Old Nightmares

[EmperorZoltan]

Sorry just re-edited post due to some incomprehensible comments I made while rushing, should make a little more sense now.

That's half the response I was looking for, which tbh is half more than I was expecting I'm yet to have a conversation with a self described movie buff that doesn't think they can do the job better. Since of the above you seem the most passionate about transformers, what exactly would you have done differently? If you had the biggest chair in an action film production, how would you run that show?

Oh and I'll give you the twins. If nothing else I know when to concede a point, and those two... wow, just wow.

 

[Preston_r]

I'm not going to say a lot about Mr. Bay. However...

When me and my friends were first discussing Mr. Bay's involvement with the new Nightmare film we made a very simple observation. None of us remembered Freddy doing a lot of exploding, or having a lot of explosions, during the series. We were confused at how Mr. Bay could make that work.

Now, as far as Transformers goes...

The first one was decent. It was an origin story, and as such needed a vehicle by which to introduce the Heroes and the Villians. Shia LeBouf was that vehicle. He served a necessary purpose in the story, and that was ok. It wasn't a completely horrible film.

Transformers 2 on the other hand...You know, I haven't left a theater that disgusted over a waste of time since the first Hulk movie. You know the one. The one where they take everything noble, heroic, and tragic about Bruce Banner, bend it over the fence, and do things better left unsaid. The one where Banner was as likable as a rock, and the villain was his mad scientist father.

Lets go over the issues here:

1: Focus on the Humans. This is the second movie. We have been introduced to the characters, what should be the main characters in a movie about Giant Robots Who Shoot Each Other With Laser Guns: The ****ing giant robots. Instead, we waste most of the movie following around the humans. To me its like if they made a Thundercat's movie and half the movie was spent following Schnarf around as he rooted for grubs or whatever the heck he does when he's not sucking up to Lion-O. Or a He-Man movie where instead of watching He-Man kick Skeletor's butt we instead get to find out about the private and tragic story or Orko's love life for most of the film.

2: The Twins. Oh god, the Twins. If they had been a one off joke, a throwaway to the main action, that would have been fine. Put them on screen, show that the giant robots have their morons too, and then put them back in the box. But no. Because The Twins were palling around with Shia "Nononononono" Lebouff, we instead get to be subjected to their idiocy throughout a good deal of the movie. They are also part of a larger problem in this movie - Bad Humor. Not wittiness, not sly one liners by the hero as he spars with the villain. Slapstick stupidity in a movie that at other times takes itself way to seriously.

3: The Action. I have a hard time caring about who's fighting when I can't tell who the **** is actually fighting. Is that the good guy robot winning? Or is the bad guy stomping the good guys butt? There was literally a point in the film where I was watching it and had no investment in the action at all because I didn't know who was fighting. I didn't care. Didn't know who any of the transformers were (look, that gray robot is fighting that other gray robot! ... yay?). To compare to other films you can usually at least tell who the bad guys are and who the good guys are. In Terminator Salvation you know the robots are all bad. So when they're killing humans you know who to root for. In most action movies you know who the good guy is and who the bad guy is, even if its just by uniform "Look, those rebels are shooting lasers at the storm troopers!" Or, barring that, you can tell because instead of focusing on no-name grunts the camera is focused on the face and body of the main players - the Hero and the Villain as they stalk towards each other for the Final Showdown.

So, with T2:RotF(lcopter) you have a movie that focuses on the wrong characters (imho), with too many grating annoying bit players, too much bad slapstick (for a movie that tries to be vry srs in other areas), with action that is incomprehensible, badly choreographed, by people/robots that I never have the chance to get emotionally invested in.

So, thank you Mr. Bay? o.o;

 

[weirdaljedifan2]

So I hereby present to you, Mr. Bob, this challenge: Break down EXACTLY what is so wrong with Michael Bay, going through his career step by step, tell us what you'd do differently if you were in the directors seat of any of his movies, and once and for all prove you just dont have a secret crush. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Works for me...

Bad Boys: I like this one. Bay's late-90s MTV visual sensibility works for making what's basically a generic buddy-cop story diverting enough (he's already doing the "always move the camera" bit, but subtley), but basically Will Smith (at that point in his career) and Martin Lawrence have a good chemistry; and it was fun to watch what were then a pair of TV sitcom stars acting like macho action heroes.

The Rock: There's about a half-hour of good movie here... unfortunately it's scattered in bits throughout a Die Hard wannabe. It overuses the "old man who kicks your ass" thing with Connery, and it doesn't do the "hey, let's put weirdo Nic Cage in an action movie!" gag as well as Con Air did. He hadn't started over-editing yet, but in the hand-to-hand fight scenes you can already see that Bay has next to no sense of scene geography. It's a C+ movie.

Armageddon: This movie sucks. There's no longer way to say it. A cast of solid character actors is wasted, the romance story is terrible (animal cracker sex!!??) And once they get to space it's IMPOSSIBLE to tell what's going on at any given moment. Again, a total lack of action-geography: Where are things coming from? Where are they going to? These guys are standing around - on an INCREDIBLY fake-looking asteroid set - and the camera is bouncing around like crazy trying to make it look like something is happening.

Bad Boys 2: AWFUL movie... but I like it for it's awfulness. Bad dialogue, cheezy music, idiotic action scenes, mildly racist, one cliche after another, it's like a SPOOF of bad action movies, except it doesn't know it's funny... which somehow makes it funnier. "THEY'S THROWIN' DEAD PEOPLE AT US!!!!!"

The Island: All the same directing/cinematography problems as the other movies, but starts with a good story idea... that it totally abandons after about a half-hour so it can become a generic chase movie that thinks it has some profound B.S. to say about about the eeeeeevils of science. Criminal waste of Djimon Honsou.

Transformers: Story makes no sense. Action scenes incomprehensible. Completely misunderstands point of franchise. Awful comedy. Awful drama. Megan Fox cannot act. Badly designed mecha. Too much emphasis on uninteresting humans. Shamelessly steals from Men in Black and ID4. There is not a single good thing in this movie.

Transformers 2: See above, plus this one also has The Twins. Oh god, The Twins.

I think you forgot Pearl Harbor, could you teach me how to do that?

 

[Rigs83]

There was also a comic book spin-off called "Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash" which had Ash from Evil Dead fighting both baddies.
[img=http://superherouniverse.com/art/data/500/freddy_jason_ash_1_cvr.jpg]http://superherouniverse.com/art/data/500/freddy_jason_ash_1_cvr.jpg[/img]

 

[Rigs83]

So I hereby present to you, Mr. Bob, this challenge: Break down EXACTLY what is so wrong with Michael Bay, going through his career step by step, tell us what you'd do differently if you were in the directors seat of any of his movies, and once and for all prove you just dont have a secret crush. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Works for me...

Bad Boys: I like this one. Bay's late-90s MTV visual sensibility works for making what's basically a generic buddy-cop story diverting enough (he's already doing the "always move the camera" bit, but subtley), but basically Will Smith (at that point in his career) and Martin Lawrence have a good chemistry; and it was fun to watch what were then a pair of TV sitcom stars acting like macho action heroes.

The Rock: There's about a half-hour of good movie here... unfortunately it's scattered in bits throughout a Die Hard wannabe. It overuses the "old man who kicks your ass" thing with Connery, and it doesn't do the "hey, let's put weirdo Nic Cage in an action movie!" gag as well as Con Air did. He hadn't started over-editing yet, but in the hand-to-hand fight scenes you can already see that Bay has next to no sense of scene geography. It's a C+ movie.

Armageddon: This movie sucks. There's no longer way to say it. A cast of solid character actors is wasted, the romance story is terrible (animal cracker sex!!??) And once they get to space it's IMPOSSIBLE to tell what's going on at any given moment. Again, a total lack of action-geography: Where are things coming from? Where are they going to? These guys are standing around - on an INCREDIBLY fake-looking asteroid set - and the camera is bouncing around like crazy trying to make it look like something is happening.

Bad Boys 2: AWFUL movie... but I like it for it's awfulness. Bad dialogue, cheezy music, idiotic action scenes, mildly racist, one cliche after another, it's like a SPOOF of bad action movies, except it doesn't know it's funny... which somehow makes it funnier. "THEY'S THROWIN' DEAD PEOPLE AT US!!!!!"

The Island: All the same directing/cinematography problems as the other movies, but starts with a good story idea... that it totally abandons after about a half-hour so it can become a generic chase movie that thinks it has some profound B.S. to say about about the eeeeeevils of science. Criminal waste of Djimon Honsou.

Transformers: Story makes no sense. Action scenes incomprehensible. Completely misunderstands point of franchise. Awful comedy. Awful drama. Megan Fox cannot act. Badly designed mecha. Too much emphasis on uninteresting humans. Shamelessly steals from Men in Black and ID4. There is not a single good thing in this movie.

Transformers 2: See above, plus this one also has The Twins. Oh god, The Twins.

I think you forgot Pearl Harbor, could you teach me how to do that?

That one is easy Go to the Pearl Harbor Memorial, look for WWII vet, ask him about his experiences, before he's done bend him over and rape him.

 

[GodKlown]

When I personally heard about this remake a few months ago, I admit I was a little excited to hear about it. A lot of horror movies these days are not worth making sequels for (regardless of how they try to spin the ending into an open question), and I've wanted to see a remake of a classic tale with modern special effects. Bear in mind, I don't care for movies that are almost entirely SFX for 90 minutes, but at least A Nightmare on Elm Street had a decent backstory and the strange dark humor that began to take over the franchise could have played better in these modern times. After watching the review for this remake, I highly doubt I would bother with watching it.
I really don't understand why when they remake a movie, that they don't stick to the original story... or at least the original backstory. Why make Freddy into a child molester? Is this the new hip motivation for a bad guy? This idea came along too late to make good use out of it now. Even the corny murder scenes of the movies after the first one weren't all bad, and it gave people of my generation more imagination. It may sound twisted, but it helped to relieve the reality of the situation and it isn't often you can laugh at someone getting killed during a movie when it wasn't directly intentional. It's a shame that Robert Englund is getting too old to play Freddy, but thankfully they didn't create some alternate story where Freddy sired a child and the new Freddy is in actuality a Freddy Junior. THAT would have been the real nightmare of convincing us of that reality!

I've said it before, and I'm inclined to say it once again. If you want to remake a movie, let's start with the ones that sucked in their original form. A Nightmare on Elm Street wasn't a bad movie the first time around, so why fix something that wasn't broken? Obviously, trying to make a rip-off of the movie would have been clearly identified by someone, so at least they attempted to stay faithful to the series somehow.
I'll say this though... if they remake The Shocker or Lawnmower Man where it is heavily dependent on the internet, that will totally bomb. I realize they attempted to do that in the sequel to Lawnmower Man, but more in that shitty Virtual Reality way. The horror community has been short on decent leading bad guys lately and the evidence is clear when Saw is going into its seventh appearance. Didn't Jigsaw die in at least the third movie?! I find it disheartening that studios can't leave something along when there is still money to be made on it, despite ruining everything that was good about the original.

And so why isn't there a movie about Chaingang yet? Are we that short on homicidal actors who are 6'7" and 450 lbs.? I find it difficult to believe that some wrestler couldn't fill this role... and having a giant heart-eating genius psychopathic serial killer wouldn't make a good movie?

 

[De Ronneman]

HE REMEMBERED THE FREDDY IN LAST FRIDAY!

Sorry, I'm just really surprised, I had forgotten about it, to be honest.

I think both, Freddy and Jason, should be left in the shelves of the 80ies, since those where the best movies: The originals.
Any attempt to either make money or a better movie fell flat on their face.

Nice of you to sum them up, now I have a quick list for a Freddy-Marathon

 

[MovieBob]

That's half the response I was looking for, which tbh is half more than I was expecting I'm yet to have a conversation with a self described movie buff that doesn't think they can do the job better. Since of the above you seem the most passionate about transformers, what exactly would you have done differently? If you had the biggest chair in an action film production, how would you run that show?

Well, that's a slightly more complicated question, since even though a director has to take the lion's-share of blame for any film, to extrapolate properly one would have to know exactly perameters he was working within... and those tend to be a secret. For example, it'd be easy to say "it makes no sense for his name to be Bumblebee when his car form has NOTHING to do with insects," but you can't pin that one on Bay: Volkswagon won't let anyone use their products in violent movies, so they were allowed to make him a Bug.

And here's one I can't "prove" but is very likely: Why is there a pointless extra subplot about a secret government agency when you've ALREADY got a military subplot? Well, you have to get official permission from the Pentagon if you want to use real US Army equipment and personel, and the Pentagon/DOD almost never gives that consent to movies that show them in an unflattering or even "shady" light. Notice how there's not a whole lot of authentic US Army gear in ID4? Wanna know why? So goes the story, they wouldn't give consent to a movie that portrayed a military cover-up of aliens in Area 51. But Transformers pins IT'S cover-up on a fictional beaurocracy, so that probably made it okay.

Now, in a perfect world where I was directing it with total top-to-bottom control? More visually-coherent mecha design. Make the robots the principal characters with the humans as sidekicks and/or canon fodder. Stage action scenes with emphasis on character and combat: We should always know who's doing what to who and why - people came to see the Robots, so shoot them properly-framed with as little artificial-tension editing as possible (watch old Godzilla movies to see how to do this right.) Lose all the Dan Brown-ish treasure-hunt magic-cube junk and keep things simple: No army guys, no Sector 7, no glasses, no cover-up. No teen romance, either: It's a movie about cars that turn into robots, it's proper audience should be boys young enough to still think romance is "cooties." This isn't Batman, you can't make it "mature." "Alien Robots fighting a civil war on Earth, hiding out disguised as cars and trucks" is all you need, with MAYBE that element of "we have to help these people now that we've brought our fight to their planet" stuff from Act 3 for dramatic weight. Basic 3-act structure - Act I: "We're on Earth now." Act II: "Hey, robots! Oh crap, some of them are bad." ACT III: "Fight fight fight, good wins, bad plans for sequel." END.

 

[Yeager942]

There was also a comic book spin-off called "Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash" which had Ash from Evil Dead fighting both baddies.
[img=http://superherouniverse.com/art/data/500/freddy_jason_ash_1_cvr.jpg]http://superherouniverse.com/art/data/500/freddy_jason_ash_1_cvr.jpg[/img]

Weren't they planning on making a movie to go along with that? I hope to God they don't, because if Raimi isn't in on it its going to suck.

 

[Yeager942]

Horror movies should not have sequels, period. I can't think of a single one that worked, ever.

28 Days Later, awesome. 28 Weeks Later, decidedly average.

The Grudge, I liked the Japanese one. The Grudge 2, lol.

The Exorcist, awesome. The Exorcist 2, rofl.

The Omen, awesome. The Omen 2, lmao.

Its a pretty consistent pattern.

Evil Dead 2 was pretty freakin' awesome. Other than that....yeah. Case in point.

 

[likalaruku]

I liked ALL of the Nightmare sequals. I don't hold the firsts in any francise as hoily & untouchable. I haven't seen the new movie, but I have a feeling that the only thing I'm going to dislike about it is that someone else is playing Freddy.

 

[snowman6251]

Horror movies should not have sequels, period. I can't think of a single one that worked, ever.

28 Days Later, awesome. 28 Weeks Later, decidedly average.

The Grudge, I liked the Japanese one. The Grudge 2, lol.

The Exorcist, awesome. The Exorcist 2, rofl.

The Omen, awesome. The Omen 2, lmao.

Its a pretty consistent pattern.

Evil Dead 2 was pretty freakin' awesome. Other than that....yeah. Case in point.

As always there must be one exception to prove the rule.

 

[Deacon Cole]

Make the robots the principal characters with the humans as sidekicks and/or canon fodder.

This is the principle problem with the Transformers movie. Much like Bruce Wayne Begins, the movie focuses on the completely wrong character(s) and is weaker for it.

 

[Deacon Cole]

Horror movies should not have sequels, period. I can't think of a single one that worked, ever.

28 Days Later, awesome. 28 Weeks Later, decidedly average.

The Grudge, I liked the Japanese one. The Grudge 2, lol.

The Exorcist, awesome. The Exorcist 2, rofl.

The Omen, awesome. The Omen 2, lmao.

Its a pretty consistent pattern.

Evil Dead 2 was pretty freakin' awesome. Other than that....yeah. Case in point.

As always there must be one exception to prove the rule.

Well, sequels in general tend to suck as each installment in the franchise tends to give you more of the same, treading the same ground as the first one and bringing little if anything new to the table so that you might as well go watch the original instead.

 

[snowman6251]

Horror movies should not have sequels, period. I can't think of a single one that worked, ever.

28 Days Later, awesome. 28 Weeks Later, decidedly average.

The Grudge, I liked the Japanese one. The Grudge 2, lol.

The Exorcist, awesome. The Exorcist 2, rofl.

The Omen, awesome. The Omen 2, lmao.

Its a pretty consistent pattern.

Evil Dead 2 was pretty freakin' awesome. Other than that....yeah. Case in point.

As always there must be one exception to prove the rule.

Well, sequels in general tend to suck as each installment in the franchise tends to give you more of the same, treading the same ground as the first one and bringing little if anything new to the table so that you might as well go watch the original instead.

While that's true sequels aren't always bad. Godfather II, The Dark Knight, Spiderman 2, Star Wars 5 and 6, and so on.

Horror movie sequels though are pretty much always bad. I couldn't think of one and had to be reminded of Evil Dead II which was just awesome because it was so crazy and bizarre.

 

[Ian S]

I have to go with EmperorZoltan and say that Michael Bay gets more hate than he really deserves here. Yes, the guy makes big, dumb action movies. That's what he does. There's a niche and he fills it nicely. Personally, I never had a problem with him directing Transformers. What's Transformers about, really? (And you seem to attach deeper meaning to this franchise more than it warrants, Bob. Civil war? Yeah, that aspect is there. But it's something that was never addressed all that much in the old show. Maybe the comics, or in subsequent shows like Beast Wars, but I argue that the Transformers movies were marketed to a mass audience who would at best have only seen the G1 animated series and wouldn't have known or cared about the other stuff.) What's Transformers about, really? Giant robots who transform into cars, truck and planes blowing shit up. What was in the movies? Giant robots blowing shit up. That does it for me. In that respect, Bay was the perfect choice to direct this movie. Like Spock said in Star Trek VI, "Only Nixon could go to China."

And I agree with Preston_r on the need to have human characters to relate to in this movie. Sure, we longtime fans are used to having the focus be on the Transformers, but most people may have difficulty in accepting a bunch of giant robots who Transform into cars and trucks as the main characters. Also, the studio needs stars to attach a certain level of prestige to a film and attract more people to it. If all Transformers had was the robots, I don't think it would have attracted as much of an audience beyond its geek cachet.

It may be okay to treat the human characters as sidekicks in the animated series; all the voice actors get paid the same. But when you've got big-name stars in a multimillion dollar live-action production, it changes things up. Of course, the doubled-edged sword with that is that unlike Optimus Prime, Megatron, Starscream et al., Shia LeBeouf and Megan Fox are real people who need to be paid a lot of money for their time and participation (the merits of their acting abilities aside). So of course, to justify that, the filmmakers are kind of obligated to focus on them a bit more and get their money's worth. Let's face it, no actor wants to be upstaged by special effects.

As far as Revenge of the Fallen goes, I'm also with EmperorZoltan on this; it was frantic, the pacing was off, there were some technical goofs. But on the whole not as bad as was made out to be. That having been said, I won't be adding it to my Blu-Ray library. And while Bay does share some of the blame I think, I also blame the writers' strike, which was a factor in the making of that movie that often gets overlooked. Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci were not as heavily involved in the making of ROTF as they were the first one due to the strike. Plus they were also working on the screenplay to JJ Abrams' Star Trek at the same time. So when it came to priorities, they chose to work more on Star Trek which, despite your feelings on it, was the more well-received film from a critical standpoint. Consequently, Bay had to take up the slack, which he did by inserting cheap jokes and the twins, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, it looks like Kurtzman and Orci won't be involved in the making of the third movie, so I'm sharing the dread of other fans about how bad this may be.

I think though that if there's one good thing that came out of ROTF, it's this fan-made music video that was done for the song "Love-Hate Heartbreak" by the band Halestorm. Regardless of how anyone feels about the movie, I think we can agree that the video kicks ass!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZydBUgYTt8

 

[MovieBob]

but most people may have difficulty in accepting a bunch of giant robots who Transform into cars and trucks as the main characters. Also, the studio needs stars to attach a certain level of prestige to a film and attract more people to it. If all Transformers had was the robots, I don't think it would have attracted as much of an audience beyond its geek cachet.

One word counter-argument: WALL*E

Slightly more words counter-argument: Nobody in the Transformers movies is a movie star. Jon Voigt WAS a movie star 40 years ago, that's as close as any of them get. That's not to say they're bad actors, but no one in the human cast of these movies is someone who's presence alone sells tickets. LaBeouf has never had a major hit that wasn't part of a pre-sold franchise. The ONE movie Megan Fox did that was sold on her name was a costly bomb. The single biggest "movie star" the series has had was the late Bernie Mac, and he was in it for about five minutes.

 

[RestamSalucard]

I have to go with EmperorZoltan and say that Michael Bay gets more hate than he really deserves here. Yes, the guy makes big, dumb action movies. That's what he does. There's a niche and he fills it nicely.

No, Roland Emerick makes big dumb action movies. Michael Bay makes purile shit.

Personally, I never had a problem with him directing Transformers. What's Transformers about, really? (And you seem to attach deeper meaning to this franchise more than it warrants, Bob. Civil war? Yeah, that aspect is there. But it's something that was never addressed all that much in the old show. Maybe the comics, or in subsequent shows like Beast Wars, but I argue that the Transformers movies were marketed to a mass audience who would at best have only seen the G1 animated series and wouldn't have known or cared about the other stuff.) What's Transformers about, really? Giant robots who transform into cars, truck and planes blowing shit up.

Don't care. To quote moviebob, you can make a good movie out of anything. Being simplistic does not excuse it from being shit.

What was in the movies? Giant robots blowing shit up.

No, it would have been nice if the movie had "Giant robots blowing shit up". The movie instead decided to be about Shia LaBitch's collage days and dogs humping to a woman doing a reenactment of "Reefer Madness".

That does it for me. In that respect, Bay was the perfect choice to direct this movie. Like Spock said in Star Trek VI, "Only Nixon could go to China."

What the fuck does post-Soviet communist-American relationships have to do with a shitty director making an equally shitty movie?

And I agree with Preston_r on the need to have human characters to relate to in this movie. Sure, we longtime fans are used to having the focus be on the Transformers, but most people may have difficulty in accepting a bunch of giant robots who Transform into cars and trucks as the main characters. Also, the studio needs stars to attach a certain level of prestige to a film and attract more people to it. If all Transformers had was the robots, I don't think it would have attracted as much of an audience beyond its geek cachet.

It may be okay to treat the human characters as sidekicks in the animated series; all the voice actors get paid the same. But when you've got big-name stars in a multimillion dollar live-action production, it changes things up. Of course, the doubled-edged sword with that is that unlike Optimus Prime, Megatron, Starscream et al., Shia LeBeouf and Megan Fox are real people who need to be paid a lot of money for their time and participation (the merits of their acting abilities aside). So of course, to justify that, the filmmakers are kind of obligated to focus on them a bit more and get their money's worth. Let's face it, no actor wants to be upstaged by special effects.

Wall-E, your point is now meaningless. However just to really drive the point home of how stupid this point is, THESE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SHIA LEBOUF'S AND MEGAN FOX'S BREAKOUT ROLES! BEFORE TRANSFORMERS, THEY WERE JUST AS, IF NOT MORE, OBSCURE THAN THE TRANSFORMERS THEMSELVES! THEY! WERE! NOT! STARS! YET! YOU! DUMBASS!

EDIT: GODDAMN NINJAS!

As far as Revenge of the Fallen goes, I'm also with EmperorZoltan on this; it was frantic, the pacing was off, there were some technical goofs. But on the whole not as bad as was made out to be. That having been said, I won't be adding it to my Blu-Ray library. And while Bay does share some of the blame I think, I also blame the writers' strike, which was a factor in the making of that movie that often gets overlooked. Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci were not as heavily involved in the making of ROTF as they were the first one due to the strike. Plus they were also working on the screenplay to JJ Abrams' Star Trek at the same time. So when it came to priorities, they chose to work more on Star Trek which, despite your feelings on it, was the more well-received film from a critical standpoint. Consequently, Bay had to take up the slack, which he did by inserting cheap jokes and the twins, unfortunately.

So, with this paragraph, you practically admit, for whatever reason or another, that the movie is shit and are trying to make production excuses for it. Sorry, but the only thing that excuses a movie is it's own merits. Telling you that Joel Schumacher's studio went bankrupt during filming and a freak accident killed all the writers does not make Batman & Robin a better movie.

Unfortunately, it looks like Kurtzman and Orci won't be involved in the making of the third movie, so I'm sharing the dread of other fans about how bad this may be.

I think though that if there's one good thing that came out of ROTF, it's this fan-made music video that was done for the song "Love-Hate Heartbreak" by the band Halestorm. Regardless of how anyone feels about the movie, I think we can agree that the video kicks ass!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZydBUgYTt8

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Halestorm. Halestorm is a rockband that made a popular Youtube music video. What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Halestorm makes a youtube video, you must acquit! The defense rests...

 

[Preston_r]

And I agree with Preston_r on the need to have human characters to relate to in this movie. Sure, we longtime fans are used to having the focus be on the Transformers, but most people may have difficulty in accepting a bunch of giant robots who Transform into cars and trucks as the main characters. Also, the studio needs stars to attach a certain level of prestige to a film and attract more people to it. If all Transformers had was the robots, I don't think it would have attracted as much of an audience beyond its geek cachet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZydBUgYTt8

I said the humans were necessary in the first movie to help introduce the characters. The robots in transformers though, are not like the robots in Terminator. The robots in TF *are* people. Once you've introduced them, allowed the exposition to take place, established their personalities on both the hero's side and the villains side you NO LONGER need the humans there. The Autobots become human, because they are people. WALL-E (as others have said) is a good example. He has personality. The humans are set pieces for the most part. Scenery.

In both movies Sam Whitwicky & his love interest were both just bearers of the McGuffin. In the first movie it was the glasses with the hidden map. In the second movie he had repressed programmed memories. He was not a character. He was a thing. A plot device. His "character" could have been replaced with a featureless black box (or a weighted companion cube!) and the movie, both of them for the most part, could have continued w/o any real harm to the plot.

I'm not asking for a deep, meaningful plot. Giant robots fighting each other with lasers. That what I want out of a movie about Giant Robots at war. I don't want a tacked on teen love story. I don't want family drama. I don't want slap stick idiot humor.

I want the good guy robots to be noble, honorable, and have personality so that if one of them gets blown up with a giant robo-missle I may have a twinge of "baww". I want the badguys to be bad, horrible, and when one of them gets cut in half with an energy sword I can feel a twinge of triumph.

And when that moment happens I want to be able to tell the 2 characters apart. The good guys should be identifiable. Blue and red, white, bright colors. The bad guys should also be recognizable - dark purples, blood reds, black, bruise colors. Icky green.

Simple. Cliche? Sure, perhaps. But this is a movie based on 1980's cartoons meant to sell colorful chunks of plastic to kids.