Official TRANSFORMERS Thread

[samjjones]

Sequel idea:

1) Re-activate Megatron.
2) Have Starscream return from space with more Decepticons, like Soundwave and the Insecticons. Starscream rebels against Megatron, Megatron beats down Starscream.
3) Dinobots!
4) End on down note (Optimus Prime captured or something), setting up for big finish in part 3.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how did he do a good job on transformers?

[/ QUOTE ]

The action was great. The CGI was seamless. He kept the story moving. What am I missing?

If you have problems with the script, that's another matter. He didn't write the thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, i dont know if this falls under director or editor, but i thought the pacing was really awkward, especially towards the end. i agree that the screenplay was bad to begin with.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

i dont think this has been mentioned, but imdb is listing transformers 2 as 2009.

[psuasskicker]

[ QUOTE ]
The only dissappointing thing about this movie was the one-sidedness of the Optimus Prime and Megatron fight. Other than that, I was glued to the screen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I felt the same way except for one other aspect on top of this. Hardly any beefing between Megatron and Starscream. It was brushed over in a single "Yet again you fail me, Starscream" quote. I was really hoping to see them at each other's throats trying to be the first to get the Cube.

[ QUOTE ]
Everytime the autobots transformed from cars to robots it looked as if the robots had about 5 times the amount of material of the cars. They didn't just transform - they somehow became a lot bigger. Didn't make sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

In an interview with the FX guys, they said that very specifically they made the mass of the robots the same as the mass of the vehicles, unlike how it was done in the cartoon.

[ QUOTE ]
i dont think this has been mentioned, but imdb is listing transformers 2 as 2009.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the link I posted. They're "in talks" which apparently started right after the studio saw the final cut.

- C -

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alot of his shot selection is just horribly bad and there to simply show the size of his dick...Tony Scott occasionally has this problem too...but Bay takes it to a hole nother level. I get that everyone loves cool special effects...but this isn't a good movie. Is it a fun mindless special effects show...yah...Is it a good film--i.e. good writing/interesting characters/good dialogue/a well thought out plot-story/good acting/good directing/etc....nope.
But its is still def worth seeing.

Many of his scenes and sequences were poorly constructed and edited. The slow mo/wrap arounds/cheesy music/bad dialogue/bad acting/etc are part of the directors duties.
This si what Michael Bay is known for so its not a huge shock that he is still doing it but is also why he cant really do anything else other than these mindless big budget action flicks. Pearl Harbor and The Island are examples of MB trying to take a non mindless big budget action flick type script and then Michael Baying it into crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's like you're holding a grilled hot dog in a back yard bbq up to the same standards as a cordon blue meal. Yes, everyone is impressed that you went to film school and have the lingo down. No, no one cares about the mechanics of the movie. No one is going to judge this movie on any of the criteria you hold dear. It's too bad you know so much about film that you can't enjoy it anymore, that's always a downside to being involved in an industry other people only visit.

[/ QUOTE ]

its more a case of the american public being satisfied with crap as long at it has some cool special effects and nostalgia to it. Hence movies getting worse and worse cuz studios know that the public is to stupid to care and will just be like..ZOMG the Silver Surfer looked so cool or ZOMGBBQ the decepticons were [censored] siiick...greatest movie evaaaaa!!!

A good director would make this a good to unreal film even if the script was weak n dumbed down. but people don't care as long as the transformers look siiiiick.
Basically its like Speilberg directing Jurrasic Park or Michael Bay directing Jurrasic Park. When it came out it was a mind blowing type CGI film...and it was well shot/cast/etc by SS. If Michael Bay did it...please it would have still made sick amounts of cash cuz the public would be ZONMG...the T-Rex looked siiick...but it would be a far far worse film.

Same thing for Aliens/T-2 etc...the director is key to making a good to very good film. I get that alot of the geeks loved it cuz they were all in to Transformers n [censored]...and the special effects were awesome. But there was nothing else to it besides that...and it is a shame because big summer movies like Aliens/Die Hard/Die Hard 3/Jurrasic/T-2/etc..go to a whole nother level cuz of the great writing/directing/etc.

A large reason Transformers came out being somewhat decent is Speilberg had a heavy heavy hand in overseeing it...almost to the point where people say he helped direct it.

it made 29 mill on the 4th so it should do over 130-150 million by friday so a sequel is a given...also more crap from MB is also a given

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alot of his shot selection is just horribly bad and there to simply show the size of his dick...Tony Scott occasionally has this problem too...but Bay takes it to a hole nother level. I get that everyone loves cool special effects...but this isn't a good movie. Is it a fun mindless special effects show...yah...Is it a good film--i.e. good writing/interesting characters/good dialogue/a well thought out plot-story/good acting/good directing/etc....nope.
But its is still def worth seeing.

Many of his scenes and sequences were poorly constructed and edited. The slow mo/wrap arounds/cheesy music/bad dialogue/bad acting/etc are part of the directors duties.
This si what Michael Bay is known for so its not a huge shock that he is still doing it but is also why he cant really do anything else other than these mindless big budget action flicks. Pearl Harbor and The Island are examples of MB trying to take a non mindless big budget action flick type script and then Michael Baying it into crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's like you're holding a grilled hot dog in a back yard bbq up to the same standards as a cordon blue meal. Yes, everyone is impressed that you went to film school and have the lingo down. No, no one cares about the mechanics of the movie. No one is going to judge this movie on any of the criteria you hold dear. It's too bad you know so much about film that you can't enjoy it anymore, that's always a downside to being involved in an industry other people only visit.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a bit bitchy and unfair. Just because your movie is basically fun, doesn't mean it can't be plenty good. And scenes that don't work simply don't work, period. You don't have to be some great artist or philosopher to realize that.

Sometimes it matters more than others, but still, the better a movie is made, the more you're going to like it and find it rewatchable.

Examples of very well-made flicks that had lots of action and were basically there simply for entertainment: Robocop, Alien, Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark. People did appreciate how good those movies were, and they're still easily rewatchable 20 and 30 years later. Even a couple times in a row.

There's no reason to not make things as well as they can be made, and there's nothing wrong with saying, whether you liked a film or not, that it slipped up and could have been better.

[4 High]

Loved this. So much better then i expected it to be.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alot of his shot selection is just horribly bad and there to simply show the size of his dick...Tony Scott occasionally has this problem too...but Bay takes it to a hole nother level. I get that everyone loves cool special effects...but this isn't a good movie. Is it a fun mindless special effects show...yah...Is it a good film--i.e. good writing/interesting characters/good dialogue/a well thought out plot-story/good acting/good directing/etc....nope.
But its is still def worth seeing.

Many of his scenes and sequences were poorly constructed and edited. The slow mo/wrap arounds/cheesy music/bad dialogue/bad acting/etc are part of the directors duties.
This si what Michael Bay is known for so its not a huge shock that he is still doing it but is also why he cant really do anything else other than these mindless big budget action flicks. Pearl Harbor and The Island are examples of MB trying to take a non mindless big budget action flick type script and then Michael Baying it into crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's like you're holding a grilled hot dog in a back yard bbq up to the same standards as a cordon blue meal. Yes, everyone is impressed that you went to film school and have the lingo down. No, no one cares about the mechanics of the movie. No one is going to judge this movie on any of the criteria you hold dear. It's too bad you know so much about film that you can't enjoy it anymore, that's always a downside to being involved in an industry other people only visit.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a bit bitchy and unfair. Just because your movie is basically fun, doesn't mean it can't be plenty good. And scenes that don't work simply don't work, period. You don't have to be some great artist or philosopher to realize that.

Sometimes it matters more than others, but still, the better a movie is made, the more you're going to like it and find it rewatchable.

Examples of very well-made flicks that had lots of action and were basically there simply for entertainment: Robocop, Alien, Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark. People did appreciate how good those movies were, and they're still easily rewatchable 20 and 30 years later. Even a couple times in a row.

There's no reason to not make things as well as they can be made, and there's nothing wrong with saying, whether you liked a film or not, that it slipped up and could have been better.

[/ QUOTE ]

A little bitchy but not that unfair. I was a theater technican for 10 years and still can't watch a play without timing the blackouts and seeing where the run crew screwed up. When I see a play the techincal stuff is what is important to me and that's how I judge it. My friends who weren't theater technicians don't see the same play that I do. The same is going to be true with people who have studied the mechanics of film. They are not going to see the same film as someone who doesn't have their training and background. Trying to critique a film for them is just going to be annoying because all they wanted to see was the explosions and if they noticed character development or how the film was edited they probably wouldn't be able to talk about it. For the most part they are the target audience of the film and if they liked it the film was a success, regardless of the "real quality" of the film.

[PokerFox]

I really, really did not enjoy this movie (and I was even drinking alcohol as I watched). The plot was horribly thrown together when it was there at all, the action scenes were thrown in for the sake of action, and the transformers were just like part of the background.

+'s:

Megan Fox = super hot
Blonde chick = kind of hot
CGI pretty cool.

-'s:

2 hour beating. I mean, I just couldn't wait for this to end (and I like a LOT of movies.) Even Snakes on a Plane was 100x more enjoyable to me.

Chalk up another whiff at the plate for M. Bay.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alot of his shot selection is just horribly bad and there to simply show the size of his dick...Tony Scott occasionally has this problem too...but Bay takes it to a hole nother level. I get that everyone loves cool special effects...but this isn't a good movie. Is it a fun mindless special effects show...yah...Is it a good film--i.e. good writing/interesting characters/good dialogue/a well thought out plot-story/good acting/good directing/etc....nope.
But its is still def worth seeing.

Many of his scenes and sequences were poorly constructed and edited. The slow mo/wrap arounds/cheesy music/bad dialogue/bad acting/etc are part of the directors duties.
This si what Michael Bay is known for so its not a huge shock that he is still doing it but is also why he cant really do anything else other than these mindless big budget action flicks. Pearl Harbor and The Island are examples of MB trying to take a non mindless big budget action flick type script and then Michael Baying it into crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's like you're holding a grilled hot dog in a back yard bbq up to the same standards as a cordon blue meal. Yes, everyone is impressed that you went to film school and have the lingo down. No, no one cares about the mechanics of the movie. No one is going to judge this movie on any of the criteria you hold dear. It's too bad you know so much about film that you can't enjoy it anymore, that's always a downside to being involved in an industry other people only visit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know several people who aren't in the industry but still analyze films like this. It's not uncommon. At all.

There are many different characteristics involved in the appreciation of any art. I don't know why you'd get upset that someone looks at a film from more angles than you do.