Film: Transformers

[Pander Bear]

that sounds excatly like a criticism of Ridley Scott.

 

[Benefit]

that sounds excatly like a criticism of Ridley Scott.

I hope that's a joke.

 

[Pander Bear]

no, its a fair cirticism of l2r's (IMO weak, unproductive) criticism.

I love almost all Scott movies, but frankly, I feel like I could cut out l2r's post and drop it in the gladiator thread.

sorry, but i really think its absurd to say "omg, way too many explosions and fight scenes in this remake of an 80s childrens cartoon about robots from outserspace who fight and explode things!"

 

[alasdairm]

^ i'm inclined to agree and also - given the movie had a budget of $150M almost all of which seems to have gone on special effects - ask "what did you expect?"



alasdair

 

[gonzo.pete]

Great, Fun movie. Amazing effects-though some of it happens so fast you can hardly keep up.
Quite lighthearted in places and not to be taken too seriously.
I like the way the film stays (relatively) true to the whole Transformers brand/concept.

Quite long though at about 2 hours 15 minutes-more movie for your money though eh!

 

[delta_9]

didn't really like it 2/5

 

[L2R]

no, its a fair cirticism of l2r's (IMO weak, unproductive) criticism.

I love almost all Scott movies, but frankly, I feel like I could cut out l2r's post and drop it in the gladiator thread.

not true.
an extra in any scott film has more depth than all the characters in all bay films put together.

sorry, but i really think its absurd to say "omg, way too many explosions and fight scenes in this remake of an 80s childrens cartoon about robots from outserspace who fight and explode things!"

That's not what i'm saying at all.

explosions and simple stories can be very good. see starship troopers, war of the worlds, true lies and many others as examples. spielberg, cameron, verhoeven, etc don't resort to blinding the audience from what's happening onscreen with cheap camera/fx/editing techniques, nor do they try to pass cliche ridden hodgpodge as storylines and plots.
as i said years ago at the start of this thread, this could have been either really good (and used some original ideas) or really bad (what we have).

^ i'm inclined to agree and also - given the movie had a budget of $150M almost all of which seems to have gone on special effects - ask "what did you expect?"

i expected precisely what i got. generally, i give people the benefit of the doubt, but michael bay has not moved one toe in a right direction is what, four movies? five? they've all been stupefying cliche vehicles of cheesy effects and ridiculous marketing. to have faith in this guy would have been foolish.
I said the same thing when pearl harbour was released. People still went, watched and complained.
I said it with the island, and the same results.
i'll grant that i've heard more positivity for transformers than any of his previous fair, but after seeing it, all i can conclude that it's purely from sentimentality. If this film had been called "The amazing changing robots from space", the story, i reckon would be vastly different.



michael bay is to movies is like puff daddy is to music

 

[DarthMom]

the way he glorifies violence. the way he glorifies pride. the very close up shots and shakey camera and oh so conspicuous cgi techniques all to dress up lack of contents. cliche ridden garbage instead of humour, love, hate, or any actual emotive expression.

the list goes on and on

i could probably elaborate more when i haven't been drinking.


generally speaking, depite massive budgets and whatnot, all his films scream "cheap" to me.

what about the island fits that description? you always bring up that movie in your anti bay tirades. ok, so it's no citizen kane, but it doesn't scream out the traits you listed.

 

[L2R]

the island has plenty of shaky camera shit, cgi overload and cliches also. it's no different.

look, i'm not saying that enjoying this shit is wrong, i'm just saying i think the films are horrible and these are the reasons why.

 

[DarthMom]

and i don't mind your comments!! you are just so zealous in your hatin! i was curious

 

[alasdairm]

i expected precisely what i got. generally, i give people the benefit of the doubt, but michael bay has not moved one toe in a right direction is what, four movies? five? they've all been stupefying cliche vehicles of cheesy effects and ridiculous marketing. to have faith in this guy would have been foolish.

michael bay's last five major releases as director:

'the transformers' worldwide gross to date: $423M
'the island' worldwide gross to date: $162M
'bad boys ii' worldwide gross to date: $272M
'pearl harbour' worldwide gross to date: $450M
'armageddon' worldwide gross to date: $555M

that's a total of $1.8 billion. if it ain't broke?

alasdair

 

[L2R]

^sadly that is correct. they do make a shitload of money, and he will stay in work. And so will puffy stay in the music industry 8).

DM,
I'm a strong believer in the power of the storytelling arts. I think the influence and impact on the subconscious of the audience is much more significant than it seems. I equate watching, reading, listening etcetera to meditating, praying, believing, wishing, etc. You get these kinds of works into the universal subconsciousness and it'll only result in more gungho and moronic behaviour.
All so that a few big companies can make more money.
fuck that. there are no redeeming features to such an endeavour.

 

[L2R]

my hating began with my only viewing of armageddon. it struck me hard and fast how much of an insult that entire piece of claptrap is. i sat there listening to a bunch of film producers blatantly and obviously pointing and laughing at me, the audience, and the fact that i was spending my valuable time watching this shit. fortunately i didn't pay for that copy, or else i might've been really upset.

 

[randycaver]

of the michael bay film i've seen, (none of which i have paid for), i have detested every single one.

i can really enjoy light, popcorn films, but his stuff is all intolerably made.

Why do you even watch it then? I stay away from movies/tv/music/etc that I know I won't like.

 

[L2R]

i still haven't seen nor do i ever plan to see pearl harbour and bad boys 2. the island was on cable and i was exceptionally bored or depressed at the time.

transformers i saw for sentimental reasons. the name bay kept me out of theatres, but when a mate offered a bootleg copy, and i knew the missus wanted to see it, i took it.

 

[yoker]

Film was as bad as Iv seen, Effects were as good as Iv seen.Cheesest fuckin dialogue ever. I was actually cringing towards the end off it.

The mystery trailer before the film was better. Anymore info on that?

 

[DigitalDuality]

i had warnings about the corniness of the dialogue and no warning could have prepared me.

the effects were rather awesome though. i dunno, i'm glad i saw it.

 

[DarthMom]

as corny as "you are more than meets the eye" was, i giggled and shook like a schoolgirl.....but isn't that what they are going for, and is it really a bad thing?

is it so bad to lose yourself and be silly and embrace your childishness in a movie?

what is worse, doing that, or being afraid to do just that?

 

[DigitalDuality]

i think "campy" and corny is the only way they could've taken this film.. i mean seriously.. robots that change into cars from an alien world battling on earth...

 

[yoker]

^But even taking it as something thats alway going to have that childish slant, it was still way to cheesy. The dialog was very predictable, it had all been done better a hundred times before. Funnily enough I think the stuff the humans came out with was less believable than the robots.

The thing is though, when $100+ goes into a film you should be making sure there is something new and engaging about the storyline or characters in it. Bay threw the money into special effects and was content to rely on that to sell the movie.