Escape to the Movies: Transformers Revenge
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
[rant=]
I guess I don't fall into the norm because I liked the first movie. It was a little heavy on the romance story, but I dealt with it. But for all its faults, the robots looked good, the story was well paced, and the combat felt viceral and real. It was a truely awesome movie. That being said, I think ROTF was the biggest letdown of my life to date. The story(the meager scrapings of plot they managed to sweep up off the floor) felt shallow and rushed. The movie spent the entire time jumping from scene to scene to scene to scene without giving you time to really absorb what was going on, more like EXPLOSION and moving on, to you left we have a robot assault, and now we have the romance story. Please try to keep up. Those who fall behind are left behind. Then there were the twins. Yes, in a movie where the robots are already second class actors, you had to make their most prominent characters in the movie a couple of little ebonics-speaking, racially stereotyped black bots. And I'm not even sure who to blame for this one. It could be that a whole bunch of people got mad when the only black bot died in the first movie(Jazz, in case anyone didn't remember that), and someone demanded more racial sensitivity in the movie. Then again, maybe someone just thought they were cute without even thinking about the end result(Jar Jar Binks, anyone?). And for the defense of "It's a kids movie, and you're reading too much into it", it IS a kids movie, but this is a day and age where we expect more responsibility from Hollywood, part of that being we demand good movies with solid actors and storylines, and we expect them to stand up for their own convictions instead of bending over backwards for people. Clearly, Bay had someone whispering in his ear while he was making this movie, but who was it? Was it the fans, who wanted to see more of the metalic childhood brought to the big screen in all their cybertronian glory, or was it someone else sitting in the background holding a lawsuit over his head for his choices in the first movie?
[/rant]
I guess I don't fall into the norm because I liked the first movie. It was a little heavy on the romance story, but I dealt with it. But for all its faults, the robots looked good, the story was well paced, and the combat felt viceral and real. It was a truely awesome movie. That being said, I think ROTF was the biggest letdown of my life to date. The story(the meager scrapings of plot they managed to sweep up off the floor) felt shallow and rushed. The movie spent the entire time jumping from scene to scene to scene to scene without giving you time to really absorb what was going on, more like EXPLOSION and moving on, to you left we have a robot assault, and now we have the romance story. Please try to keep up. Those who fall behind are left behind. Then there were the twins. Yes, in a movie where the robots are already second class actors, you had to make their most prominent characters in the movie a couple of little ebonics-speaking, racially stereotyped black bots. And I'm not even sure who to blame for this one. It could be that a whole bunch of people got mad when the only black bot died in the first movie(Jazz, in case anyone didn't remember that), and someone demanded more racial sensitivity in the movie. Then again, maybe someone just thought they were cute without even thinking about the end result(Jar Jar Binks, anyone?). And for the defense of "It's a kids movie, and you're reading too much into it", it IS a kids movie, but this is a day and age where we expect more responsibility from Hollywood, part of that being we demand good movies with solid actors and storylines, and we expect them to stand up for their own convictions instead of bending over backwards for people. Clearly, Bay had someone whispering in his ear while he was making this movie, but who was it? Was it the fans, who wanted to see more of the metalic childhood brought to the big screen in all their cybertronian glory, or was it someone else sitting in the background holding a lawsuit over his head for his choices in the first movie?
[/rant]
Wow, 12 pages and over 400 comments later, Michael Bay finally makes an appearance.bandits ace said:
You're not fooling anyone with that moniker Michael, though it is rather fitting.
It's just a shame you couldn't put as much thought and imagination into your films as you did with that pseudonym and stellar first post.
Welcome to the Escapist.
P.S. If a script for a Thundercats film ends up in your possession, don't read it, just walk away. Seriously don't even think about raping that franchise, just leave it alone and go and film some more tanks or something.
Agreed. And same thing goes for Voltron. NOBODY better make an attempt this half-assed at making the most awesome senshi show ever (except MAYBE the original MMPR) into a movie.Jamash said:
All my friends keep telling me how awesome this movie is... and then i watch and read reviews saying its just shit.
Maybe i should shut up, be a normal teenager and just enjoy the fucking movies.
Maybe i should shut up, be a normal teenager and just enjoy the fucking movies.
The director of Equilibrium (I like it, damn it) has an interesting take on the idea of final battles. We all know who is going to win, so why not cut to the chase. It?s refreshing and different to the usual epic battle at the end of the film when we know what?s going to happen.Natsu_Blaze said:
Before I mention whether or not I liked this movie or find this review helpful/valid/entertaining, let me give a brief introduction.
One of the most interesting concepts created by man would have to be the "review." I say this primarily because it is an attempt to standardize (or even quantify) qualitative realities. This proves to be....difficult, to say the least.
The difficulty rises in the fact that it requires the "reviewer" in this case, Movie Bob, to hold a movie to a set of standards; these standards ultimately derived from the good/bad aspects of movies previously reviewed. That in itself seems simple and fair enough, but then you have to consider where those movies got their standard of review from. The immediate answer is those movies that came before them and their previous reviews, but then as some of the more perceptive people have already ascertained, we arrive at a problem. Where did the original movie get it's standard of review from? I suppose you could argue that it got it's standard from the another entertainment source, radio or more likely literature. Naturally, you could trace their standards of quality back to their source and arrive at a similar impass.
So then, what can we conclude about the origin of entertainment standards? The answer: they were created arbitrarily based on the opinions of society at the time, and have evolved based on subsequent shifts in opinions throughout the ages.
Admitedly, this conclusion seems like it's completely obvious even before careful scrutiny, but I think it's important to be thorough.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make here, is that the very concept of a review is bases almost exclusively on opinions/bias and the only time quantitative facts make an appearance is so the author can manipulate them in his or her favor. The inherent problem here is that the concept of a review is more or less consigning the judgment of a film to a single person's perceptions. Granted, reviewers/critics of anything are usually considered to be experts in whatever the field of review is, but in the case of movies, what exactly are the criteria for deeming one an expert? I guess you could say they advantages in movies seen or observational skills in terms of the actual viewing, but if that's the case, than almost anyone can achieve mastery in the field. What it really breaks down to, is whether or not you are willing to trust the reviewers judgment of a movie and make a decision based off of their perceptions. Personally, I think the idea of that is completely asinine.
A truely fair and empirical way to judge a movie would probably to find out how many people, with a wide range of opinions and perceptions, actually enjoyed the movie. I don't think it would be far to judge a movie based off how much money in grossed, since people obviously pay prior to viewing it, therefore those figures really only tell you how many people were interested in seeing it.
In conclusion, I think reviewers can really only achieve their full potential and do the most service to the people, by divorcing their opinions as much as humanly possible from their reviews.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention whether or not I even liked the movie. Well, I suppose I could tell you, but that would imply that I assumed you actually cared about my opinion and I'm simply not arrogant enough to assume you, complete strangers, would. If anyone asks, I would be more than happy to tell him or her what I thought, but until then, I am quite intent to enjoy the fireworks as people continue to needlessly debate the merits of their own opinions.
One of the most interesting concepts created by man would have to be the "review." I say this primarily because it is an attempt to standardize (or even quantify) qualitative realities. This proves to be....difficult, to say the least.
The difficulty rises in the fact that it requires the "reviewer" in this case, Movie Bob, to hold a movie to a set of standards; these standards ultimately derived from the good/bad aspects of movies previously reviewed. That in itself seems simple and fair enough, but then you have to consider where those movies got their standard of review from. The immediate answer is those movies that came before them and their previous reviews, but then as some of the more perceptive people have already ascertained, we arrive at a problem. Where did the original movie get it's standard of review from? I suppose you could argue that it got it's standard from the another entertainment source, radio or more likely literature. Naturally, you could trace their standards of quality back to their source and arrive at a similar impass.
So then, what can we conclude about the origin of entertainment standards? The answer: they were created arbitrarily based on the opinions of society at the time, and have evolved based on subsequent shifts in opinions throughout the ages.
Admitedly, this conclusion seems like it's completely obvious even before careful scrutiny, but I think it's important to be thorough.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make here, is that the very concept of a review is bases almost exclusively on opinions/bias and the only time quantitative facts make an appearance is so the author can manipulate them in his or her favor. The inherent problem here is that the concept of a review is more or less consigning the judgment of a film to a single person's perceptions. Granted, reviewers/critics of anything are usually considered to be experts in whatever the field of review is, but in the case of movies, what exactly are the criteria for deeming one an expert? I guess you could say they advantages in movies seen or observational skills in terms of the actual viewing, but if that's the case, than almost anyone can achieve mastery in the field. What it really breaks down to, is whether or not you are willing to trust the reviewers judgment of a movie and make a decision based off of their perceptions. Personally, I think the idea of that is completely asinine.
A truely fair and empirical way to judge a movie would probably to find out how many people, with a wide range of opinions and perceptions, actually enjoyed the movie. I don't think it would be far to judge a movie based off how much money in grossed, since people obviously pay prior to viewing it, therefore those figures really only tell you how many people were interested in seeing it.
In conclusion, I think reviewers can really only achieve their full potential and do the most service to the people, by divorcing their opinions as much as humanly possible from their reviews.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention whether or not I even liked the movie. Well, I suppose I could tell you, but that would imply that I assumed you actually cared about my opinion and I'm simply not arrogant enough to assume you, complete strangers, would. If anyone asks, I would be more than happy to tell him or her what I thought, but until then, I am quite intent to enjoy the fireworks as people continue to needlessly debate the merits of their own opinions.
I haven't seen and don't intend to see this film, but, in my opinion, everything MovieBob said about this Transformers movie could be easily applied to the first movie (with some of my own additions.)
One thing I'd like to know is if THIS Transformers movie actually picks a freaking movie genre and sticks with it. The last film was all over the place. One minute it was a horror movie with robo-Jar-Jar trying to kill Shia (and sadly failing), the next minute we were watching a crappy "24" ripoff plot with military guys and Aussie hackers, the next minute stupid kids are making out on the hood of a Transfomers (okay, I don't think one actually happened, but it was a near thing)... It just went on and on like that. It's like the writer(s) couldn't decide on a tone or direction for the movie, and just threw a bunch of random stuff onscreen figuring that our pathetic attention spans would fail to pick up on the lack of any real progression or scene-to-scene consistency.
I don't think ANYONE deserves a "free ride" when it comes to their movies. All movies should be judged on their own by the same standards as any other film. Michael Bay hasn't earned the right to get less harsh reviews just because we expect brainless crap from him. No, he should face the same reviewing criteria as a Martin Scorcese or David Fincher.
One thing I'd like to know is if THIS Transformers movie actually picks a freaking movie genre and sticks with it. The last film was all over the place. One minute it was a horror movie with robo-Jar-Jar trying to kill Shia (and sadly failing), the next minute we were watching a crappy "24" ripoff plot with military guys and Aussie hackers, the next minute stupid kids are making out on the hood of a Transfomers (okay, I don't think one actually happened, but it was a near thing)... It just went on and on like that. It's like the writer(s) couldn't decide on a tone or direction for the movie, and just threw a bunch of random stuff onscreen figuring that our pathetic attention spans would fail to pick up on the lack of any real progression or scene-to-scene consistency.
I don't think ANYONE deserves a "free ride" when it comes to their movies. All movies should be judged on their own by the same standards as any other film. Michael Bay hasn't earned the right to get less harsh reviews just because we expect brainless crap from him. No, he should face the same reviewing criteria as a Martin Scorcese or David Fincher.
I haven't seen the movie because of how much the first one disappointed me, but let me try to explain why the actual fans of transformers feel ripped off.
A few years back the Transformers fans got some major love with the release of the new comic line (which was quality and classic style i might add), the masterpiece line (again, pure quality) and hasbro actually started doing its own classics line. (quality for hasbro i guess..) It was shortly after this that we were informed that someone would be doing a transformers movie!! i didn't know who the director was going to be nor did i care, as long as it was done right. Unfortunately, all the great things happening to the series seemed to have attracted people that only wanted to make money off of its newfound revitalization without bothering to actually learn anything about what the fans actually liked about it. From the looks of it, they skimmed over the top to get the bare minimum for it to be called a transformers movie and then started making crap up. the end result was alright if you didn't know what was supposed to be happening, but for those of us that had actually anticipated the movie it was just pure fail.
oh, and now hasbro can't seem to sell any of its ugly movie toys other than bumblebee because it was apparently the old guys like me buying em in the first place. oh well, the masterpiece series still gets it.
all that said though, i heard they used the actual soundwave voice actor, and i have to give em credit for that (cause really, a satellite is the only thing he could have been these days)
A few years back the Transformers fans got some major love with the release of the new comic line (which was quality and classic style i might add), the masterpiece line (again, pure quality) and hasbro actually started doing its own classics line. (quality for hasbro i guess..) It was shortly after this that we were informed that someone would be doing a transformers movie!! i didn't know who the director was going to be nor did i care, as long as it was done right. Unfortunately, all the great things happening to the series seemed to have attracted people that only wanted to make money off of its newfound revitalization without bothering to actually learn anything about what the fans actually liked about it. From the looks of it, they skimmed over the top to get the bare minimum for it to be called a transformers movie and then started making crap up. the end result was alright if you didn't know what was supposed to be happening, but for those of us that had actually anticipated the movie it was just pure fail.
oh, and now hasbro can't seem to sell any of its ugly movie toys other than bumblebee because it was apparently the old guys like me buying em in the first place. oh well, the masterpiece series still gets it.
all that said though, i heard they used the actual soundwave voice actor, and i have to give em credit for that (cause really, a satellite is the only thing he could have been these days)
Actually m8 if you read very carefully (which i assume you can do), at no point did i say i agreed or disagreed with MovieBob about the new transformers movie. I havent actually seen it yet, so i could still like or dislike it. I was just pointing out a general theme i've noticed in MovieBob's reviews, and that a transformers movie shouldn't be partially judged on whether Soundwave got a big enought part in it, etc.CAPPINJACK said:
Everytime I see someone trying to defend this movie, I imagine them with their 2 arms up and shouting: Mediocrity rule!
The first Transformers film was horrid. So the sequel with the same actors, same budget, same studio, same crew, same director was equally horrible?
What a surprise.
What a surprise.
This is a baaaaad movie. There are a whole lot of 13-17 year-olds who are going to watch this movie, love it, then watch it again in 5 years and wonder what the hell they were thinking. (I had the same experience with Godzilla '98)
The movie is just awkward. From the inappropriateness of the monkey-looking black robots to the leg-humping robot, to the close up of the guy's ass in a jockstrap. It is squirm-inducingly awkward.
To those who watched it: What's the plot? Yeah, didn't jump out at you, did it?
The movie is just awkward. From the inappropriateness of the monkey-looking black robots to the leg-humping robot, to the close up of the guy's ass in a jockstrap. It is squirm-inducingly awkward.
To those who watched it: What's the plot? Yeah, didn't jump out at you, did it?