Escape to the Movies: Transformers: Dark of the Moon

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Oh. My. God. The Snob and Spoony collaborate on ripping this movie a new one. AWESOME.

http://spoonyexperiment.com/2011/07/03/spoony-and-brad-uncensored-on-transformers-3/

HA! So not only am I not the only one who thinks that the original animated Transformers movie was better than Bay's movies, but Spoony and the Cinema Snob agree with me! Suck on that, Bayformers lovers!

Just on a technical writing level it's far better. Characters actually have arcs and development instead of this jingoistic, mean-spirited, tasteless crap Bay and Kruger think is some sort of masterpiece. When Brad mentioned that Kruger is rumored to be attached to a remake of Videodrome I felt something inside of me snap.

 

[pandasaw]

The only movies I have enjoyed this summer were Thor, X-Men: First Class, Kung Fu Panda 2 and Super 8 (I have to disagree with Bob's review on Super 8 because I thought it was great).

OT:

I don't want to see this movie, but my seven year old nephew really wants to see it. Maybe I will enjoy making fun of how bad it is.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

P.S. Whats wrong with Bay's love of the military. Theres so many directors and hollywood folks that love to hate us and think that we are hired thugs (see most James Cameron films)
thats its kinda nice to see someone in hollywood who thinks we are something thats fun to make look good.

Actually, I think that James Cameron has gotten a bad rap for his depiction of military personnel in his films.

In Aliens, the Colonial Space Marines were pretty much the heroes of the movie. Especially Hicks played by Michael Biehn. Scared, out of their element, but in the end they succeed in defeating the alien threat. And nuking them from orbit

In The Abyss, 3 Navy SEALs go down to the underwater base and one of them (again Michael Biehn) goes insane because of pressure sickness. He isn't thinking rationally become paranoid and tries to nuke a perceived threat. One of the other SEALs helps defuse the nuke. The third just stands by. Overall I would say this is a neutral portrayl of the military. However, just to emphasize the point, the villian wasn't acting on orders from the Pentagon or anything, he just went crazy and acted on his own. While the focus of the film is anti-war, it is never anti-military.

In Avatar, the Corporation in charge of mining for Unobtainium has hired Ex-Military mercenaries to protect their base. These are not meant to be soldiers but private military contractors and mercenaries. Jake Sully is a former Marine as well. While there is a sense of Military vs Nature going on here. I will agree that this film does portray gung-ho military personnel as being evil, but again according to the movie they are just mercenaries. Of course the structure of the narrative for this forces the military to be the villian like the Union Army in Dances with Wolves or the new Imperial Japanese Army in The Last Samurai.

So overall, in the films that James Cameron has done that have had military personnel as a significant part of the plot, he is basically neutral on military matters when you look at these films. Of his other films, only True Lies has any military presence in it, and that is incredibly minor as the main characters are spies. Pirahna 2, Terminator, Terminator 2, and Titanic did not have any military presence.

On the other hand, Michael Bay's interest in the military is purely based on his love for the machines and not the people. All the characters in Michael Bay's films are broad stereotypes. The Rock gives some real character to military personnel, but other than Michael Beihn (again) and his SEAL team, the military characters in The Rock are all antagonists. Micheal Bay loves his explosions, cool hi-tech vehicles, helicopters at sunset, and even bigger explosions. The military is just a means to an end to accomplish his big explosion.

I really don't want to discuss Pearl Harbor because it lacks Bay's fetishitic approach to the modern military. However, it is the exception to Bay's fetishitic approach to the military. He has actual characters in this, but that was unavoidable because it's a dramatic love story.

So while Bay may generally show the military in a positive light, there are exceptions to that (The Rock), and the military in Bay's contemporary films are just a vehicle for producing explosions and action set pieces. He's not interested in the people, he just wants to make it look "cool". On the other hand, James Cameron has taken a fairly neutral appraoch to the military in his films. At least a balanced approach if you weigh the films based on who the villian is out of context.

I've got to disagree with you, although you present a well thought out argument. And thank you for not spitting vitriol or telling me how much of a dumbass I am or telling me i shouldnt vote or drive.

Now where I disagree.
Aliens: The Military is called out at the behest of the Company/Evil Corporation not at the behest of the govt essentially turning them into gun thugs for said company/evil corporation. In my opinion this is Camerons first real shot @ the military and him essentially saying that were all just gun toting thugs working for the corporate agenda and not the constitution.

Ill give you the abyss although the military is not wanted on the station because they are just gonna screw things up etc etc and they almost do.

Avatar: you made a pretty good point but bad corporation/evil military type guys/mercenaries.

Titanic: even though no real military folks here the law enforcement (ships master at arms) sides with the establishment/wealthy type. Money means bad and military/LE works for the bad.

Not sure if Dances and last samurai are cameron films but again a common theme is forming here.

As for Bay: in The rock the marines in it are all mostly gone from service with the exception of Ed Harris's charachter and they all scream out that they are mercenaries the minute they go against the govt and demand money for the hostages so that they get paid, along with the good thing that Harris is trying to do. Dont forget that the Marines (not mercenaries) Harris and his XO both do the right thing where as the money grubbers all just want to kill now indiscriminately. I think there is a very good distinction here that cameron always fails to make. Mike Bay, on the other hand, makes it very distinct and clear.

Just my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Umm... I hate to disagree with you again, but I think you're wrong on several points.

First, In Aliens it is made clear that while the Weiland-Yutani Corporation has requested help from the Colonial Marines, it is also made VERY clear that the Corporation is not in charge of mission. Although the Corporation is pulling the strings, Ripley and Hicks make it clear that the Marines have the final say in what happens. The Corporate goon played by Paul Reiser is not happy when they decide to nuke the sight from orbit. (It's the only way to be sure).

Second, In the Rock, it's another anti-establishment tail. The Military is wrong because they are denying benefits to the families of dead soldiers which is why Ed Harris's General goes rogue. ALso, the Marines that Harris brings along are still in the service, but they are generally more greedy than Harris is. Again, I would say that this is Bay's most balanced view of the military. It's not all flag waving. There is some nuance in the roles. Generally, you'd have to agree that this is a different view of the military than Bay's current belief.

You are right that Harris and his XO do the right thing, but they were the antagonists throughout the film. Harris plays a great character here, much better than just a normal bad guy. He's not a bond villian, just a man who's been wronged that we can sympathize with. The best kind of villian.

To clarify, I brought up Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai because they are the same type of story as Avatar. All of them based in part on the Pochantos story.

In the end, you have to agree that Cameron is not anti-military as you assert. And that Bay is generally very pro-military with some exceptions like the Rock.

Youre right about the rock however bay very plainly makes a distinction between soldier and mercenaries. more balanced view on the military than normal you bet. My problem with cameron is that he makes it appear whether through inference in the plot or through out right dialogue/plot devices that the military is just a bunch of hired guns. He never really makes the distinction between a soldier and a merc (BTW most professional military men hate the idea of guns for hire.)You are definitely right on one score though, It is the only way to be sure.

For what its worth, I don't think Cameron is anti-military, because if he was I doubt that his brother (a US Marine) would do him any favours. He probably just grabs whoever will make the most entertaining villain; so I'd accuse him of archetypal writing (and even as a fan of Avatar I will accuse him of that ) before any blatant anti-military feeling.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/01/marine_cameron_questions_011410/
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_goodyear#editorsnote

Some interesting notes on the man, and the top interview with the USMC Press was interesting. The guy isn't perfect, fuck he's as far removed from it as you can be really, but I'd rather live in a world with him and his films than without.

 

[Gyrefalcon]

Hey Bob,
Are there any movies on the horizon that don't have humans as the main character(s)? I agree that if you are going to a film to see giant robots, you want to see giant robots. But I would like to see anything that gets away from human convention (but not Cars 2, please). I think "9" might have been the last one to give it a go. So do you have any on the radar worth checking out?

 

[Jman1236]

The next time we see live-action transformers, it better be a live-action remake of Supergod Masterforce or at least have Pretenders/powermasters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8V0L7muWs4

Overall while I've seen better and I've seen worse, still much better than the second and just be thankful it's over.

 

[Madara XIII]

I considered Nimoy's contribution to be a plus for the movie, kinda like how taking Megan Fox out of the series is a plus.

DAAAAAAAAMN RIGHT!!

Nimoy Makes great villains.

Galvatron and Xeanhort for example

And replacing an Emotionally Devoid Bimbo (Megan Fox) with a slightly more interesting one?

Hell why not? I personally couldn't stand her as an actress

 

[Metalrocks]

my friend is a huge transformers fan. he has the whole collection of the anime series including the anime movie, so as toys and he is nearly 40 years old. he also loves bay's TF movies. really a lot. he cant understand why people hate these movies so much. he says in the anime you have humans too and explosions.

i like the life action movies but surely dont love them. sure i dont give a damn about the humans in it and surely dint miss megan fox in this film. all 3 have flaws but i still had a good time watching them.
bay is not the best director and yes, he does focus a lot on the military and explosions but at least it is a good thing to, that he has good connection with the military. in "bad boys 2" we had a real TNT unit and in "the rock" we had a real navy seal team. but yes, in a TF movie you do expect to see a bit more robots then humans. with this part i do agree.
im not saying other movies like "saving privat ryan" or "we were soldiers" are unbelievable or something. but they had some one from the military training the actors wile bay uses real soldiers who have already years of training and only few actors had some military training for the movie.

bob does hate bay and therefor went with a bad mood the the cinema. saying already the movie is crap.
i can also say that harry potter sucks just because its "harry potter". but i dont, because it is not my kind of film. i just dont like some kid running around with a stick.
so even when i watch it, i still will not review it as a crap movie. i still would say how the movie really is.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Oh. My. God. The Snob and Spoony collaborate on ripping this movie a new one. AWESOME.

http://spoonyexperiment.com/2011/07/03/spoony-and-brad-uncensored-on-transformers-3/

I love that video. Noah and Brad are my favorite online personalities. I love their vlogs too. Nothing better than listening to them pick apart a bad movie.

 

[Madara XIII]

Oh. My. God. The Snob and Spoony collaborate on ripping this movie a new one. AWESOME.

http://spoonyexperiment.com/2011/07/03/spoony-and-brad-uncensored-on-transformers-3/

HA! So not only am I not the only one who thinks that the original animated Transformers movie was better than Bay's movies, but Spoony and the Cinema Snob agree with me! Suck on that, Bayformers lovers!

Ok THIS is my problem. While I don't cherish the Bay Transformers as the best, I can at least say it's not the worst.
What I'm trying to say is this.

Apparently the people who DARE commit the horrible unforgivable sin that is probably worse than killing a child by actually LIKING a Micheal bay transformer film are the lowest of the low and all deserve to be called idiots and mocked for their differing interests am I right?

How about this? Instead of everyone bickering about like the XBOX and PS3 Fanboys we should appreciate all the different incarnations of Transformers and stop and remember not to take it to heart.
It's like if some D-bag went and declared that the Micheal Bay Transformers is the BEST EVER (God help that poor soul if he actually did).
We all have differing tastes.

For example;

I like Beast Wars more than the Original Transformers. Does that make my opinion any less valid on the subject of liking transformers than the person who cherishes the original?

I'll answer that. NO!
People need to stop and look at how stupid their reacting to a bad movie (Semi-Good in my opinion).
Had Bob just stopped and pointed out all of the flaws and shortcomings of this movie rather than go on some Self-Righteous, ego-maniacal rant about how anyone who likes this movie shouldn't vote or drive, then I would have let this go, because Bob had some valid points, but it's his condescending attitude along with so many others who fall in behind that sets me off.

I've Watched every incarnation of Transformers, and still found some Joy in this film....NOT THE SECOND THOUGH!!!

So, In Short, I'll let Noob Saibot take over..

 

[Madara XIII]

my friend is a huge transformers fan. he has the whole collection of the anime series including the anime movie, so as toys and he is nearly 40 years old. he also loves bay's TF movies. really a lot. he cant understand why people hate these movies so much. he says in the anime you have humans too and explosions.

i like the life action movies but surely dont love them. sure i dont give a damn about the humans in it and surely dint miss megan fox in this film. all 3 have flaws but i still had a good time watching them.
bay is not the best director and yes, he does focus a lot on the military and explosions but at least it is a good thing to, that he has good connection with the military. in "bad boys 2" we had a real TNT unit and in "the rock" we had a real navy seal team. but yes, in a TF movie you do expect to see a bit more robots then humans. with this part i do agree.
im not saying other movies like "saving privat ryan" or "we were soldiers" are unbelievable or something. but they had some one from the military training the actors wile bay uses real soldiers who have already years of training and only few actors had some military training for the movie.

bob does hate bay and therefor went with a bad mood the the cinema. saying already the movie is crap.
i can also say that harry potter sucks just because its "harry potter". but i dont, because it is not my kind of film. i just dont like some kid running around with a stick.
so even when i watch it, i still will not review it as a crap movie. i still would say how the movie really is.

Your post brings some sense to the world and this thread and makes me happy....

What do you think, Noob!?

 

[Metalrocks]

Your post brings some sense to the world and this thread and makes me happy....

What do you think, Noob!?

lol, here, your hug.
HUG

you also made sense with your other comment. every one has different tastes. pretty much like with different racial people and cultures. either you like it or not. but doesnt mean you have to bash it just because its not to your liking.

 

[FlitterFilms]

Wow, hell of a lot comments on this one but not very surprising at all. I've only seen the 1st movie and was so bored I nearly walked out, thus have not seen the others and cannot directly comment on them. However, I agree entirely with Bob in his outrage that crap like this makes money.

People are not stupid for liking these movies, people are stupid for making these movies massive successes. These are movies that deserve borrowing from a friend or catching in the discount bin and being watched with at least one beer inside you, they do not deserve record breaking opening weekends. The problem is the hundreds of movies that Transformers does not deserve to have made more money than and the success that Michael Bay, who doesn't have an ounce of talent in his entire body, is stealing from his betters.

It's not the worst movie ever made but it could be the worst successful movie ever made.

 

[Little Duck]

My main issue with this film was me asking why is this happening?

Why did optimus have uber respect for a man who flew to a moon from a different planet to his own? The human race I can understand, but Optimus has flown from a different planet and star system altogether.

Where are the transformers? No really. Where the fuck are they? They ain't even there for 90% of the film.

Why is this British chick being eye humped every time we see her? I'm British before you ask and it is equally as stupid. She's not even got Megan Foxes character where she was a mechanic. That kind of made sense. And why is she running round in heels (watch her) and dryhumping humping Lebouf's character every 12 seconds in the last few scenes?

Why couldn't optimus just shoot the fucking tower in the first place? Was it really that hard?

Why are America and Russia the only 2 countries in this film? (Britain apparently is back to being America's newest state).

Most importantly however, why isn't this film called the US military vs some alien robots or some such shit instead of transformers?

 

[beniki]

Movie 1: Everyone complains about too much human, not enough robots. Allowances given for some nice action at the end. Final fight is a bit of a let down.

Movie 2: Everyone complains about too much human, not enough robots. Allowances given for some nice action at the end. Final fight is a bit of a let down.

Movie 3: Everyone complains about too much hu...

You know what? I'm tired of it too.

I honestly don't understand it. Surely it takes more effort to merge a plot about a guy finding a job with big stompy robots? Why bother when it's not even what people like about the movie?

Hell, even keep the military bits. Would be nice to see the robots bonding in manly ways with a bunch of squaddies.

 

[VanityGirl]

Ok I watched it (without having to pay, thank goodness).

Overall, meh. Really, it's not something I'd want to pay for because I started to get fidgety during the first 90 minutes. The battles and CGI was really welll done, but the build up to the action was not.
How often must we see Sam's problems rehashed over and over? I don't even mind seeing the humans some, but when I think, "Ooooo a Transformers movie" I don't think "Yay, now I can go see a hour and a half story about a kid getting a crap job dating a girl who is way to hot to be with him!"

If we were to look at it this way, the first half of the movie could have been a movie of its on. A kid, just out of school, trying to find himself in the crazy world while simultaneously trying to impress and keep his overtly hot girlfriend and keep her from falling for the handsome and rich bad guy.

^That could be its own film.

Now, the second half of the movie: S. Prime is bad now, he's doing bad stuff, here comes O. Prime to save the day.

*shrug*

It's just "meh" to me. If you want me to make a full write up, just ask.

 

[Wulfclaw]

I liked the movie. Guess that makes me a retard. Ah well.

I felt the human and robot-scenes were well belanced and I silently cheered for the humans as they helped the Autobots. I mean, the humans would never be able to defend against the Decepticons on their own and I think that is made very clear in the movie - They help and it's cool to see that the movie-humans CAN help and not rely completely on the Spacerobots.

I think:
- if you hate the new Transformers design and/or Micheal Bay, you shouldn't see the movie.
- If you want to be entertained and are not biased - go watch it. It's definatly a fun ride and worth the time and money!

P.S.: The aforementioned "fistfight" between shia and the bad guy is how many seconds? In the End the thing is destroyed by Autobots. The Outcome of the fistfight alone did not help the humans.

P.P.S.: You really should try it in your every day life: Take "something" you don't like and call every one who perhaps has no quarrel with the "something" an idiot or dumb. Hijinks ensure!

Edit: Ah well, since Bob has really gone downhill (compare earlier Reviews with newer ones) and seems as no more then a hate spitter to date, it's two more shows I don't watch here anymore. I mean I come to the escapist to be entertained after a days work, I don't _need_ hatemongers or to be insulted per se...

 

[Valkyr71]

P.S. Whats wrong with Bay's love of the military. Theres so many directors and hollywood folks that love to hate us and think that we are hired thugs (see most James Cameron films)
thats its kinda nice to see someone in hollywood who thinks we are something thats fun to make look good.

Actually, I think that James Cameron has gotten a bad rap for his depiction of military personnel in his films.

In Aliens, the Colonial Space Marines were pretty much the heroes of the movie. Especially Hicks played by Michael Biehn. Scared, out of their element, but in the end they succeed in defeating the alien threat. And nuking them from orbit

In The Abyss, 3 Navy SEALs go down to the underwater base and one of them (again Michael Biehn) goes insane because of pressure sickness. He isn't thinking rationally become paranoid and tries to nuke a perceived threat. One of the other SEALs helps defuse the nuke. The third just stands by. Overall I would say this is a neutral portrayl of the military. However, just to emphasize the point, the villian wasn't acting on orders from the Pentagon or anything, he just went crazy and acted on his own. While the focus of the film is anti-war, it is never anti-military.

In Avatar, the Corporation in charge of mining for Unobtainium has hired Ex-Military mercenaries to protect their base. These are not meant to be soldiers but private military contractors and mercenaries. Jake Sully is a former Marine as well. While there is a sense of Military vs Nature going on here. I will agree that this film does portray gung-ho military personnel as being evil, but again according to the movie they are just mercenaries. Of course the structure of the narrative for this forces the military to be the villian like the Union Army in Dances with Wolves or the new Imperial Japanese Army in The Last Samurai.

So overall, in the films that James Cameron has done that have had military personnel as a significant part of the plot, he is basically neutral on military matters when you look at these films. Of his other films, only True Lies has any military presence in it, and that is incredibly minor as the main characters are spies. Pirahna 2, Terminator, Terminator 2, and Titanic did not have any military presence.

On the other hand, Michael Bay's interest in the military is purely based on his love for the machines and not the people. All the characters in Michael Bay's films are broad stereotypes. The Rock gives some real character to military personnel, but other than Michael Beihn (again) and his SEAL team, the military characters in The Rock are all antagonists. Micheal Bay loves his explosions, cool hi-tech vehicles, helicopters at sunset, and even bigger explosions. The military is just a means to an end to accomplish his big explosion.

I really don't want to discuss Pearl Harbor because it lacks Bay's fetishitic approach to the modern military. However, it is the exception to Bay's fetishitic approach to the military. He has actual characters in this, but that was unavoidable because it's a dramatic love story.

So while Bay may generally show the military in a positive light, there are exceptions to that (The Rock), and the military in Bay's contemporary films are just a vehicle for producing explosions and action set pieces. He's not interested in the people, he just wants to make it look "cool". On the other hand, James Cameron has taken a fairly neutral appraoch to the military in his films. At least a balanced approach if you weigh the films based on who the villian is out of context.

I've got to disagree with you, although you present a well thought out argument. And thank you for not spitting vitriol or telling me how much of a dumbass I am or telling me i shouldnt vote or drive.

Now where I disagree.
Aliens: The Military is called out at the behest of the Company/Evil Corporation not at the behest of the govt essentially turning them into gun thugs for said company/evil corporation. In my opinion this is Camerons first real shot @ the military and him essentially saying that were all just gun toting thugs working for the corporate agenda and not the constitution.

Ill give you the abyss although the military is not wanted on the station because they are just gonna screw things up etc etc and they almost do.

Avatar: you made a pretty good point but bad corporation/evil military type guys/mercenaries.

Titanic: even though no real military folks here the law enforcement (ships master at arms) sides with the establishment/wealthy type. Money means bad and military/LE works for the bad.

Not sure if Dances and last samurai are cameron films but again a common theme is forming here.

As for Bay: in The rock the marines in it are all mostly gone from service with the exception of Ed Harris's charachter and they all scream out that they are mercenaries the minute they go against the govt and demand money for the hostages so that they get paid, along with the good thing that Harris is trying to do. Dont forget that the Marines (not mercenaries) Harris and his XO both do the right thing where as the money grubbers all just want to kill now indiscriminately. I think there is a very good distinction here that cameron always fails to make. Mike Bay, on the other hand, makes it very distinct and clear.

Just my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Umm... I hate to disagree with you again, but I think you're wrong on several points.

First, In Aliens it is made clear that while the Weiland-Yutani Corporation has requested help from the Colonial Marines, it is also made VERY clear that the Corporation is not in charge of mission. Although the Corporation is pulling the strings, Ripley and Hicks make it clear that the Marines have the final say in what happens. The Corporate goon played by Paul Reiser is not happy when they decide to nuke the sight from orbit. (It's the only way to be sure).

Second, In the Rock, it's another anti-establishment tail. The Military is wrong because they are denying benefits to the families of dead soldiers which is why Ed Harris's General goes rogue. ALso, the Marines that Harris brings along are still in the service, but they are generally more greedy than Harris is. Again, I would say that this is Bay's most balanced view of the military. It's not all flag waving. There is some nuance in the roles. Generally, you'd have to agree that this is a different view of the military than Bay's current belief.

You are right that Harris and his XO do the right thing, but they were the antagonists throughout the film. Harris plays a great character here, much better than just a normal bad guy. He's not a bond villian, just a man who's been wronged that we can sympathize with. The best kind of villian.

To clarify, I brought up Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai because they are the same type of story as Avatar. All of them based in part on the Pochantos story.

In the end, you have to agree that Cameron is not anti-military as you assert. And that Bay is generally very pro-military with some exceptions like the Rock.

Youre right about the rock however bay very plainly makes a distinction between soldier and mercenaries. more balanced view on the military than normal you bet. My problem with cameron is that he makes it appear whether through inference in the plot or through out right dialogue/plot devices that the military is just a bunch of hired guns. He never really makes the distinction between a soldier and a merc (BTW most professional military men hate the idea of guns for hire.)You are definitely right on one score though, It is the only way to be sure.

For what its worth, I don't think Cameron is anti-military, because if he was I doubt that his brother (a US Marine) would do him any favours. He probably just grabs whoever will make the most entertaining villain; so I'd accuse him of archetypal writing (and even as a fan of Avatar I will accuse him of that ) before any blatant anti-military feeling.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/01/marine_cameron_questions_011410/
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_goodyear#editorsnote

Some interesting notes on the man, and the top interview with the USMC Press was interesting. The guy isn't perfect, fuck he's as far removed from it as you can be really, but I'd rather live in a world with him and his films than without.

Im not saying the mans films are bad. I just think they all have a common theme in them. His Charachters are always well developed if not predictable, his mastery of cinematography s brilliant. I just find he tells the same base story and fails to distinguish the good in the military from the bad and portrays the estabishment always in a bad light. I always find his films entertaining

 

[Tturbo]

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6552528/every-michael-bay-movie-in-under-a-minute

College Humor summarizes Michael Bay... It sticks with Movie Bob's usual comments on him

 

[RDubayoo]

*snip*

Apparently the people who DARE commit the horrible unforgivable sin that is probably worse than killing a child by actually LIKING a Micheal bay transformer film are the lowest of the low and all deserve to be called idiots and mocked for their differing interests am I right?

That's not what I'm saying, anyway. I was lording Spoony and the Cinema Snob's reaction to the movie over an earlier remark someone made which was basically, "Unnff, you think that animated movie is better than Michael Bay's films? How droll." But that's exactly how two well-established (on the Interwebz, at least) critics feel, and I'd like to think they have a firm handle on what makes a movie good or bad.

Why are we reacting to this movie so badly? Well, that's been established already, hasn't it? Over an hour and a half of pointless nonsense preceding a big robot fight where we don't even know who most of the robots are because they aren't developed and they look too similar to each other anyway. What, we should praise a movie like that? The hell we should. Let me make the problem with Bayformers more clear if you don't get it: You can learn more about the different Transformers on the little blurbs describing them on their packaging than you can in the movie!

Nor is it really a matter of fanboys getting irrationally getting mad over the "new" Transformers. I don't care if you like Beast Wars TF's. They were actually pretty cool. But again, they had a compelling story arc and some very interesting characters, and with maybe one or two exceptions, that show never resorted to Bay-levels of retardation. No, it is specifically how this movie was done that enrages people!

I'll end with this: If we DON'T lash out at this movie for being so awful, then Hollywood's going to keep thinking it's doing something right and make more movies just like it. We have a right to demand quality in our films and not just roll over for garbage in the name of, hell, I don't know, togetherness or something? What was your point again?

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

I'll end with this: If we DON'T lash out at this movie for being so awful, then Hollywood's going to keep thinking it's doing something right and make more movies just like it. We have a right to demand quality in our films and not just roll over for garbage in the name of, hell, I don't know, togetherness or something? What was your point again?

There was no point, it was just some guy trying to convince himself that he didn't waste both limited time and money by watching something made by a hack.