Official TRANSFORMERS Thread

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, I see two things pulling against each other in that train of thought, a sort of populism and a sort of snobbery. I'm not sure that your balance is any better than that of the guy you're criticizing for his balance being out of whack. Actually, to be less diplomatic and more at risk of incurring wrath and retaliation, your take on things seems less fair and more snobby. For what it's worth, I'm not sure that it's intentional.

I think regular non-professionals can pretty regularly sense when a scene is out of whack and goes nowhere, too. They can relate to unresolved plot threads, things that don't make sense, etc.

They might not see or understand things like bad editing or continuity much, or typical mythic themes a la Joseph Campbell that don't play out properly, and the like, but that doesn't mean that they're like cats who can be endlessly amused by shiny, jingling keys, either. I mean, they can still see flaws and things that don't fit together just fine.

I really think you're unfairly characterizing charlie's complaints as far too pointlessly specific and irrelevantly complex. They're more reasonable than that.

The only thing I would object to is his implying Spielberg's Jurassic Park was all that different from what Bay might have done. JP was classic enjoyable complete empty ridiculous crap.

I don't think you have to be into all the jargon 'n' stuff to either see a movie's flaws or wish they weren't there.

If you did, it would be almost impossible to judge a movie in any way at all.

[CharlieDontSurf]

Spielberg's movie was so enjoyable in large part because of HOW HE SHOT AND EDITED THE MOVIE. In fact I'd say it is the MAIN reason the movie was so well recieved. We won't even include his use of casting, special effects, etc.

Michael Bay is a very poor director who gets by on the fact that he can make [censored] blow up pretty well and he has aligned himself with films that typically are high budget summer tentpole pictures that unless completly screwed up...will be a success regardless of director.

Two really dumb cheesy summer action flicks so far were Die Hard 4 and Transformers...Wiseman's directing is so much better to Bays it isn't even funny(and thats saying something given Wiseman isn't some A-list director). Bay constantly takes you out of a scene by doing stupid camera tricks that distract the viewer rather then add to the given scene--the camera 360 wrap around-super closeups-slow mo of a guy standing up-really really cheesy "hero" music-etc. Or he'll simply shoot stuff in a very generic music video/commercial type way that actually makes the scene painful to watch.

Now M Knight S. would have probably mirrored Spielberg if he directed Jurasic Park--their styles are very similar.
Michael Bay's Jurasic Park would have been so bad it would have been painful to watch.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
Sequel idea:

1) Re-activate Megatron.


[/ QUOTE ]
They set up the deep sea base by dumping the body there, so of course they'll do that.
[ QUOTE ]

2) Have Starscream return from space with more Decepticons, like Soundwave and the Insecticons. Starscream rebels against Megatron, Megatron beats down Starscream.


[/ QUOTE ]
This would be sweet, but it seems like they all have the powers that soundwave has now. It would be sad to not have the coolest character in any of the new movies, but I don't really see a place for him anymore.
[ QUOTE ]

3) Dinobots!


[/ QUOTE ]
Definitely. Also Devastator and the Constructicons.
[ QUOTE ]

4) End on down note (Optimus Prime captured or something), setting up for big finish in part 3.

[/ QUOTE ]
Like Empire Strikes Back. Good call.

[Bukem_]

I can't ever remember being so disappointed leaving a theater.

Why is megatron a giant insect?

Set up what looks like will be an amazing chase seen between Bumblebee and cop decepticon. Then all of the sudden day goes to night and bumblebee is just sitting in the same set we already saw? Guess they [censored] that up so we get a recycled set?

15 minutes of oh look big robots are sneaking around and ruining the garden.

Starscream and Megatron never get into it besides one line.

Why don't we get Shockwave or the rest of the decepticon jets. Instead we get some new decepticons that are just big [censored] trucks and helis that transform.

Mini plots that go nowhere. Hot geek girl(lol) stealing the plans so greatest hacker on earth can look at pretty pictures and say there is more to this! Then nothing besides John Turturro in underwear.

SO much more, but mostly I didn't care about anybody or the outcome. I think I cried when Optimus dies in the first movie.

At least the girl was hot.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno, I see two things pulling against each other in that train of thought, a sort of populism and a sort of snobbery. I'm not sure that your balance is any better than that of the guy you're criticizing for his balance being out of whack. Actually, to be less diplomatic and more at risk of incurring wrath and retaliation, your take on things seems less fair and more snobby. For what it's worth, I'm not sure that it's intentional.

I think regular non-professionals can pretty regularly sense when a scene is out of whack and goes nowhere, too. They can relate to unresolved plot threads, things that don't make sense, etc.

They might not see or understand things like bad editing or continuity much, or typical mythic themes a la Joseph Campbell that don't play out properly, and the like, but that doesn't mean that they're like cats who can be endlessly amused by shiny, jingling keys, either. I mean, they can still see flaws and things that don't fit together just fine.

I really think you're unfairly characterizing charlie's complaints as far too pointlessly specific and irrelevantly complex. They're more reasonable than that.

The only thing I would object to is his implying Spielberg's Jurassic Park was all that different from what Bay might have done. JP was classic enjoyable complete empty ridiculous crap.

I don't think you have to be into all the jargon 'n' stuff to either see a movie's flaws or wish they weren't there.

If you did, it would be almost impossible to judge a movie in any way at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I have a fairly high snob factor in some areas, but I don't think it is in movies so much. I think my biggest problem with Charlie's review is that it had the tone of correctness that struck me the wrong way. It implied that I was stupid for liking this movie because of esoteric directorial decisions. Granted, I could be projecting here and reading way too much into it.

[Nez477]

[ 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 ]

The action was not great. The camera angles were all spotty, you coudln't even see the robots fighting upclose except for when Optimus killed the guy upclose in the one seen... all fighting scenes were a bunch of gunshots with some robots transforming.

The first hour of the movie: B+ Last 80 minutes: D

The script was beyond awful and detracted from the fun of the film

I mean, I'm all for seeing some bad-ass robots, but the robots weren't even really bad ass.

/rant

[eleventy]

[ 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 ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]


But you shouldn't hold all films to the same standards. I wouldn't review a Romantic Drama and say it was good except it was missing giant robots beating the crap out of each other. Actually I might do that...

[psuasskicker]

[ QUOTE ]
This would be sweet, but it seems like they all have the powers that soundwave has now. It would be sad to not have the coolest character in any of the new movies, but I don't really see a place for him anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's what I've heard on that. They were actually gonna make Blackout be Soundwave. However, this was really poorly received (rightly so) at Comic-Con. Bay didn't want to do anything with Transformers changing size, which of course was a staple in Soundwave's transformation from "big-huge-giant-robobt" to "Walkman". (Was also why they couldn't make Megatron a gun.) They hadn't figured out how to get Soundwave in, so they've said they'll save him for a sequel where they can do him right. Sounds like they definitely want him in, just couldn't get him into this one.

[ QUOTE ]
Definitely. Also Devastator and the Constructicons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would be good, but remember the Bonecrusher just bit the dust.

[ QUOTE ]
Starscream and Megatron never get into it besides one line.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this too, then someone pointed out that at the end, where Starscream started blending into the other F-22s, he was part of the group that bombed Megatron. They should have emphasized this a bit more though.

- C -

[4 High]

Didn't the writers on this also pen the new Star Trek reboot film? That worries me a tad. The story and dialog were mot the high points here.

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dunno, I see two things pulling against each other in that train of thought, a sort of populism and a sort of snobbery. I'm not sure that your balance is any better than that of the guy you're criticizing for his balance being out of whack. Actually, to be less diplomatic and more at risk of incurring wrath and retaliation, your take on things seems less fair and more snobby. For what it's worth, I'm not sure that it's intentional.

I think regular non-professionals can pretty regularly sense when a scene is out of whack and goes nowhere, too. They can relate to unresolved plot threads, things that don't make sense, etc.

They might not see or understand things like bad editing or continuity much, or typical mythic themes a la Joseph Campbell that don't play out properly, and the like, but that doesn't mean that they're like cats who can be endlessly amused by shiny, jingling keys, either. I mean, they can still see flaws and things that don't fit together just fine.

I really think you're unfairly characterizing charlie's complaints as far too pointlessly specific and irrelevantly complex. They're more reasonable than that.

The only thing I would object to is his implying Spielberg's Jurassic Park was all that different from what Bay might have done. JP was classic enjoyable complete empty ridiculous crap.

I don't think you have to be into all the jargon 'n' stuff to either see a movie's flaws or wish they weren't there.

If you did, it would be almost impossible to judge a movie in any way at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I have a fairly high snob factor in some areas, but I don't think it is in movies so much. I think my biggest problem with Charlie's review is that it had the tone of correctness that struck me the wrong way. It implied that I was stupid for liking this movie because of esoteric directorial decisions. Granted, I could be projecting here and reading way too much into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that your stupid but that you should expect more from a movie...even if it is simply a mindless summer action flick.
Like I said..I get that people like the nostalgia factor and the special effects are really amazing...but the movie as a whole still is pretty bad and if people view this as a great example of the perfect summer movie then summer movies are going to really start sucking even harder.

Otherwise ever summer we'll only get movies like Fantastic 4 2, Transformers, POTC 3, SPiderman 3, etc...aka poorly made big budget special effects shows.


Also Bay helped develop the screenplay with the writers for well over a year..so he had a lot of input into the screenplay.