Transformers Fanboy-Free Breakdown
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
On an unrelated note, I don't think I could meet Buzz Aldrin or anyone who landed on the moon without smiling and crying profusely. C'mon, it's the Moon!
008Zulu said:
Bay isn't pro-war. He heavily criticized Bush for Iraq and said it was useless. Just because he doesnt depict America as the enemy and actually depicts soldiers as efficient and following orders, doesn't mean he's some balls to wall jingoistic neo-con
The second movie was so bad I was looking around my room for suicide weapons. Fortunately it also drained my will to live to the point where I couldn't move to carry out the deed. Somehow after seeing it, I lost a week. Revenge of the fallen forced my sentience to turn off as a protection feature like an on overheating CPU. I think my brain shut down to re-route its circuits like the Terminator.
He is probably told to say all those anti-war speeches.Gunnyboy said:
Here is a brief examination to consider;
He was making movies like Bad Boys and The Rock. As a tangent, The Rock was anti American as per the disgruntled general taking San Fransisco "hostage" to ensure reparations for servicemen who died for their country but were denied. When Army recruitment started to take a dive, he started making movies like Pearl Harbor and the Transformers trilogy, which have been obviously pro army.
An interesting "coincidence". Lets see if any of his future projects are just as pro American army.
This. I had such high hopes for the first film. I grew up with the Transformers. I cried when Optimus died in the original movie from the 80's. My mother once told me Optimus's death devastated me and it took a long time for me to get over it. I was dragged, seriously dragged to the second film because my friends called me a snob. As we walked out, my friends apologized, and I made them promise to listen to me next time. They are going to see it Sunday. I will not be joining them. Here's hoping someone like Zach Snyder gets a hold of the franchise and lends his brand of awesome to it.Falseprophet said:
Yes The military would fight the robots. But during a big fight scene we should see a big robot mash up. While focusing on the decepticons fighting soldiers in Iraq was cool i think some of the focus should have been put into the robots. When Jazz died in the original and prime in the second i felt uninvested because they gave them no focus. They focused way to much on the military(no disrespect to to anyone in the military) or Shia labuaf running away from things.Ian S said:
So he was told to make posts on his forums about it? And he did so before the first Transformers, so that wasn't going to help the movie at all. It's nothing to consider; Bay isn't anti-soldier, and because he makes a patriotic film doesn't mean he blindly follows the government. Armageddon was also about highlighting the common man and NASA. I guess he was being jingoistic there too right?008Zulu said:
See, I could have given them this. Accepting the military having a roll in the movie would make sense and I could even buy the first major battle with a transformer being between it and the military to establish how powerful the Decepticons were. I could even tolerate the human characters having a plot. All of that could have worked.B Goy said:
What I really can't tolerate in these films is that the human characters are not interesting, nor is their story clever, fun to watch, or in any way worth the time the movies spend on it. And the way that the military is presented in it is so fucking stupid that it just hurts. The soldiers are presented as a bunch of supermen with no flaws and no real personality, while all the government agents are sniveling weasels with no personality beyond "you dumb, we shut you down, dur hur hur . . . *drool*"
I'm a child of the nineties, so I actually missed the transformers. Having seen the original stuff recently just so I could see what all the fanboys were going on about, I have to say I think the original stuff was pretty "meh" (except for Unicron, he was awesome whenever he was on screen; Orson Welles for the WIN!!!). So, just looking at the films with a cold, analytical eye, these films are dreadful all around.
Making popular comments about a war that has been unpopular from the very beginning would only help the ticket sales of his movies.Gunnyboy said:
Interesting that you would label Transformers patriotic. Considering that the franchise is about robots fighting and selling toys of said robots, the humans and their respective armies have always been shown to be less than ineffective against them.
Possibly with Armageddon, couldn't help but notice that with a global threat the initial crews are exclusively American. I suppose the European and Asian space agencies had decided to sleep in that day or figured it wasn't worth contributing to.
There's nothing wrong with thinking your country is better than most, it's entirely another to portray yours as the best while showing how inept (through stereotypical typecasting) others are.
Totally agreed. So, yeah, uh, Bob? The Decepticons have ALWAYS proven to be impossible to negotiate with even before Bayformers. That's part of their charm--if they're talking peace treaties with you, it is always a ruse and they will always betray you because that is just plain what they do. You're an inferior life form to them anyway. Appeasement never works against an aggressor in real-life, either, because they'll always want more, so how is this a bad message?maninahat said:
The real problem is how they sloppily added twists to the plot. I thought Megatron came to Earth for the Allspark and didn't tell anyone where he was going because he wanted it for himself? And now we've got this new plot thread about a collaborator butting in and acting like it was here the whole time? Whatever.
{quote="maninahat" post="6.297592.11803466"]What is wrong with having a neo-con message? Ignoring all the shit in the rest of this movie, I am straining to get over that one point raised.
Just having a conservative message does not necessarily work to the detriment of the film. In a movie that borrows Pentagon equipment and features battling army and robots, the movie is not likely to be promoting a message of diplomacy or "appeasement" (conservative for "surrender"). In the context of the story, it also makes sense that warrior robots and jarheads aren't likely to be keen on the idea of cutting deals with an enemy. Especially an enemy called the DECEPTICONS.
[/quote]
Well-presented conservative viewpoints are one thing. But when Bay make the "appeasers" weak, weasily or myopic (not just once, but twice) and Bay times the attitude change in the movie's White House to the real-life changing of the Guard (Bush to Obama), I can't help but agree with Bob about the underlying message.
It is common in action movies to paint the talk-it-out crowd as either dumb, naive, insane, or all of the above. It's not just inaccurate (think Cuban Missle Crisis, for starters), it's a cliche.
Just having a conservative message does not necessarily work to the detriment of the film. In a movie that borrows Pentagon equipment and features battling army and robots, the movie is not likely to be promoting a message of diplomacy or "appeasement" (conservative for "surrender"). In the context of the story, it also makes sense that warrior robots and jarheads aren't likely to be keen on the idea of cutting deals with an enemy. Especially an enemy called the DECEPTICONS.
[/quote]
Well-presented conservative viewpoints are one thing. But when Bay make the "appeasers" weak, weasily or myopic (not just once, but twice) and Bay times the attitude change in the movie's White House to the real-life changing of the Guard (Bush to Obama), I can't help but agree with Bob about the underlying message.
It is common in action movies to paint the talk-it-out crowd as either dumb, naive, insane, or all of the above. It's not just inaccurate (think Cuban Missle Crisis, for starters), it's a cliche.
You had me up until you started spouting your political philosophy the way you always like to do. Seriously, I watch your videos/read your articles because you actually seem to know a thing or two about MOVIES (and, to a lesser extent, comic books) not because I want to hear your opinions on world events.
This was supposed to be a article describing why this was a bad FILM, and how the plot is so full of holes you could drive a (inexplicably painted with flame) mac truck through it. The fact that you, personally, disagree with its message does NOT make it a bad film. It may very well have been a bad film, but your opinions on the validity of its message are NOT one of the reasons why.
Note: In case you're confused, complaining about how much time is devoted to nameless military characters we know nothing about in a movie that's supposed to be about giant robots IS an example of bad film-making. The fact that the movie is espousing a philosophy you do not agree with is not, and if anything it sounds like it actually did a fairly GOOD job of incorporating that message seamlessly into the storyline, making it one of the very few examples of actual good film-making in this movie. That complaint has no place in a supposedly bias-free review, which is what you're claiming this is.
In short, get off your soapbox and start reviewing movies.
This was supposed to be a article describing why this was a bad FILM, and how the plot is so full of holes you could drive a (inexplicably painted with flame) mac truck through it. The fact that you, personally, disagree with its message does NOT make it a bad film. It may very well have been a bad film, but your opinions on the validity of its message are NOT one of the reasons why.
Note: In case you're confused, complaining about how much time is devoted to nameless military characters we know nothing about in a movie that's supposed to be about giant robots IS an example of bad film-making. The fact that the movie is espousing a philosophy you do not agree with is not, and if anything it sounds like it actually did a fairly GOOD job of incorporating that message seamlessly into the storyline, making it one of the very few examples of actual good film-making in this movie. That complaint has no place in a supposedly bias-free review, which is what you're claiming this is.
In short, get off your soapbox and start reviewing movies.