I hate when people say things like this. No, I wasn't blinded by nostalgia when watching the Transformers movies. Why? Because I never experienced the Transformers as a kid, so I didn't have any recollection of them.arc1991 said:Transformers (apart from ROTF) isn't even that bad. People are just blinded by nostalgia.
I saw it. It really is that bad.lightsentry said:Honestly, not that bad. Go see it, maybe you'll be surprised.
I take this as a reference to him questioning the intelligence of those who disagreed with his ASM1&2 reviews?jobu59749 said:I always think it's funny when people point out the Bob is "biased" with a review because of the fact that he exerts his 'personal' opinion. I don't know if you're aware of this, but every review written about anything from anyone is an opinion. To read something or write something from a purely objective viewpoint is just kind of dumb. To sit there and only critique the filming techniques used, the directorial image, and the fact that a boom operator didn't fuck up...is dumb. The majority of people don't actually care about these things.
I'll be honest, I had more fun at this movie, just laughing at it than I did with Guardians of the Galaxy. Although I see that GotG is the better movie, I just got more enjoyment out of TMNT.spoonybard.hahs said:I saw it. It really is that bad.lightsentry said:Honestly, not that bad. Go see it, maybe you'll be surprised.
Heimdall from Thor says hi.Lightknight said:People complained that they were changing a Japanese character into a white guy? Guess racism only works one way. Otherwise flopping a white guy into anything else is cool?
The same should be applied to video games. Just because "it's for kids" doesn't mean it has to be a formulaic collectathon platformer with no other features and no sense of humor about itself.RJ Dalton said:"Making a movie for kids is not an excuse to slack off." Every time I hear you say that, it makes me wish more people would say it.
I don't see how that's possible. If GotG was the better film, it should follow you'd have more fun with its real humor, tighter writing, better acting, and just.... better everything. *sigh* This is Signs all over again.lightsentry said:I'll be honest, I had more fun at this movie, just laughing at it than I did with Guardians of the Galaxy. Although I see that GotG is the better movie, I just got more enjoyment out of TMNT.spoonybard.hahs said:I saw it. It really is that bad.lightsentry said:Honestly, not that bad. Go see it, maybe you'll be surprised.
Not really, the humor was a little bit off base in Gotg and it had tighter script, but there were a lot more cringey moments in gotg that really pulled me out and maybe they were cringey on purpose, but the tone felt a lot less consistent than TMNT. The acting was sort of...a wash I feel, I really did not like Chris Pratt to be honest, just felt like I've seen the character so many times and the movie wrote in some scenes that he had to carry hard and it felt like he dropped the ball a bit for me. That being said, Megan Fox couldn't really carry a scene either, but there were a lot less where she was forced to. Also I didn't need to go read wikipedia after TMNT to figure out what the heck was going on.spoonybard.hahs said:I don't see how that's possible. If GotG was the better film, it should follow you'd have more fun with its real humor, tighter writing, better acting, and just.... better everything. *sigh* This is Signs all over again.lightsentry said:I'll be honest, I had more fun at this movie, just laughing at it than I did with Guardians of the Galaxy. Although I see that GotG is the better movie, I just got more enjoyment out of TMNT.spoonybard.hahs said:I saw it. It really is that bad.lightsentry said:Honestly, not that bad. Go see it, maybe you'll be surprised.
How is anything in GotG more cringe-worthy than Mikey's hard-on for April? And you really didn't need to read Wikipedia to find out what was going on in GotG. If you did - or felt you had to - you weren't even trying to pay attention. You say Pratt was meh because you've seen the character before but... How is TMNT didn't? MovieBob was not kidding about how much it riffs off of The Amazing Spider-Man, nor how you could literally take any other property and plop into its story and get the same outcome.lightsentry said:Not really, the humor was a little bit off base in Gotg and it had tighter script, but there were a lot more cringey moments in gotg that really pulled me out and maybe they were cringey on purpose, but the tone felt a lot less consistent than TMNT. The acting was sort of...a wash I feel, I really did not like Chris Pratt to be honest, just felt like I've seen the character so many times and the movie wrote in some scenes that he had to carry hard and it felt like he dropped the ball a bit for me. That being said, Megan Fox couldn't really carry a scene either, but there were a lot less where she was forced to. Also I didn't need to go read wikipedia after TMNT to figure out what the heck was going on.
Because I didn't need to care about the characters to enjoy TMNT and I did need to enjoy the characters to enjoy GotG. The movies focused on different things and were structured to take advantage of their focus and I just feel like the strengths of TMNT carried it higher above its shortcomings while GotG got bogged down in what it was trying to do.spoonybard.hahs said:How is anything in GotG more cringe-worthy than Mikey's hard-on for April? And you really didn't need to read Wikipedia to find out what was going on in GotG. If you did - or felt you had to - you weren't even trying to pay attention. You say Pratt was meh because you've seen the character before but... How is TMNT didn't? MovieBob was not kidding about how much it riffs off of The Amazing Spider-Man, nor how you could literally take any other property and plop into its story and get the same outcome.lightsentry said:Not really, the humor was a little bit off base in Gotg and it had tighter script, but there were a lot more cringey moments in gotg that really pulled me out and maybe they were cringey on purpose, but the tone felt a lot less consistent than TMNT. The acting was sort of...a wash I feel, I really did not like Chris Pratt to be honest, just felt like I've seen the character so many times and the movie wrote in some scenes that he had to carry hard and it felt like he dropped the ball a bit for me. That being said, Megan Fox couldn't really carry a scene either, but there were a lot less where she was forced to. Also I didn't need to go read wikipedia after TMNT to figure out what the heck was going on.
Hello Heimdall, I see you made it into the movie anyways. Cool.spoonybard.hahs said:Heimdall from Thor says hi.Lightknight said:People complained that they were changing a Japanese character into a white guy? Guess racism only works one way. Otherwise flopping a white guy into anything else is cool?
Heimdall happens to be a more than 1,000 year-old character. Even though I don't care about the comic book character I can understand not altering a character that was part of even a dead religion. So it's a bit different but Marvel clearly doesn't care about appropriating other cultures for profit.Of course, in the case of Heimdall, the backlash was really all about racism. Because in a comic universe where the writers took all things Norse and pretty much did whatever the hell they wanted - including putting Asians in and Robin Hood ripoffs - god forbid you randomly cast a black man in the role of a "traditionally white character in a traditionally white universe."
Wait, you mean in the US media where the US population is over 72% white (includes white Hispanic) that the majority of the actors are white too? I'm shocked and appalled, the nerve of them! [/sarcasm]Also. if white male wasn't the dominate actor in films and television, you'd have something of a point.