who's 24 or older and ask them if they remember it. 8 out of 10 are going to say they did. As for it's problems they're due to switching animation studios half way through. Also they started it before Season 2 was completed. It's the only way they got it done in time. It's also a 24 year old animated movie with a lower budget. The new movies have no excuse for being as bad as they are.

Then there's your argument that no one would see an action movie about giant robots from outer space in a galactic civil war that can turn into other stuff. That's just naive. The robots in question can talk and emote. At best they needed just Sam and Mikaela. The original cartoon had 2 human main characters, every cartoon since has had 2-3 human main characters. That's all that is needed. The humans over ruled the Transformers in their own movies. They were the central characters, the US army takes down most of the Transformers in the first movie, and Megatron is beaten not by Prime, but by Sam and the All Spark. In the second movie the US army takes down Devastator in one shot. A freaking combiner is taken down with one shot by humans? Full sized Decepticons are taken out by humans with 'special rounds' in grenade launchers? Bullshit. That's all I can say.

Noideaforaname wrote:

Loki God Of Mischief wrote:Personally I don't think they should have made Transformers movies until they had the technology and budget to make them the stars.

They do have the ability to do so, it's just that they won't get anyone but the hardcore fans to see the movie. If I recall, the '86 movie flopped!

Not to mention it also had it's fair share of problems...

Maybe the big reason behind the 86 movie not doing well in the box office is that it killed Optimus Prime in the first 30 minutes. Not nessicarily the first animated kids movie to kill a character in a movie, and show that death on screen, but it is the first that had about 2 years of fan loyality behind it from being an animated kids show before the movie. There was a lot of parental backlash against the movie.

Both of you make very good points, but the trouble is that nobody but us is listening. All we're going to get is what we're given. So we can either make ourselves miserable by lamenting the fact that we're not getting exactly what we want or face the fact that we're simply not going to get our way and make the best of it.

Night Raid wrote:Both of you make very good points, but the trouble is that nobody but us is listening. All we're going to get is what we're given. So we can either make ourselves miserable by lamenting the fact that we're not getting exactly what we want or face the fact that we're simply not going to get our way and make the best of it.

LOGIC ALERT! LOGIC ALERT!

Joking aside, Night Raid is right, really, we can't change the past what's done is done. I doubt our input will be seen, so we can debate and debate.

I say just focus on the good points and let it be done with.

just to add one thing, did anyone notice that the carrier that was sunk was #74 and the one they stand on at the end is #74? I could be wrong

Loki God Of Mischief wrote:

Noideaforaname wrote:

Loki God Of Mischief wrote:Personally I don't think they should have made Transformers movies until they had the technology and budget to make them the stars.

They do have the ability to do so, it's just that they won't get anyone but the hardcore fans to see the movie. If I recall, the '86 movie flopped!

Not to mention it also had it's fair share of problems...

It might have flopped at the box office but the vhs sales more then made up for it. Also talk to anyone who's 24 or older and ask them if they remember it. 8 out of 10 are going to say they did. As for it's problems they're due to switching animation studios half way through. Also they started it before Season 2 was completed. It's the only way they got it done in time. It's also a 24 year old animated movie with a lower budget. The new movies have no excuse for being as bad as they are.

Except a months long writers strike that forced production to be rushed. Why are you defending the 86 movie and crediting it's shortcoming to production problems. Yet you won't do the same for RotF?

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

Loki God Of Mischief wrote:

Noideaforaname wrote:

Loki God Of Mischief wrote:Personally I don't think they should have made Transformers movies until they had the technology and budget to make them the stars.

They do have the ability to do so, it's just that they won't get anyone but the hardcore fans to see the movie. If I recall, the '86 movie flopped!

Not to mention it also had it's fair share of problems...

It might have flopped at the box office but the vhs sales more then made up for it. Also talk to anyone who's 24 or older and ask them if they remember it. 8 out of 10 are going to say they did. As for it's problems they're due to switching animation studios half way through. Also they started it before Season 2 was completed. It's the only way they got it done in time. It's also a 24 year old animated movie with a lower budget. The new movies have no excuse for being as bad as they are.

Except a months long writers strike that forced production to be rushed. Why are you defending the 86 movie and crediting it's shortcoming to production problems. Yet you won't do the same for RotF?

Because they could have postponed RotF until the writer's strike was over. Also one was good and the other wasn't. Sorry but I watch movies for the story and not pretty special effects. And if there isn't a good story then the special effects better be mind numbingly good to the point of making me forget about how awful the movie is. Or at least be so bad it's good. RotF does none of that. They should have postponed RotF until they had actual writers instead of amateurs. The movie contradicted itself, and the previous movie constantly. And there's so much crap that happens during it that makes me go "What is this? I don't even..."

And if you want to examine the problems with the '86 animated movie, the only noticible flaw is that Snarl and Swoop seem to be having a feud of some kind as when one's on screen the other is missing. As far as the "Why isn't ____ in the movie? He was in Season 2?" stuff, they started the movie when Season 1 was still airing so those characters generally didn't exist. They didn't start filming RotF the instant the first movie hit the theatres. Why? Because it doesn't take as long to make a live action movie as it does an animated movie. Especially the way animation used to be. Back then everything was hand drawn and transferred to cells to be animated. There's like 52 frames in one second of animation, 60 seconds in 1 minute, and the run time is 84-85 minutes (depending on version). A month long writer's strike wouldn't have phased the production of the animated movie at all. Because by they can't start animating (except for trailers, as the trailer had a bunch of unused animation) until the script is completed. And they would have waited until the strike was over anyway since it was going to take over a year to make it regardless of waiting on a writers strike.

Noideaforaname wrote:

Loki God Of Mischief wrote:Personally I don't think they should have made Transformers movies until they had the technology and budget to make them the stars.

They do have the ability to do so, it's just that they won't get anyone but the hardcore fans to see the movie. If I recall, the '86 movie flopped!

Not to mention it also had it's fair share of problems...

You know why it flopped?
The reviews it got bad-mouthed it stating it was too dark and too violent for children, which meant parents didn't take their children to see it. It was marketed towards children so older people had no interest while those that did have the interest in seeing it weren't allowed to go and see it.

Also we have people like this to thank:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM9fkuC5UTA
Oh god this cracks me up every time I see it!

Loki God Of Mischief wrote:

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

Loki God Of Mischief wrote:

Noideaforaname wrote:

Loki God Of Mischief wrote:Personally I don't think they should have made Transformers movies until they had the technology and budget to make them the stars.

They do have the ability to do so, it's just that they won't get anyone but the hardcore fans to see the movie. If I recall, the '86 movie flopped!

Not to mention it also had it's fair share of problems...

It might have flopped at the box office but the vhs sales more then made up for it. Also talk to anyone who's 24 or older and ask them if they remember it. 8 out of 10 are going to say they did. As for it's problems they're due to switching animation studios half way through. Also they started it before Season 2 was completed. It's the only way they got it done in time. It's also a 24 year old animated movie with a lower budget. The new movies have no excuse for being as bad as they are.

Except a months long writers strike that forced production to be rushed. Why are you defending the 86 movie and crediting it's shortcoming to production problems. Yet you won't do the same for RotF?

Because they could have postponed RotF until the writer's strike was over. Also one was good and the other wasn't. Sorry but I watch movies for the story and not pretty special effects. And if there isn't a good story then the special effects better be mind numbingly good to the point of making me forget about how awful the movie is. Or at least be so bad it's good. RotF does none of that. They should have postponed RotF until they had actual writers instead of amateurs. The movie contradicted itself, and the previous movie constantly. And there's so much crap that happens during it that makes me go "What is this? I don't even..."

And if you want to examine the problems with the '86 animated movie, the only noticible flaw is that Snarl and Swoop seem to be having a feud of some kind as when one's on screen the other is missing. As far as the "Why isn't ____ in the movie? He was in Season 2?" stuff, they started the movie when Season 1 was still airing so those characters generally didn't exist. They didn't start filming RotF the instant the first movie hit the theatres. Why? Because it doesn't take as long to make a live action movie as it does an animated movie. Especially the way animation used to be. Back then everything was hand drawn and transferred to cells to be animated. There's like 52 frames in one second of animation, 60 seconds in 1 minute, and the run time is 84-85 minutes (depending on version). A month long writer's strike wouldn't have phased the production of the animated movie at all. Because by they can't start animating (except for trailers, as the trailer had a bunch of unused animation) until the script is completed. And they would have waited until the strike was over anyway since it was going to take over a year to make it regardless of waiting on a writers strike.

I dont understand why the hell anyone would see a movie for the story, if you want a story, go read a f*ckin book.

SlyTF1 wrote:
I dont understand why the hell anyone would see a movie for the story, if you want a story, go read a f*ckin book.

I would, a good story is a huge part of movie enjoyment, not just the visuals. the story can make or brake a movie while the visuals don't. the only kind of film where visuals are more important than story is p*rn.

Dead Metal wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:
I dont understand why the hell anyone would see a movie for the story, if you want a story, go read a f*ckin book.

I would, a good story is a huge part of movie enjoyment, not just the visuals. the story can make or brake a movie while the visuals don't. the only kind of film where visuals are more important than story is p*rn.

yeah, but you see a movie to enjoy it. You cant see a story. You read a book to read or understand a story. Not saying that a movie shouldnt have a good story, just saying that thats not the main thing I look for when I see a movie. Besides, I liked ROTF's story any way. It may not be the most sophisticated story out there, but it kept me suprised the whole way through. Even though i read about everything on the internet, It still blew me away with certain things. Like I didnt expect for Optimus or Sam to die, I expected that if Optimus died at all, it would be towards the end of the movie. i didnt expect Starscream Megatron and The Fallen to have a conversation on the Nemisis, its not a big part, but that is the scene that sold me on the movie. Plus I thought it was a big improve ment on the story for the first movie: Boy sells glasses on Ebay, and finds out that they are the key to saving out world. VS Rotf's story: Evil robots harvest energy by blowing up our sun, and only one person can accept his destiny and save the world. or some **** like that

Loki God Of Mischief wrote:One was good and the other wasn't.

In your humble opinion. In my opinion, both the '86 and the Bay movies are mediocre films that I only remember because of their toy lines, which I only remember because they're part action figure, part vehicle, part puzzle.

And if you want to examine the problems with the '86 animated movie, the only noticible flaw is that Snarl and Swoop seem to be having a feud of some kind as when one's on screen the other is missing.

That's the only flaw you saw? You have no problem at all with a giant planet eating robot coming out of nowhere, or OP pulling something that just so happens to kill the giant planet eating robot out of his chest that he happened to be holding onto the whole time? Unlike the Bay movies, the '86 film had an entire show's worth of backstory to use (which if indeed they were making the movie while making the show, they could've at least hinted at)

And a bunch of Autobots die pretty pathetically early on.

And Devastator is shaken apart by a couple of cassettes. (Yet humans using very real, very powerful weapons to knock him off a structure he wasn't holding onto very tightly and thus falls off, crashes, and dies is completely illogical?)

A month long writer's strike wouldn't have phased the production of the animated movie at all. Because by they can't start animating (except for trailers, as the trailer had a bunch of unused animation) until the script is completed. And they would have waited until the strike was over anyway since it was going to take over a year to make it regardless of waiting on a writers strike.

CGI takes time too, you know.
I'm not sure if movies of any sort have the luxury of waiting until a strike wraps up. I don't make movies, but I'd imagine there is a deadline for making a movie after it's been OK'd, regardless of any possible setbacks.

I don't think they could have delayed RotF. Hasbro had a toyline they needed to release, if they had sat on it while the movie was being ironed out they would have lost millions. Plus it was a summer blockbuster, if they had released it in the fall or winter it wouldn't have made nearly the amount of money it did.

SlyTF1 wrote:If I recall, the '86 movie flopped!

That's true, but until recent years, the only animated movies that have traditionally done well at the box office have been Disney films. For all of its' problems, the 86 movie was not a Disney film. If my memory serves, I seem to remember most cartoon-based/toy-based movies being released straight to vhs because there wasn't exactly a market for them in theatres.
Action movies however, such as the Bay Transformers movies, have traditionally not had much difficulty making cash money in theatres.
In all reality, it is sort of unfair to use the poor box office earnings of hte 86 movie as grounds for its percieved inferiority to the recent films. Nobody is claiming that ROTF has not made a boatload of money. And, furthermore, using the box office claim as part of the arguement, Avatar is now the single greatest film ever made, as it has now made more box office money than Titanic, which would now be the second greatest movie ever made. (Basically, I just wanted to say 'furthermore' on the Internet, so please don't take any of that the wrong way.) Yet the example holds true, especially if a movie's box office reciepts are a factor in establishing quality.

I dont understand why the hell anyone would see a movie for the story, if you want a story, go read a f*ckin book.

Every movie has a story, even porn as Dead Metal says. Without a story, a movie is simply a set of random images flashing across a flat surface. Essentially, everything has a story which moves the thing from its beginning point to its end point. In a later post, you yourself site examples from the ROTF story, like Prime's death and the conversation between MEgatron, SS and the Fallen. Movies are generally seen for the stories they portray. Again, I don't mean that in a negative way towards you, but even the maze on the back of a cereal box is driven by an existant story.

EDIT: I am shocked to realize that the filter or whatever on here blocked out the word p o r n .