"Play it again, Optimus Prime"Trogdor1138 said:
"Of all the cars to disguise as, in all the towns, in all the world, you had to use mine."
Hmm... Can't tell if that would be terrible or brilliant. Terribrilliant?
Razzie Awards Eyeing Transformers 3 for Nomination List
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"Of all the cars to disguise as, in all the towns, in all the world, you had to use mine."
Hmm... Can't tell if that would be terrible or brilliant. Terribrilliant?
All I know is, I would pay to see it and that it couldn't possibly be a worse movie than Transformers 2 was >_>MaximillionMiles said:
I for one thought both of the first transformers were ok. People make them out to be hideously bad. They are just generic action flicks. The reason they get so much hate is because of the massive transformers fanbase ,who like to nitpick every detail. Most of the hate is unwarranted. The movies aren't bad they're just quite bland.
The only really bad thing about them was those rapping robots from the second.
I definately don't think any of them are bad enough to get a razzie, there is far more worthy contenders to the title.
The only really bad thing about them was those rapping robots from the second.
I definately don't think any of them are bad enough to get a razzie, there is far more worthy contenders to the title.
Here is the thing, noone expects anaconda or some arthouse snooze fest about a character study of a potato that noone went to see is going to be good, noone has an expectation of that at all.
But do people have a reasonable expectation that star wars could have and should have been a hell of alot better than that shit fest lucas crapped out? Sure everyone was going to see epi 1 trough 3 no matter what, it was a lock for any person that could remember going to episodes 4 through 6 as a kid, it was a good bet that the kids of many of those people would be going and have seen all those movies many times. Instead we got the worst drivel of a script and characters you could write, lucas never even stopped to read the shit he was writing, he was surrounded by people that treated him like a god, rather than the old days when he had fights with any number of people, and the "best" movie of the trilogy empire, was the one lucas had the least involvement in the script of.
Now what were people expecting of transformers? For me i find it hard to have terribly high expectations for a toy line that got a cartoon to sell the toys being high art to start with. But transformers has some decent lore going for it, the execution of that lore and such over the different transformer series over the years, was rather hit and miss with some series being outstanding and others being rather horrid. But a good job of transformers could have been pulled off in the right hands.
For me even the first film was passable, it was a setup film, it had some of our core transformers in it, but the second film is like 3 hours of your life you will never ever get back, all the while thinking your cat could have written and directed a better film, and how the hell much are they paying this ahole to make movies anyway? I know a few children that could have done a better job than bay at this crap.
But do people have a reasonable expectation that star wars could have and should have been a hell of alot better than that shit fest lucas crapped out? Sure everyone was going to see epi 1 trough 3 no matter what, it was a lock for any person that could remember going to episodes 4 through 6 as a kid, it was a good bet that the kids of many of those people would be going and have seen all those movies many times. Instead we got the worst drivel of a script and characters you could write, lucas never even stopped to read the shit he was writing, he was surrounded by people that treated him like a god, rather than the old days when he had fights with any number of people, and the "best" movie of the trilogy empire, was the one lucas had the least involvement in the script of.
Now what were people expecting of transformers? For me i find it hard to have terribly high expectations for a toy line that got a cartoon to sell the toys being high art to start with. But transformers has some decent lore going for it, the execution of that lore and such over the different transformer series over the years, was rather hit and miss with some series being outstanding and others being rather horrid. But a good job of transformers could have been pulled off in the right hands.
For me even the first film was passable, it was a setup film, it had some of our core transformers in it, but the second film is like 3 hours of your life you will never ever get back, all the while thinking your cat could have written and directed a better film, and how the hell much are they paying this ahole to make movies anyway? I know a few children that could have done a better job than bay at this crap.
Way to aim high. I think it's that lack of actual substance that turns off people who wish for a little bit more even in cliched summer blockbusters. The deeper question is is that which I quote above all film-goers should reasonably expect for their money? Can't people expect (or demand?) intelligent writing and solid acting with the explosions and boobs? I like dumb fun, too, but sometimes a film (Transformers) becomes so bloated and awful that it ruins the fun part and only leaves the dumb. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.TestECull said:
Atlas Shrugged was a lot worse, though.
Haha, I'm having too much fun imagining the (cartoon version of) Optimus Prime in Logan's avatar..... face-palming at the roid-raging, metal, monstrosity that is the Movie Optimus in the article's picture.
Meh, the Razzies sold out. They are not going after truly terrible movies, just after what is popular and not the best.Atlas Shrugged was WAY worse than Transformers 3, but giving prizes to transformers will get more publicity because it has much more fans. Like last year when Twilight cleaned almost every category. The movie wasn't good, but there were much more terrible films last year. They focused on Twilight because that way they could troll much more people.
The Star Wars prequels at least made a modicum of sense and had an overarching story to tell. I know, I know, Jar Jar Binks, but Razzie-worthy?Kiardras said:
Also, that guy exaggerated an annoying amount when he said every big blockbuster was terrible. Thor and First Class were great, and people are too divided over Pirates 4's worth to call it properly terrible.
Geeze.
I really do not get this. Transformers 3 was not even a bad film. It just wasnt a good film. Hell the trilogy itself isnt that bad if you ignore two elements of #2.
I understand criticism of the franchise, but I do not understand the unmitigated hated of the series.
I really do not get this. Transformers 3 was not even a bad film. It just wasnt a good film. Hell the trilogy itself isnt that bad if you ignore two elements of #2.
I understand criticism of the franchise, but I do not understand the unmitigated hated of the series.
You know, I went into dark of the moon wanting to leave my brain at the door and have some fun. I paid for a ticket to see action and explosions. I then had to sit through what felt like an hour of Shia le Boof trying to get a job, arguing with his girlfriend and whining away.Woodsey said:
To anyone who says the film is fun if you switch your brain off: are you being literal? Did you actually switch off your brain and fall asleep whenever there werent robots on screen?
I'd actually call Dark of the Moon an improvement... insomuch as I didn't HATE it.
I mean, unlike Revenge of the Fallen, there was no jive-talking robots, no giant robot testicles, no dogs humping, no drugged-out moms at college, no John Turturro's thong-clad butt, no pee and poop jokes, no wacky black guys yelling loudly about donuts, and no friggin' robot heaven.
On the other hand, there was "deep wang", the unlikeable parents, and the total massacre of Leonard Nimoy's iconic Warth of Kahn line.
I mean, unlike Revenge of the Fallen, there was no jive-talking robots, no giant robot testicles, no dogs humping, no drugged-out moms at college, no John Turturro's thong-clad butt, no pee and poop jokes, no wacky black guys yelling loudly about donuts, and no friggin' robot heaven.
On the other hand, there was "deep wang", the unlikeable parents, and the total massacre of Leonard Nimoy's iconic Warth of Kahn line.
Yeah, I was just thinking that, X-Men and Thor were great and Fast Five was at least good for what it was trying to be. In fact, I'd say that Dark of the Moon and Green lantern are the only blockbusters so far this year that have been completely awful, which is pretty good going for Hollywood. Especially seem as Harry Potter and Captain America are two massive trump cards that they still have left to play.JackandTom said:
I understand your argument, but here's the problem. The worst thing to do is go for the lowest common denominator. Yes, I understand some people like explosions and action. I love explosions and action, but I demand that the action make sense in relation to a plot. Otherwise why not just film a lot of stuff exploding and show that for 90 minutes. That's why I can admire a film like Alien 3 for it's total failure. It tried to be a good film helmed by a newcomer. It had vision, but the studio and producers needed it cheaper, a different story but with Ellen Ripley in it.TestECull said:
Action films can be great films. Comic book films can be great. Inception, The Matrix, The Dark Knight, Superman, Iron Man, Spiderman, Alien, Aliens, The Terminator, etc. are all good films and some are even great. But Michael Bay's Transformers is just a rehash of every other Michael Bay film that is exploitative of our memories, nostalagia and emotions. When Transformers the Movie (1986) which is nothing more than a 90 minute toy commercial designed to remove the old toy line and introduce the new one, is a MUCh better film than yours with a better plot, better pacing, better visuals, better voice acting, better characters, and more fun then you have a real problem with your film.
I don't see why a summer blockbuster has to be dumb. There are great examples of summer blockbusters that are also great films. Look at Jaws, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Arc, ET, Lethal Weapon, the Matrix, etc.
There's nothing wrong with failing. If you aim high and miss, then you learn something. If you aim low and hit the mark all you've done is proven you can hit the water by falling out of a boat.
And yet it, like all the other TF movies, continues to dominate at the box office. Apparently the disconnect between audiences and reviewers/outspoken internet commenters is bigger than you all realize.
It must be doing something right to make money, and I don't buy "the mindless sheep throw money at crap" argument.
It must be doing something right to make money, and I don't buy "the mindless sheep throw money at crap" argument.
And the twilight series is a shining literary/movie achievement because of all the money it makes. The Transformers triology is a finely tuned laser homed in its target demographic of "red blooded young teenage male". Its certainly reflective of the series level of maturity, and respect of its audience intelligence. It would also explain the shoehorned story of "loser teenage boy trying to get with hot chickzzz."koroem said:
Honestly, I'm beyond caring if people enjoyed the transformers. I thought the first was barely passable, but the second was easily one of the worst movies I've seen(Seriously, what in the world was going on in that movie?). Bay is just some dude the execs use to garner cash so they can fund other projects. Cameron is the man if you want a great summer blockbuster on all fronts.(Terminator 2 <3)
And if you want a fantastic movie with awesome action, watch 13 assassins. It will make you forget Transformers rather quickly....
I can't stand Twilight, but I also can't deny that it captures its target audience, and does it well. I don't think anyone who set out to make Twilight or Transformers, or anything other summer blockbuster for that matter, set out with the goal to make a literary masterpiece. They goal was to make entertainment, and make money. They succeed masterfully to this end.Condiments said:
It is the other people, who watch this, with a chip on their shoulder, deciding that these flicks are not worthy of being hall of fame, or emmy, or whatever worthy. They sit on their high horses and attempt to tell other people what is good, what is bad, what they should like, and what they shouldn't.
All opinion reviews are shit and I have no idea why people put any kind of consideration into them. They are not me, and can not tell me what I enjoy. It is sickening to watch people put so much stock into this crap.
Are there better movies sure, but don't ruin my enjoyment of it by forcing meaningless awards and scathing reviews. These all work to change how the movies end up being made, and not always for the better.
I'll be honest with you, I'm not following your point.Woodsey said:
Because regardless of the quality of the movies, the Transformer trilogy is definitely being impacted by a communal negative sensation that people are allowing to impair their decision making, which I guess people could call elitest.
Proof? 1, Many, many people have been badmouthing the movies without actually seeing them. If I ask you if you've seen Dark Side, I reckon there's about a 50% chance the truthful answer is no.
2. A lot of the complaints are directed at the character of the director. Which is no standard to be judging a film by. I'll admit it, Michael Bay gives the impression he's a douche (although we can't know that) and I myself have viewed the films a lot less positively than when I first saw them (I originally loved them) when I found out more about Michael Bay and the films hatedom.
3. Millions of people love these films and pay to go see them, yet that isn't reflected by the general opinion of discussion.
Me? Who am I to say the standard I pick is the correct one? I'm not going to write off the opinions of that many people because I'm not one of them. What's more I'm very unwilling to think of my opinion as better than that of those people and write them off as people because they chose a movie.
And your second point? Why not? I would say that for the most part, the entire purpose of the entertainment genre is to leave people's brains at the door. The percentage of media that results in useful output is very low. The Escapist, despite it's attempts to be high class, is in the end filling your head with trivia and opinions that don't really further humanity.
And that's probably not a bad thing.
Your opinion is awesome and valid, but it doesn't imply that other opinions are less awesome and valid
The point was: people willingly pay to see shit (and make those two excuses), so shit keeps getting made, and so we have to have awards for total shit just to point out how dreadful it is.BrotherRool said:
And you shouldn't have to leave your brain at the door for any media. That is not an excuse. Thor is a simple, fun film. Its also well-made and doesn't require the audience to go full-retard to suck any sense of enjoyment from it. Same goes for Indiana Jones, Star Wars, etc. etc.
Also: seen the first, which was bad, seen about half of the second, which almost had me circumcising myself out of the need to do something less painful, and not seen the third because when it gets shit reviews and all the same people are involved from the last two shit fests, well... its pretty clear what its like.
I don't know. I hear that Transformers 3 isn't RoTF bad, but still not great. More like a "meh". But I think Zookeeper and Smurfs is gonna take the cake.
All the hate towards the series is because 1: Fanboys say it destroyed thier childhood (I guess playing Transformers was thier ENTIRE childhood) and 2: The immensly huge budget to make, at best, a "meh" movie(IMO, of course).viranimus said: