posted
Ok, I didn't read any Transformers movie news, I didn't watch any trailers, and I avoided the Transformers thread on this forum. That's my honest confession. There's an older thread already here, but I'm making a new thread for the movie, now that it has debuted.
I just went to an early 8PM screening. I guess the company gave permission to our small-town theater to do an early showing. That's what the assistant manager said. Midnight screenings go nowhere in a small town where work begins at sunrise. Many thanks to the movie company for that gesture! For the record, we had about 75 people, give or take.
What an amazing movie. More than I expected, seriously. The sound effects were grand, the visual effects were quite spectacular. (I'm surprised my boss stayed in his chair the entire movie. He's quite a fan.) It's fast-paced, but I could follow what was happening. I thought the music was good, too. I *might* look up the soundtrack.
I enjoyed the animated series when I was a young kid. I even owned a couple toys, which are now long-lost to the garage sales of small-town Kansas.
But, wow. I might have trouble sleeping tonight. Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just saw it. Meh. Beautiful animation, funnier than expected, lackluster, steritypical lead acting (though the girl was freaking hot), decent supporting acting, some plotholes, but still pretty nice. So yeah, decent movie.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Half of this was a decent, fun Transformers movie.
The other half was a really crappy Michael Bay movie.
How much you can tolerate the latter and love the former will be the deciding factors in whether you enjoy this film or not.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
I didn't really like this movie. It was too stupid for me to enjoy even with suspension of disbelief. I was never a Transformers fan and I didn't grow up with it, but what bothered me wasn't the actual concept. It was the jokes that were extremely unrealistic (Optimus Prime and the rest of the autobots hiding from the kids parents. Hahaha.), the dumb plot that made no sense, the robots speaking English to each other when they aren't around humans and the way they use our slang when they speak (never saw the cartoon so don't know if that was the original idea or just an addition, but it's so unrealistic).
The action was cool though. The Camaro vs. Mustang fight at the beginning was awesome while it lasted, but I wish it went on for longer.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a Mustang? I was pretty sure all the cars were of GM make that weren't military vehicles.
All in all, I thought it rocked. Sure, there were obvious problems with it, the plot at many parts was thing, but I'll be honest, I didn't go into this movie expect some broad, complex advanced plot. I wanted to see a childhood favorite come to life, and that's what I got. The plots in the old cartoon series weren't masterpieces, they were thin too by and large, but I still watched and liked them.
If they are banking on 80's kids paying for these movies then I'll be happy to step up and fund them. I loved the movie, even if they did totally ruin and wreck Soundwave, which was a travesty, but I can overlook it since so many other characters seemed to be spot on.
And I thought the ending was perfect. They can totally go and make Transformers the cartoon movie into a live action movie now. And that's what I wanted all along.
I was a Transformers kid, I loved it all growing up, hell I even watch the cartoons now as an adult. So while I think that totally colors my views on the movie, I thought it was awesome! I went to see it with half a dozen Transformers fans, and half a dozen non-fans. By and large the non-fans found it lackluster and the fans thought it rawked.
I'm hoping for Transformers II.
PS. It was cool seeing more of Detroit in the movie. That was the only good thing I think Michael Bay contributed.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if my experience tonight was any indication it's having a very successful opening. It was totally sold out for all showings at the first two theatres I tried. We eventually managed to get into a midnight show that also sold out by 11:30. Let me tell you, we were part of a rowdy audience that REALLY got excited over every little thing. I think every single person in that theatre grew up with the cartoon.
All things considered, it pretty much delivered what I anticipated; amazing action sequences and adequate plot. Actually, there was more humour than I expected, and some of it was a bit mature. I'm glad that Bay was conscious of the fact that a large portion of the audience for the film would be people in their 20s and 30s, and didn't go out of his way to aim the movie at 10 year olds. Without spoiling anything, the ending was just about perfect, managing to set things up for inevitable sequels without having too much of a cheesy "to be continued..." feel. And I think that Transformers 2 will be a better movie, as this one got the set-up of the basic premise and introduction of characters out of the way, so the next one can flesh them out a bit more. I was a little disappointed that only a few transformers really did anything or said more than a couple of token lines. Actually, it's just one in particular who I was hoping would be more involved, but it's safe to say that he'll be in the sequel.
If you grew up with Transformers you need to see this movie. If not, it probably won't be much more to you than a demo of some of the best CGI seen too date, and a couple of humourous gags.
posted
To be fair to Bay, I think he was more focused on the 20 somethings than he was on the ten year olds. We're the ones who loved this as a kid and we've got more money than 10 year olds.
And the ending was damn near perfect for possible sequels.
SPOILER
Just need Unicron to pop in, turn Megatron into Galvatron (who Leonard Nemoy can voice), introduce a dozen new characters that thanks to Prime's galactic voicemail are sure to flock to Earth, build Autobot City on Earth, have MUCH bigger, sweet battles, and we're off to the races again! Bring on the Dinobots! I'm geeked for a sequel.
Who were you hoping would be more involved? Starscream?
/Spoiler
Did anyone else see the trailer for the JJ Abrams movie coming out in January? It's an untitled film that I can't find any details for. Literally my entire theater was shouting "what the hell was that?" And...nothing. Seems silly to me to put out a trailer for a movie that doesn't seem to exist yet.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:On May 30, 2007, Dreamworks greenlit two sequels to Transformers,[78] and Shia LaBeouf,[79] Megan Fox[80] and Peter Cullen[39] signed on to return. Michael Bay has not signed, saying "I'm trying to keep some leverage for the negotiations."[39] Writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman are undecided but may not return because "we want to have a reason to do it, not just say, 'it’s a business, it’s a franchise, we’re going to go do the second one because that’s what we do and we’re going to get the big money,' and Star Trek by the way is taking up kind of all of our time."[33]
Soundwave is intended to be a new major character in the sequels,[8] with his presence allowing a proper introduction of mass-shifting.[6] Producer Tom DeSanto has "a very cool idea on how to introduce the Dinobots and Constructicons."[81] If he decides to helm a sequel, Bay may put in an aircraft carrier character, an idea that was too expensive for the first film.[82]
And I didn't realize it before, but the little boombox guy IS NOT Soundwave, he's Frenzy, who is supposed to be one of Soundwave's minions. I'm excited for sequels. They're drawing from all over the Transformers spectrum, which forces me to go back and read comics I haven't read in a decade, but it's all cool to see.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It sounds like it's not a movie for me, then.
Nope, Porter. It's not a movie for you.
I watched the cartoons with enthusiasm as a kid, and I think they put together a great movie. I think Lyrhawn nailed it. It was watching a childhood favorite come to life. I was worried they were going to put my childhood favorite to death, too. I truly didn't have any idea what to expect going into the theater. Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Seriously, who has had more spin off series, Transformers or Power Rangers? Just curious.
OK, on a more serious note, I had a conversation with someone in the 80's discussing the pivotal turn Transformers marked in the fundamental symbolism of modern western society. Previously most "good guys" were airborne. Most "evil" was brought to us grounded either on the Earth or from under it. This derives directly from the Angel/Devil division, where Angels had wings and "Hell" was under the earth. (This division may go further back than that depending on your reading of anthropology)
The Transformers created a group of heroes that were grounded--Autobots being mostly Automobiles, while the villains were the ones with wings--Decepticons being mostly Airplanes.
Sure, this division soon became buried under flying Autobots and land based Decepticons, as well as boom-boxes, air-craft carriers, dinosaurs, beasts, and other assorted Transformers that did not fit the mold, but it made for an interesting discussion at one time.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The big problem with the film is that we keep cutting away to sub-plots that don't really MATTER, and it kills the two main plots of the story...which are allegedly Shia's arc and the inevitable Autobot/Decepticon conflict.
Who -cares- about soldier-with-a-baby-back-home? Who -cares- about slimy/campy Sector Seven guy? Who -cares- about code-crackin' chick and her goofy fat sidekick?
These are just a few of the side-arcs that ultimately muddy up, dilute, and destroy the power of the two alleged main plots.
They should have focused on Shia, and focused on the robots. Everything else should have been kept in the background, as window-dressing, flavor text, whatever you want to call it.
I'm convinced Michael Bay actually thought he was being brilliant, adding "human interest, OMG so deep and meaningful!" to what would otherwise be a straight action/adventure flick.
Starscream and Megatron's rivalry shouldn't be a one-line afterthought. It shouldn't have gotten -less- screen time than the running gag about how Hispanic guy is always chattering away in his mother tongue. Just sayin'.
FOCUS. A good Transformers movie isn't that hard to do.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: The Transformers created a group of heroes that were grounded--Autobots being mostly Automobiles, while the villains were the ones with wings--Decepticons being mostly Airplanes.
That's sort of nebulous...in the first several episodes of Season One, both Autobots and Decepticons could fly in robot mode. Until it was retconned away without explanation. And even in season one, there were robots on both sides early on who broke the dichotomy. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw the 8:00 yesterday and basically had a two hour visual fangasm.
I was ready to hate this movie, which is probably why I'm coming away with a favorable impression: it was not as bad as I expected it to be. Most of the complaints I'm reading here--lack of focus, humor drowning too many moments, not enough of the good elements and too much of the stupid ones (as funny as it was to see The Jesus play a goony Sector 7 guy, come on, super-ultra-secret gov't operatives should be scary, not immature and petty)--I agree with. In the long run, though, I was way too stoked about hearing Peter Cullen voicing Optimus again ("Autobots, transform and roll out!"), the old-school transformation sound in the beginning, the ridiculously awesome animation, etc., to be overly bothered.
Inevitably, however, the afterglow will fade, and if I see the movie again, these things will bug me more.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: To be fair to Bay, I think he was more focused on the 20 somethings than he was on the ten year olds. We're the ones who loved this as a kid and we've got more money than 10 year olds.
And the ending was damn near perfect for possible sequels.
SPOILER
Just need Unicron to pop in, turn Megatron into Galvatron (who Leonard Nemoy can voice), introduce a dozen new characters that thanks to Prime's galactic voicemail are sure to flock to Earth, build Autobot City on Earth, have MUCH bigger, sweet battles, and we're off to the races again! Bring on the Dinobots! I'm geeked for a sequel.
Who were you hoping would be more involved? Starscream?
/Spoiler
Yeah, it was Starscream that I wanted to see more of. He's always been my favourite, and I loved his interactions with Megatron in the cartoon. Unfortunately this film only had one brief exchange between them. But did you see the short scenes that played during the credits? The last one shows Starscream blasting off into space. With Megatron apparently dead, you know he's going to declare himself the new leader and there'll be a power struggle when Megatron returns. That'll be nice.
/SPOILERS
Oh, and somehow I forgot to mention that Megan Fox is HOT. Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, and somehow I forgot to mention that Megan Fox is HOT
I think that's one of those things that is universally understood . Though I had an appreciation for the "geeky" ultra hot Australian chick as well.
SPOILER
The more I see it on threads on different boards the more I am bothered by the lack of sniping between Starscream and Megatron. I mean, sure Starscream was snivelling when it suited his purposes, so I guess what happened in the movie is fine. But at the same time, if someone who had no idea who these characters are was watching the movie would they have any clue as to what was going on if Starscream started backtalking Megatron?
It's indicative of a bigger problem I think, the Transformers didn't have enough dialogue, especially the Decepticons, most of which was sadly focused on Frenzy, the toaster from hell. If they had more dialogue, we could understand them better, and thus sniping wouldn't seem so out of place, but I think as the movie was written, them arguing with each other would have looked bizarre to someone who didn't know it was supposed to be there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My 25 year old son and his wife have seen this movie 3 times now (it debuted in New Zealand on June 27) and both say it's fantastic - he's a Transformer fan from his childhood, she never has been. They took 3 boys aged 8 - 10 from his Primary class the second time and some other kids and their mother last night and they all (including the mother) loved it. I'm seeing it.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There was a Mustang? I was pretty sure all the cars were of GM make that weren't military vehicles.
According to Wikipedia, Optimus Prime is a Peterbilt truck, and Barricade is a Saleen Mustang. I think you're otherwise correct, though.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
And the that brings me back to my opinion: The film-makers thought their brand new "human interest" characters were the ones we'd really care about.
They thought wrong, obviously. I have yet to see a single opinion, fan or non-fan that says" "Oh, I'm so glad Slimy Sector Seven Guy got so much screen-time. He was a grand antagonist!" or "That tooth fairy joke was FUNNY!"
Shia/SamNotSpike should have been the sole focused on human character. Period. Our window to the Robotic World. Maybe his love interest too, though PLEASE...drop the micro-arc about her being a "juvie" That got GROANS from fans and non-fans both in the theater.
I don't mind altering the mythos. I -do- mind the Transformers being second-stringers in their own movie. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of that stuff was so small it didn't really bother me a lot. They spent maybe a grand total of 90 seconds on the juvi thing. I actually kind of thought the Tooth Fairy joke was amusing, and again, they only spent like 90 seconds on it, so why not? I think they could have spent a LOT less time with his parents. My biggest complaint was the five million hours it felt like they spent in his room while they were looking for the glasses. I mean my god, get on with it! The glasses were a Macguffin, just find them and move the plot along! Don't try and shoehorn in cheezy masturbation jokes that no one really finds very amusing!
I don't mind that they focused more on the humans than the robots. It ended up being a very interesting take on the whole thing (though if they ever made Transformers: The Movie into live action, it would NOT work at all). I even didn't mind the Allspark, which really was part of canon, though canon in Transformers often is at odds, though it seemed REALLY goofy to open the movie with it like that (for non-fans anyway). There needed to be robot/human BALANCE. Just having them idling around stepping on dogs and garden gnomes isn't exactly quality screen time. More dialogue from them, more exposition on them and where they came from and why they are fighting and such would have been awesome. We barely got to the point where I understood that Bumblebee and Sam were bonding, and that was only because of Sam's incessant screaming.
I can easily let all that go though in this movie, because despite all the problems I have with it, it's my childhood fantasies come to life, and even with Peter Cullen as the big OP! It rocked, ILM must have had a heart attack making those action secenes, and the transformations were a hundred times more believable than I thought they'd be. The only thing missing was the magical disappearing trailer behind Optimus
I will not however, probably, be so forgiving in a second movie. Ideally, it would deal with the same human, just Sam, and leave all the others out of the picture, and mainly be a battle between the Transformers, and that will require MUCH more dialogue and characterization for them.
I did however think that Frenzy was the Jar Jar Binks of the movie, and could have easily done without his character entirely.
JB -
Ah! Yes I see you're right. Apparently Bay wanted to use a Mack truck for Optimus but he couldn't because of scale. He was trying to keep the transformed robots the same relative size as their cars, and Mack apparently would have made him too short. I have to say, I appreciate the attention to detail, though they've announced that in the sequel, "morphing" will be addressed.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puffy has hit the nail on the head. This film was way too busy with way much stuff that I can't imagine anyone caring about. Too little of the drama was earned. A few good bits... But, meh.
Also, Michael Bay has no idea how to stage an action scene.
Also, that plot made absolutely no sense. Is the North Pole colder than space? No? Oh. Well then guess what.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: Is the North Pole colder than space? No? Oh. Well then guess what.
Unless Megatron and other Transformers are frozen when they fly through space, but are thawed out during atmospheric re-entry.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: I thought the Jar Jar of the film was the LOL, he's FAT and he LOVES DONUTS and he's therefore FUNNY sidekick to code-crackin' chick.
Complete with thinly veiled racism.
At least Frenzy, annoying as he was, made the plot MOVE FORWARD in his scenes.
I'll give you that one, I could have done without the "code" storyline entirely. That was a giant waste of time. I have to say I find it hard to believe by the way that code cracking chick and Jon Voight could fight off and kill Frenzy whereas trained and armed Secret Service agents were totally inept in fighting him.
The doughnut eating code expert, the Sigma Seven people, the code storyline as a whole, all of that ate up time that should have been used on the Transformers. That is the kind of thing I'd agree with you on needed to be cut. The 90 second little snippets like the tooth fairy joke can stay, they were amusing. And I was even okay with the little snippet about the soldier's family, (though the Spanish thing could have been cut) because that particular soldier played an ongoing central role throughout the movie, and I was okay with that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: Is the North Pole colder than space? No? Oh. Well then guess what.
Unless Megatron and other Transformers are frozen when they fly through space, but are thawed out during atmospheric re-entry.
I think the Autobots and Decepticons have spaceships they use to travel through space, and that Megatron's was destroyed and he crashed where he didn't want to. He froze on impact, and the bodyheat from Witwicky's hand gave him the minor power necessary to put the image on the glasses.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:all of that ate up time that should have been used on the Transformers.
Yeah, but I'll bet that human actors are cheaper to film than the Transformers are to render.
The movie is going to make a bajillion dollars through toys, dvd sales, other marketing, to say nothing of pure box office sales globally. Poor excuse. They might as well do it right, or just make the damned thing 15 minutes shorter and cut it all together.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: Is the North Pole colder than space? No? Oh. Well then guess what.
Unless Megatron and other Transformers are frozen when they fly through space, but are thawed out during atmospheric re-entry.
SPOILERS KINDA:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Either that, or maybe they have some sort of technology to keep them thawed in space, so they can control their transportation. They did say that the magnetic force of the Pole messed with some of Megatron's systems. Maybe that's why he was able to be frozen?
And then, said system corroded and made it possible for him to be tranported to Hoover Dam and put under a less effective human induced deep freeze?
posted
Sure, we can sit here inventing explanations for the film's plot holes. After all, there's no one to stop us. But the bottom line is, if it ain't in the film, it didn't happen.
This apologist stuff ("Perhaps they had ships!") is, forgive me for saying so, very weak.
The movie was laaaaame.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Theres a graphic novel detailing the events that lead up to the movie for all those wondering what all happened with Megatron.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am convinced that Michael Bay crammed two dozen "human interest" plots into this thing because he was scared the "mainstream" audience wouldn't be down with the whole Autobot/Decepticon thing.
Gee, you know what would've made the first X-Men movie better? Instead of heavily focusing on Wolverine & Rogue's character arcs and Magneto's master plan, they should have focused on a bunch of wise-cracking cops confused by the mutants. And added a bunch of sassy mall-crawling kids with ATTITUDE who ended up figuring out the villain's plot and saving the day!
Oh, and a masturbation joke that lasts on and on...
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure X-Men was the best example to use there.
Neat as they were as a trilogy, I found them overall lacking, and I was almost as big an X-Men fan as a Transformers fan as a kid. They changed characters backgrounds, and ages for seemingly no reason. Other than the shiny fight scenes, I was very unimpressed with the X-Men movies, the problem there being that there weren't a ton of shiny fight scenes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since the Singer films were based more on the Claremont run, there's your explanation as to the lack of a "ton" of shiny fight scenes.
Backgrounds and ages were changed because certain characters were combined into one as the script underwent rewrites. Originally "Dr. Jean Grey" was going to be Dr. Hank McCoy and Jean Grey...later the roles got combined into one when it was decided Beast was unfeasible.
But you're missing my point, Lyr. Whether or not you like the Singer version of X-Men, you'll have to admit that the films focused mostly on characters actually -from- the source material. Not a bunch of brand new side characters who end up getting more screen time than the title characters. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: Sure, we can sit here inventing explanations for the film's plot holes. After all, there's no one to stop us. But the bottom line is, if it ain't in the film, it didn't happen.
This apologist stuff ("Perhaps they had ships!") is, forgive me for saying so, very weak.
The movie was laaaaame.
But my point is still valid...
SPOILERS
If I'm not mistaken, your point is that since Megatron was frozen in the North Pole he and other Transformers should freeze in space. That's correct, but just as space is cold the friction of entering the atmosphere makes things very hot, so it may be meant to thaw them. It's not inventing a solution, it's just following your own point one step further.
/SPOILERS
Besides, if every bit of questionable science in movies was counted as a plot hole, practically every movie ever made would be Swiss cheese.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sat there thinking "there is no humanity in this film," and shaking my head, and looking around at the audience, who seemed to be enjoying themselves, and I kept thinking "what the CRAP are these people smiling at? This is vapid, soulless crap."
"AM I THE CRAZY ONE?!"
Usually I would never do this, but I just came across a review that sums up exactly how I felt while watching Transformers, and I'm going to link to it because this guy made all my points. Language warning...
quote:That's correct, but just as space is cold the friction of entering the atmosphere makes things very hot, so it may be meant to thaw them. It's not inventing a solution, it's just following your own point one step further.
You lost me at "it may be meant to thaw them."
quote:Besides, if every bit of questionable science in movies was counted as a plot hole, practically every movie ever made would be Swiss cheese.
It's not questionable science. It would be questionable science if the question were addressed. If there were some point when one character turned to another and said, "How is it that we can stop these alien robotic monsters by freezing them? Don't they move through space?" And the other character replied, "It's not the cold, it's the ice. There's no water in space, you see." Or: "They heat up when they enter the earth's atmosphere." Or: "They must have shields of some kind when they travel through space."
That would be questionable science. To simply never address the question is a plot hole.
By the way. (They can break through concrete and steel but not ice?) (What does that have to do with anything?) (Why don't they just turn their shields back on when we try to freeze them?)
quote:Besides, if every bit of questionable science in movies was counted as a plot hole, practically every movie ever made would be Swiss cheese.
Totally wrong. Not all writers are hacks. There are some good ones out there who ask themselves questions, do good research, and create a reasonable story.
I'm willing to suspend disbelief. I only ask that a movie make sense. I'm not even asking that it make sense in the context of real life. I'm only asking that it make sense in the context of the universe in which the movie exists. (Fans inventing context after the fact doesn't cut it.)
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Okay, you have a point there, they at least did deal with real characters, or at least versions of characters. But I'd argue that changing the characters all around to the point where many of them do not resemble who they are named after is near the same thing as inventing characters from scratch. Giving them real names is almost worse, because it pulls you in with the expectation of what you THINK you will get and what you've always known, and then slaps you in the face when you realize they just stole someone's name and created their own movie with it. I've always liked X-Men, and I thought a lot of the roles were excellently cast, but I just plain don't understand why they couldn't make Rogue who Rogue is supposed to be, and just add Jubilee in there. Why did Bobby even have to be there? If you wanted a love story, there's the love triangle between Scott, Logan and Jean, and the fan favorite not so much romance between Rogue and Remy. It's something we already loved and wanted to see, but instead they warped it all around. I could totally understand it if what they made in it's place was better, but dear God, it wasn't near better at all. I went and enjoyed the pretty pretty lights and colors, but there wasn't enough there of what I rememebered and loved about the series for me to emotionally attach myself to that and detatch from the holes in the story like I did with Transformers. It wasn't true to form enough.
TL (the first time) -
Okay, the man has a point about Michael Bay movies, they aren't stunning. But come on, he was impressed by Die Hard Four and thought THIS was bad? DIE HARD FOUR? I thought Live Free or Die Hard was pretty sweet for what it was, and what it was was basically a tutorial in how to film an action sequence. Other than that it was fairly way out in left field. I lost my suspension of disbelief when he jumped onto the F-35 that was hovering over him after having blown up a freeway, and then jumped from the exploding fightercraft, slid down the freeway that had just been blown up and then ran across the street to where the bad guys were conveiently holed up. I thought it was a great FUN movie, but wow this guy is skewed if he thought that was impressive but Transformers was lacking.
And to be honest, I highly doubt a majority of Americans could point to Qatar on a map. I don't think a majority of Americans could find half of Western Europe on a map, so the subtitle clue was fine with me.
He has a couple good points, but Optimus' dialogue is NOT one of them. OP from the cartoons always talked like that, and I thought it was great in the movie. And if he didn't know who was who, then he wasn't paying attention. I never had a problem with it at all. And he dissed National Treasure, at which point I stopped reading the review, so I don't know what he said after that.
Now on your last post -
You're no fun.
Seriously, stop dissecting the hell out of it! It's a fun movie! I had no problem having fun while watching it, getting goosebumps when OP first showed up or first talked, and the audience I saw it with was excited too. Yeah yeah I know, we shouldn't lower our expectations for movies, but come on, at what point does watching a movie STOP BEING FUN when you beat it to death with analysis? It's entertainment, you aren't writing a review for a class project.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah yeah I know, we shouldn't lower our expectations for movies, but come on, at what point does watching a movie STOP BEING FUN when you beat it to death with analysis? It's entertainment, you aren't writing a review for a class project.
Watching a movie stops being fun when I have to lower my expectations to enjoy it. . . . . . .
And by the way, whether or not the reviewer liked Die Hard Four has nothing to do with the horribleness of Transformers. Tranfsormers is horrible no matter who likes Die Hard. Personally, I agree with what you said about Die Hard. I didn't like it either, exactly for the reasons you described. Those stupid moments when you just have to shake your head and go "what?"
But Transformers had probably 30 of those moments whereas Die Hard probably had, I don't know, 6.
It's hardly fair to point out Die Hard's nonsensical moments but then to call foul when I do the same to Transformers.
I detect a double-standard. And it's an ugly double-standard. I'm going to become a conservative and wear pro-Libby pins on blue blazers with brass buttons because of this.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The movie is going to make a bajillion dollars through toys, dvd sales, other marketing, to say nothing of pure box office sales globally. Poor excuse. They might as well do it right, or just make the damned thing 15 minutes shorter and cut it all together.
Why should they bother to do it right, if they can do it however they want and still make a bajillion dollars?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: but I just plain don't understand why they couldn't make Rogue who Rogue is supposed to be,
Can you think of a way they could have dealt with the Ms. Marvel stuff without making it a completely separate movie just to set-up Rogue's comic origin?
Plus, put me down as someone who never quite bought comicRogue's transformation from homely, lonely tortured soul into romantic swimsuit model sexpot who only occasionally experienced powers angst.
But the late 80s-entire 90s X-comics were filled with weird stuff like that, that really wouldn't make much sense on screen.
Jubilee's powers aren't very angst-worthy or dramatic. She can create fireworks. WHEE, she's fun!
I think movieRogue actually helped restore the core concept of the character...at least in the first two films.
Yes, even with the garbled origin. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: "what the CRAP are these people smiling at? This is vapid, soulless crap."
"AM I THE CRAZY ONE?!"
That is exactly what I was thinking. The people around me were dying of laughter from the stupidest jokes, clapping during the movie, and seemed to be completely into it. I've never seen an audience so into a movie. I really thought I was watching a different movie then everyone else. When I walked out of the movie one guy commented on it being the movie of the year, and his friend said it was a true masterpiece. Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Respect for the people seeing the movie? The honor of doing something right? Fan loyalty down the line? I know at least one of the lead producers is a huge fan of the show, it's not like all of them are pillaging a childhood memory for money (like Bay for example, who doesn't even LIKE Transformers).
Besides, maybe if they do it right, they'll make TWO bajillion dollars. Can't argue with that.
PT -
True that Jubilee isn't full of angst necessarily, but who said angst was necessarily a good thing, or a necessary thing? Her schtick was that she was new to being a mutant and she was adjusting to the world around her and coming into her own. Besides, why even bother dealing with the Ms. Marvel history? When I first started watching X-Men and reading it, I didn't even know about the Ms. Marvel thing until way after I started watching. In other words, they didn't have to deal with it, they could present her as a mutant who can fly, with super strength and the ability to absorb powers. I mean hell, look at what they did with the Phoenix, it's not like correctness matters to them at all, or for that matter a decent plot. But like I said, I still mostly enjoyed the movies. If I was to anaylze every movie the way I've seen people dissect movies in the last couple years, I wouldn't enjoy ANYTHING. I'd spend all my time after movies shaking my head and picking things apart.
TL -
I'm not. If you're referring to me, I don't have a double standard. I can watch a movie and enjoy the hell out of it. I can enjoy a movie EVEN MORE when it rises above the mold and is excellent on many levels. But, take a movie like Der Untergang or Pan's Labyrinth. Those were mind benders. They played with my emotions and had me guessing, and had raw stunning visuals. I think they were cinematically excellent. They are also movies that I cannot watch all that often.
Now your average summer popcorn flick is weak from a cinematic excellence point of view. They aren't Oscar worthy for anything other than graphics. But they are fun! They are exciting! Sure watching pretty things go BOOM with an average plot and dialogue isn't going to win AFI awards, but who cares? Fireworks aren't going to win a Nobel Prize either but the majority of us watch them on the Fourth anyway don't we?
Once in a great while you get a movie that is great on ALL levels, but not that often, especially lately. If I wanted to I could poke a hole in DOZENS of movies that I love to watch. I like the Star Wars movies, ALL of them, though sure I have problems with them, and I can list them when asked or when in a discussion about the faults of a movie, but I don't let that stop me from enjoying what is GOOD in the movie, and I won't let it stop me from calling an enjoyable movie a good movie.
Edit to add clarification to TL: I forgot to bring it back to the double standard charge. There's no double standard because weak as I thought much of Die Hard 4 was because of my complaints above, I still thought it was a hell of a ride. I've seen it twice already. And I have my complaints for Transformers as well, but I still thought it was a hell of a ride. So there's no double standard, though I do think that Transformers was a lot better than Die Hard. My point in comparing the reviewers reviews to begin with was that him thinking Die Hard was awesome but Transformers was the worst thing ever made me lose all respect for whatever credibility I thought he might have had.
Plus I've already admitted that I love Transformers anyway and that colors my judgement, but I still think all my other points are perfectly valid.
posted
Lyrhawn's been making all the good points for me. But I'll add one thing. From what I've heard and seen, there's two reactions to this movie.
From the adults who enjoyed Transformers as a kid, it's usually, "Wow, that was a cool movie. They did a great job bringing the 80s cartoon to life."
The people who didn't enjoy the movie, and probably went into the theater expecting to see a movie similar to "Bridges of Madison County" or "Lord of the Rings", came out extremely disappointed. Yeah, it's an action movie. There are plot holes in every action movie I've seen. I think that in many movies, you CAN get good acting, a good plot, and good action, pick any two of the above. Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My best friend has never seen Transformers before in her life, and she admitted she lost track of what was going on about a half dozen times throughout the movie. I think that's just the biggest lynchpin, people who were fans before going to see it and people who had no idea what a Transformer was before going to see it. Everyone had different expectations that were fulfilled in totally different ways. I think more than most of the comic book/cartoon movies that have come out in the last few years, this one depended more than any other on the viewer having at least SOME knowledge of what was going on in the Transformers verse in order to follow everything and get the most out of it. But then, I'm also really curious to hear what people who didn't know what Transformers was really about expected before they went into the movie.
I'm curious to see what my best friend says after I show her the 1986 movie.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:From the adults who enjoyed Transformers as a kid, it's usually, "Wow, that was a cool movie. They did a great job bringing the 80s cartoon to life."
The people who didn't enjoy the movie, and probably went into the theater expecting to see a movie similar to "Bridges of Madison County" or "Lord of the Rings", came out extremely disappointed
That's cheap and dismissive and makes a whole bunch of incorrect assumptions. I did not go to Transformers expecting Bridges of Madison County. I was a huge fan of the cartoons.
All I wanted was a fun action film. I'm off to the races. Everybody have a good 4th.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Many thanks to the movie company for that gesture! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
For the record, we had about 75 people, give or take.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
