The Big Picture: Untransformed

[Vausch]

I still do not know why he is harping on the green lantern it was not that bad all things considered.

Actually, it was. I don't think it was as terrible as Bob made it out to be, but it was pretty darn bad. I went into the movie fairly unbiased and had a friend with me that had never read a single comic and she hated it too. Yes, I knew who the Green Lanterns were, had a basic rundown of the story, and understood a lot of the lore, but I haven't gone through the entire history of the comics (yet) and was going to pick at them for not getting a character's hairstyle right.

And yes, it is understandable for different opinions, but there are times when a film can just be provably bad. This was one of them.

 

[gameoni]

I tip my Hat to you bob for using my favrite line out of the men in black movie.

 

[anthony87]

Thing is, I don't mind if he says something like that. If I think a movie is terrible, I'll call it out on being shit, too.

But I'm not going call everyone who likes said shitty film a braindead bottomfeeder. And it always makes me break out in hives whenever I hear Bob talking like that. Everyone has movies they like that aren't particularly good, that doesn't make you stupid.

Yeah that's pretty much how I feel down to a tee.

I guess I just didn't notice that my post looked more like it was saying that not liking movies is bad. Not liking movies is fine.

Talking down to people who like the movies you don't like, in the way Bob does however, just comes off as being a bit cuntish.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Glad that you brought up War For Cybertron, because I think that the only way that a Transformers movie will be any good is if High Noon writes it.

You mean, "if High Noon writes it and doesn't have to trim out the interesting parts to stuff it into a boring, "Gears of War" style shooter."

I played through WFC multiple times (achievement whore), and while the foundation for a solid story is there, they didn't do enough with it. I like that they touched on just why Megatron was leading an uprising against the Autobots--because all the other Primes were a bunch of power-hungry dicks who abused those they outclassed. And while the Decepticons stood for freedom from oppression in a sense, they were going about it the wrong way--murdering any and all Autobots they came across (even some who may have agreed with their opposition to the Primes' rule) and corrupting the very core of their planet. The burden of keeping the peace while still supporting the idea of "freedom for all sentient beings" falls to Optimus.

Of course, this is just what I gathered from the cutscenes, because I kind of zoned out during the actual gameplay part. It's like every time they had a chance to flesh out a character's motivations or goals, the game went "NOPE, STORY IS BORING LET'S GET BACK TO THE SHOOTY PART. HOPE YOU LIKE A RIDICULOUSLY OVERPOWERED MELEE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF AMMO A LOT."

Seriously--people bash the Bay movies because they're "loud, obnoxious, the characters spout off bad one-liners, and there's so much spiky metal flying around." Really? That's the impression I got from WFC.

one part og the story in WFC i WISH they would have expanded on was late in the Autobot half (the prison break) when Prime and Megs are talking and Prime says something to the a effect 'your still pissed about that? that was a long to ago' with out ever explaining what 'that, was (like Meatloaf, only, with robots XD) other then that,i liked that game, looking forward to Fall of Cybertron to

 

[cthulhumythos]

I have no idea what any of you are talking about.

The Transformers movie was FANTASTIC!

Death of Optimus Prime! Megatron reborn as Galvatron! Orson Wells as Omnicron! Stan Bush's "The Touch"!

It was everything a Transformers fan could've ever wanted.

it also had stan bush's dare. which strikes an equal amount of my nostalgia chords.

 

[daxterx2005]

Rebooting but keeping the same director....
Whats the point?

 

[Deacon Cole]

Apply this to the "review" of Phantom Menace two weeks ago.

 

[z121231211]

Im hating Bob More and more every single episode he does.

I mean, god. Sucessful movies are sucessful for a reason, man.

I mean, He stated something along the lines of "These movies are popular, Therefore the audience is dumb. The more people that watch the movie, the more people are dumb."Jesus Christ, bob, That is up there with some of the most stuck up arsehole-ish comments Ive ever heard; you didnt like this movie because you don't like mainstream cinema, and everyone who does like mainstream cinema is a idiot?

Unless im completely missing what hes said in this video, this is what i heard.

I remember watching his earlier vids and not really sensing this sort of idea; So either i was completely blind, or bob has morphed into a Hipster.

Say what you want about Bob, but that is not what he said. He said that movies *intended* for a much larger audience are dumb. Making a movie that appeals to the most amount of people requires studios to dumb it down. Now you can make a movie that wasn't intended to appeal to a lot of people but suddenly gets popular, which really proves that we need to experiment more rather than actively dumb something down.

And there are more reasons to why something is successful than the quality of it.

 

[Gunjester]

So Bob doesn't like Hawkeye's Ultimates costume?

 

[MovieBob]

When has it become the general assumtion that someone's taste is in direct connection to their inteligence? Bob himself is a rather smart fellow, yet he likes movies such as Sucker Punch. Does that mean he's an idiot who shouldn't be allowed to operate vehicles? No, it means he's a guy who likes the occasional crap film. He's no different from the people who happen to like the Transformers movies.

Alright, responding to this is probably a mistake on my part but I've had about enough of this particular point - the Sucker Punch thing, I mean.

Firstly, there is a difference between a movie (or any other piece of art) being smart/stupid/meaningful/shallow and being GOOD or BAD (or "well-executed" or poorly-executed) in any one person's opinion. I don't "expect" everyone to call, "Sucker Punch" GOOD; but that it's NOT a "stupid" film - that it's actually slightly over-stuffed with IDEAS, meaning, layers of symbolism both thematic and visual, genuine imagination and actually attempts (with mixed results, to be sure) to actual SAY something is objectively provable simply by watching it... which I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you did. It is, in as measurable a way as possible, a smarter movie than any of the Transformers films (which are OPENLY "about" as little as possible); to the point that there's really no discernable reason to compare them.

However, if you're looking for the "difference" between appreciating these two nothing-to-do-with-eachother films, it comes down to where the appreciation comes from. I can find you other legitimate reviews - positive and negative - of "Sucker Punch" aside from mine that found something intellectually engaging about the film. This is NOT as true for the "Transformers" films (though I'm sure a few can be found) whose most passionate defenders tend to come down on the side of "I just want to turn off my brain and watch the fireworks!" "not every movie has to be high-art!" or some variation thereof.

 

[BrotherRool]

I like all those things you hate.

I'm also (technically) allowed to operate a motor vehicle, although it's not advisable

 

[Atmos Duality]

Back to insulting the audience again, eh Bob?
Well, here I suppose it's relevant; the three Bay Transformers movies are hideous, awful movies, even when you subtract any fanboy-nostalgia bias for the source material (and I can argue from precisely that point of view, because even as a child of the 80s, I could not watch the original show, didn't see the movie, and I never owned any of the toys), and the only logical reason they're made that way is because they sell, so SOMEONE loves them in an un-ironic (non-riffing/satire) way.

I recall the Spoony One saying this during a discussion about the movie: "I sometimes wonder if movies have left me behind."
And that's precisely the kind of feeling I get when I see shallow trainwrecks like these inexplicably make shitloads of money. It tells me that the art of good story-writing, and filming is pretty much dead during the summer, and it's increasingly bothersome to see the most shallow movies make the most money.

Hell, James Cameron managed to resurrect an entire worthless gimmick with his shallow, preachy bling-fest solely on the fact of the incredible profits he turned on it.

And when that's what dictates exactly what movies get made, it eventually becomes the ONLY thing that dictates what movies get funded besides Oscar Bait and art films (which in themselves are incredibly rare). Small wonder I got to the movies so rarely now: I'm not the target audience, nor do I understand the target audience's taste.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Careful there Bob, you don't want to dip[ into the field of "me and my group are smart and everyone else is dumb" and this is dangerously close if not in that territory. It's easy to naively say that only only you are smart and get a hugely swollen ego but remember that everyone's view is equally valid and there are far smarter people then you out there, even if your ego just wants to say "because they're dumb and I'm not".

 

[12th_milkshake]

Bit of a heads up there bob.

Nimrod means great hunter and is a person/character in the blble of all places. (no i'm not religious) who was said to be the perfect hunter.

Now enters bugs bunny who mocks elmer fudd by calling him Nimrod sarcastically, And couple years later and lack of bible classes the world thinks it means idiot.

So calling the unwashed movie going masses Nimrod Nation is kinda weird.

Just a fun factoid for you. Hope you didn't think the Nimrod RAF planes were idiot planes!

 

[370999]

Firstly, there is a difference between a movie (or any other piece of art) being smart/stupid/meaningful/shallow and being GOOD or BAD (or "well-executed" or poorly-executed) in any one person's opinion. I don't "expect" everyone to call, "Sucker Punch" GOOD; but that it's NOT a "stupid" film - that it's actually slightly over-stuffed with IDEAS, meaning, layers of symbolism both thematic and visual, genuine imagination and actually attempts (with mixed results, to be sure) to actual SAY something is objectively provable simply by watching it... which I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you did. It is, in as measurable a way as possible, a smarter movie than any of the Transformers films (which are OPENLY "about" as little as possible); to the point that there's really no discernable reason to compare them.

However, if you're looking for the "difference" between appreciating these two nothing-to-do-with-eachother films, it comes down to where the appreciation comes from. I can find you other legitimate reviews - positive and negative - of "Sucker Punch" aside from mine that found something intellectually engaging about the film.

Could you please? As I remember thinking it had an interesting premise albeit poorly exxecuted, but never that it was well packed to the brine with ideas.

PS: I'm not you biggest fan at all Bob, but fair fucks for you to come wading into this forum and not respond to people like a douchebag who throws around presumptions like cough cough the dragon age 2 review. That said your little "I'm going to regret this..." was a tad insulting.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I like the costume Hawkeye has in the upcoming Avengers movie, not as gaudy as his comic book counterpart. Seriously, who wears blue with purple?

 

[moviedork]

Alright, responding to this is probably a mistake on my part but I've had about enough of this particular point - the Sucker Punch thing, I mean.

Firstly, there is a difference between a movie (or any other piece of art) being smart/stupid/meaningful/shallow and being GOOD or BAD (or "well-executed" or poorly-executed) in any one person's opinion. I don't "expect" everyone to call, "Sucker Punch" GOOD; but that it's NOT a "stupid" film - that it's actually slightly over-stuffed with IDEAS, meaning, layers of symbolism both thematic and visual, genuine imagination and actually attempts (with mixed results, to be sure) to actual SAY something is objectively provable simply by watching it... which I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you did. It is, in as measurable a way as possible, a smarter movie than any of the Transformers films (which are OPENLY "about" as little as possible); to the point that there's really no discernable reason to compare them.

However, if you're looking for the "difference" between appreciating these two nothing-to-do-with-eachother films, it comes down to where the appreciation comes from. I can find you other legitimate reviews - positive and negative - of "Sucker Punch" aside from mine that found something intellectually engaging about the film. This is NOT as true for the "Transformers" films (though I'm sure a few can be found) whose most passionate defenders tend to come down on the side of "I just want to turn off my brain and watch the fireworks!" "not every movie has to be high-art!" or some variation thereof.

Sucker Punch has an interesting concept and ideas, but the film is too dumb to fully execute on said ideas. It intends to have meaning but Snyder (who has only make one good movie "Dawn of the Dead") is not a good enough filmmaker to fully broaden those ideas into a complete narrative.

But the truth is...film taste is subjective depending on age, mood, personality, and other circumstances. You have to accept the fact that just because someone does not enjoy the same things you enjoy (case in point Sucker Punch being one of the worst movies of the year IMHO) does not give you the right to downright insult them. Intelligence cannot be measured with taste. I know a lot of intelligent people who'd rather escape from their exhausting jobs and watch something mindless like a Transformers or a Fast Five over thought-provoking pieces that try to win Oscars.

 

[maninahat]

I watched Men in Black just the other day. Excellent, compared to a lot of what we get these days.

Say what you like about how much the 90s sucked, a lot of good genre movies came from that period. It was a time just before studios went into overdrive with sequels and comic franchise plundering, where CGI hadn't quite replaced animatronics yet, and where making somekind of effort seemed to count.

Sure, it is largely a nostalgia filter, and I've already forgotten most of the bad movies, but look at the line up: Jurassic Park, Men in Black, Home Alone, Total Recall, The Mask, Something About Mary, Galaxy Quest. All good, solid stuff. And probably responsible for setting terrible trends.

 

[imnot]

Fun fact: "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" is the direct result of the first Transformers movie doing well, take from that what you will.

It is? , please explain further!
(Not that I don't belive you I'm just curious)

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I still do not know why he is harping on the green lantern it was not that bad all things considered.

Actually, it was. I don't think it was as terrible as Bob made it out to be, but it was pretty darn bad. I went into the movie fairly unbiased and had a friend with me that had never read a single comic and she hated it too. Yes, I knew who the Green Lanterns were, had a basic rundown of the story, and understood a lot of the lore, but I haven't gone through the entire history of the comics (yet) and was going to pick at them for not getting a character's hairstyle right.

And yes, it is understandable for different opinions, but there are times when a film can just be provably bad. This was one of them.

I tend to hate subpar films but I found GL to be ok at best the worest thing about it was it was draggy. It was hella better than Ghost rider/Batman 4(the one before bale)/Xmen 3/Spiderman 3(and reboot >> lulz),All the TF films,ect,ect,ect,ect,ect.

I just have seen far worse and far better.